Turla vs. Caringal

A lawyer who falsely represents in court pleadings that he is exempt from Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements, when in fact he merely paid non-compliance fees and had not completed the required units, violates the lawyer's oath not to do falsehood and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is subject to suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant Marilu C. Turla is the petitioner in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222, wherein respondent Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal appears as counsel for the oppositor. In July 2010, Turla discovered that Atty. Caringal had not attended the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the Second (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007) and Third (April 25, 2007 to April 14, 2010) Compliance Periods, as confirmed by a Certification dated August 2, 2010 issued by the MCLE Office.

• In July 2010, complainant Marilu C. Turla discovered that respondent Atty. Jose M. Caringal had not attended the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the Second (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007) and Third (April 25, 2007 to April 14, 2010) Compliance Periods, as confirmed by a Certification dated August 2, 2010 issued by the MCLE Office.
• Despite such non-compliance, Atty. Caringal signed and filed at least eleven (11) pleadings and motions in various courts between August 2010 and December 2010, indicating after his signature that he was "MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10."
• The receipt number cited by Atty. Caringal actually pertained to his payment of non-compliance fees totaling PhP2,000.00 (PhP1,000.00 for each period) on August 10, 2010, and not to any MCLE exemption.
• The subject pleadings included: (a) in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 before the RTC Quezon City, Branch 222: Motion to Remove Marilu Turla as Special Administratrix dated September 2, 2010, Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Re-Schedule the Collection of Biological Sample dated September 12, 2010, and Motion to Issue Order Authorizing the NBI to Examine the Birth Certificate dated October 11, 2010; (b) in Civil Case No. Q09-64850 before RTC Quezon City, Branch 221: Comment On/Opposition to Motion to Expunge Pleadings dated August 15, 2010; (c) in Civil Case No. 09-269 before RTC Makati, Branch 59: Motion for Reconsideration dated August 10, 2010, Motion for Indefinite Suspension of Proceedings dated July 17, 2010, and Comment On/Opposition to Motion to Expunge Pleadings dated August 15, 2010; (d) in CA-G.R. SP No. 115847: Compliance dated September 24, 2010 and Comment On/Opposition to Petition for Certiorari dated September 26, 2010; (e) in CA-G.R. SR No. 117943: Petition for Certiorari dated December 15, 2010; and (f) in the present administrative case: Answer to Complaint dated November 13, 2010.
• Atty. Caringal belatedly complied with the MCLE requirements for the Second and Third Compliance Periods on March 11, 2011.
• The pleadings filed by Atty. Caringal in Civil Case No. 09-269 were subsequently expunged from the records by the RTC Makati, Branch 59, in its Order dated March 4, 2013, due to the false MCLE information indicated therein.

• Turla charged Atty. Caringal with failure to take the MCLE seminars for the Second and Third Compliance Periods as required under Bar Matter No. 850, and violation of his lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood by misrepresenting his MCLE status as exempt when he was actually non-compliant.
• She argued that under Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850, Atty. Caringal's non-compliance resulted in his being listed as a delinquent member, and that he violated Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court.
• She asserted that even if Atty. Caringal had already complied with the MCLE requirement as of March 10, 2011, he had already committed a gross infraction that warranted appropriate sanctions.
• She maintained that the complaint was not filed to harass Atty. Caringal, as the special proceedings case had nothing to do with the MCLE violation.

• Atty. Caringal claimed that the complaint was a form of harassment because he had previously filed motions in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479 requiring Turla to undergo DNA testing to prove her filiation.
• He explained that he had taken several units for the First Compliance Period but was unable to complete them, and that units he supposedly completed for MCLE II in March and April 2008 were erroneously applied to his MCLE I by the supervising officer.
• He claimed that on January 7, 2009, he paid an "exemption fee" of PhP1,000.00 for his uncompleted MCLE I, after which a Certificate of Compliance was issued on January 19, 2009.
• He stated that upon verification, he was informed he still had units left for MCLE II, and on August 10, 2010, he paid the non-compliance fees for MCLE II and III totaling PhP2,000.00.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Atty. Caringal violated the MCLE requirements and should be declared a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
  • Whether Atty. Caringal violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsely representing in court pleadings that he was exempt from MCLE compliance when he merely paid non-compliance fees.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that a non-compliance fee is merely a penalty imposed on a lawyer who fails to comply with MCLE requirements within the compliance period and is not a grant of exemption from compliance; the lawyer must still complete the required units within the prescribed period.
  • Atty. Caringal could not be declared a delinquent member because the sixty (60)-day period for compliance under Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing Rules never commenced, there being no showing that he was issued and actually received a Non-Compliance Notice required by the rules.
  • However, Atty. Caringal was found liable for knowingly and willfully misrepresenting in eleven pleadings that he was exempted from MCLE II and III when he was not, thereby violating his sworn oath to "do no falsehood" and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Canon 17; Canon 18).
  • The Court emphasized that by indicating false MCLE information, Atty. Caringal engaged in dishonest conduct, disrespected the courts, and placed his clients at risk since such pleadings produce no legal effect and could result in expunction.
  • Considering the willful misrepresentation, lack of diligence in complying with MCLE requirements, and defiant attitude, the Court imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law.

• MCLE Non-Compliance Fee vs. Exemption — A non-compliance fee is merely a monetary penalty for failure to complete MCLE requirements within the compliance period and does not operate as an exemption from compliance; a lawyer must still complete the required units within the prescribed period.
• Duty of Candor to the Court — Lawyers have a fundamental duty to be truthful in all representations to the court, including the disclosure of MCLE compliance status in pleadings; false representations violate the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Effect of False MCLE Information — Pleadings containing false MCLE information produce no legal effect and are subject to expunction from the records, prejudicing the client's cause.

• "The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts."
• "The directive to comply with the MCLE requirements is essential for the legal profession, as enshrined in BM No. 850. The purpose is 'to ensure that throughout [the IBP members'] career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.'
• "It is clear from the aforequoted provisions, which are simply and clearly worded, that a non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of PhP 1,000.00 and still comply with the MCLE requirements within a sixty (60)-day period, otherwise, he/she will be listed as a delinquent IBP member... The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the lawyer who fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period and is in no way a grant of exemption from compliance to the lawyer who thus paid."

• Mapalad, Sr. v. Atty. Echanez — Cited for the principle that pleadings with false MCLE information produce no legal effect.
• Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Atty. Maghari III — Cited in conjunction with Mapalad regarding the legal effect of pleadings with false information.
• Saunders v. Atty. Pagano-Calde — Cited for the principle that the appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on surrounding facts.

• Bar Matter No. 850, Rule I, Section 1 — Establishes the purpose of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) to ensure lawyers keep abreast with law and jurisprudence.
• Bar Matter No. 850, Rule 13, Sections 1 and 2 — Provides for the imposition of non-compliance fees and the listing of delinquent members for failure to comply with MCLE requirements.
• MCLE Implementing Rules, Section 12(c) to (e) — Details the compliance procedures, including the issuance of Non-Compliance Notices and the sixty-day period to show compliance before being listed as delinquent.
• Bar Matter No. 1922 — Requires practicing members to indicate MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption numbers in pleadings; non-disclosure subjects counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 — Prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10, Rule 10.01 — Prohibits lawyers from doing any falsehood or misleading the court.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17 — States that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18 — Requires lawyers to serve clients with competence and diligence.