A.C. No. 9834. August 26, 2015.

*
.
SAMUEL B. ARNADO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, respondent.

Attorneys; Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; Bar Matter

(BM) No. 850 requires members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to undergo continuing legal education „to ensure
that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.‰·Bar Matter No. 850 requires
members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education „to
ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance
the standards of the practice of law.‰ The First Compliance Period
was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April 2004; the Second Compliance
Period was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007; and the Third
Compliance Period was from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010.
ComplainantÊs letter covered respondentÊs pleadings filed in 2009,
2010, 2011, and 2012 which means respondent also failed to comply
with the MCLE requirements for the Fourth Compliance Period
from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013.
Same; Same; RespondentÊs failure to comply with the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements and
disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his
declaration as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP).·RespondentÊs failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements and disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office
warrant his declaration as a delinquent member of the IBP. While
the MCLE Implementing Regulations state that the MCLE
Committee should recommend to the IBP Board of Governors the
listing of a lawyer as a delinquent member, there is nothing that
prevents the Court from using its administrative power and
supervision to discipline erring lawyers and from directing the IBP
Board of Governors to declare such lawyers as delinquent members
of the IBP.

* SECOND DIVISION.
 173

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 173

Arnado vs. Adaza

Same; Same; Penalties; The Supreme Court (SC) deems it

proper to declare respondent as a delinquent member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and to suspend him from the
practice of law for six (6) months or until he has fully complied with
the requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance
Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the required
noncompliance and reinstatement fees.·The OBC recommended
respondentÊs suspension from the practice of law for six months. We
agree. In addition, his listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is
also akin to suspension because he shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as he submits proof of full compliance
to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP Board of Governors has
notified the MCLE Committee of his reinstatement, under Section
14 of the MCLE Implementing Regulations. Hence, we deem it
proper to declare respondent as a delinquent member of the IBP
and to suspend him from the practice of law for six months or until
he has fully complied with the requirements of the MCLE for the
First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods, whichever is
later, and he has fully paid the required noncompliance and
reinstatement fees.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Failure

to Comply with the Requirements of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Under Bar Matter No. 850.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an administrative case against Atty. Homobono

A. Adaza (respondent) for his failure to comply with the
requirements of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) under Bar Matter No. 850.
 The Antecedent Facts

In a letter, dated 15 March 2013, Atty. Samuel B.

Arnado (complainant) called the attention of this Court to
the practice

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

of respondent of indicating „MCLE application for

exemption under process‰ in his pleadings filed in 2009,
2010, 2011, and 2012, and „MCLE Application for
Exemption for Reconsideration‰ in a pleading filed in 2012.
Complainant informed the Court that he inquired from the
MCLE Office about the status of respondentÊs compliance
and received the following Certification, dated 2 January
2013, from Prof. Myrna S. Feliciano (Prof. Feliciano),
MCLEÊs Executive Director:

This is to certify that per our records, ATTY. HOMOBONO A.

ADAZA with Roll Number 14118 of IBP MISAMIS ORIENTAL
Chapter did not comply with the requirements of Bar Matter [No.]
850 for the following compliance periods:
a. First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001-April 14, 2004)
b. Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004-April 14, 2007)
c. Third Compliance Period (April 15, 2007-April 14, 2010)
This is to further certify that Atty. Adaza filed an Application for
Exemption from the MCLE requirement on (sic) January 2009 but
was DENIED by the MCLE Governing Board on (sic) its January
14, 2009 meeting.1

In its Resolution dated 17 June 2013, the Court referred

this case to the MCLE Committee for evaluation, report
and recommendation.
In a letter, dated 5 August 2013, Atty. Jesusa Jean D.
Reyes (Atty. Reyes), Assistant Executive Officer of the
MCLE Office, forwarded to the Court the Rollo of the case
together with the MCLE Governing BoardÊs Evaluation,
Report and Recommendation.2 In its Evaluation, Report
and Recommen-
_______________

1 Rollo, p. 68.
2 The MCLE Governing BoardÊs Evaluation, Report and
Recommendation was not attached to the letter and was actually
forwarded to the Court only on 22 August 2013.

175

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 175

Arnado vs. Adaza

dation3 dated 14 August 2013,4 the MCLE Governing

Board, through retired Supreme Court Associate Justice
Bernardo P. Pardo (Justice Pardo), MCLE Chairman,
informed the Court that respondent applied for exemption
for the First and Second Compliance Periods covering 15
April 2001 to 14 April 2004 and 15 April 2004 to 14 April
2007, respectively, on the ground of „expertise in law‰
under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850. The MCLE
Governing Board denied the request on 14 January 2009.
In the same letter, the MCLE Governing Board noted that
respondent neither applied for exemption nor complied
with the Third Compliance period from 15 April 2007 to 14
April 2010.
In its 9 December 2013 Resolution, the Court directed
the Second Division Clerk of Court to furnish respondent
with complainantÊs letter of 15 March 2013. The Court
likewise required respondent to file his comment within ten
days from notice.
In his Compliance and Comment5 dated 3 February
2014, respondent alleged that he did not receive a copy of
the 5 August 2013 letter of Atty. Reyes. He stated that he
was wondering why his application for exemption could not
be granted. He further alleged that he did not receive a
formal denial of his application for exemption by the MCLE
Governing Board, and that the notice sent by Prof.
Feliciano was based on the letter of complainant who
belonged to Romualdo and Arnado Law Office, the law
office of his political opponents, the Romualdo family.
Respondent alleged that the Romualdo family controlled
Camiguin and had total control of the judges and
prosecutors in the province. He further alleged that the law
firm had control of the lawyers in Camiguin except for
himself.

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 73-76.

4 Not 15 August 2013 as stated in the CourtÊs 9 December 2013
Resolution.
5 Rollo, pp. 84-87.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

Respondent enumerated his achievements as a lawyer

and claimed that he had been practicing law for about 50
years. He stated:

xxxx
Fifth, with a great degree of immodesty, I was the first outsider
of the Supreme Court WHOM PRESIDENT CORAZON C.
AQUINO, offered, immediately after she took over government in
February 1986, a seat as Justice of the Supreme Court but I refused
the intended appointment because I did not like some members of
the Cory crowd to get me to the SC in an effort to buy my silence;
Sixth, I almost single-handedly handled the case of CORAZON
C. AQUINO in the canvassing of the results of the 1986 snap
elections, DISCUSSING CONSTITUTIONAL and legal issues
which finally resulted to the EDSA I revolution;
xxxx
Eighth, I was one of the two lead counsels of now SENATOR
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO in the national canvassing
before the National Canvassing Board when she ran for President
against then GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS. The other counsel was
former Justice of the Supreme Court SERAFIN CUEVAS;
Ninth, I handled the 1987 and 1989 as well as the 2003 COUP
CASES for leading generals like ABENINA and COMMENDAOR
and COLONELS like GREGORIO HONASAN as well as the SIX
OAKWOOD CAPTAINS, including now SENATOR ANTONIO
TRILLANES;
 Tenth, I filed a case with the Supreme Court contesting the
constitutionality and validity of the 2010 national elections, still
undecided up to this day;
Eleventh, I filed together with another lawyer, a case in the
Supreme Court on the constitutionality and legality of the Corona
impeachment which the SC only decided after the Senate decided
his case and former SC Chief Justice Corona conceding to the
decision, thus the SC declaring the case moot and academic;

177

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 177

Arnado vs. Adaza

Twelfth, I have been implementing and interpreting the

Constitution and other laws as GOVERNOR OF MISAMIS
ORIENTAL, COMMISSION OF IMMIGRATION and the senior
member of the Opposition in the regular Parliament in the
Committee on Revision of Laws and Constitutional Amendments;
Thirteenth, I was the leading Opposition member of Parliament
that drafted the Omnibus Election Law;
Fourteenth, I was the leading member of the Opposition in
Parliament that prepared and orchestrated the debate in the
complaint for impeachment against PRESIDENT FERDINAND
MARCOS;
Fifteenth, I have been practicing law for about fifty years now
with appearances before the Supreme Court when Justices were
like Concepcion, Barrera and JBL REYES; in the Court of Appeals;
and numerous courts all over the country;
Sixteenth, I have been engaged as lawyer for a number of
lawyers who have exemptions from the MCLE.
x x x x6

Respondent further claimed that he had written five

books: (1) Leaders From Marcos to Arroyo; (2)
Presidentiables and Emerging Upheavals; (3) Beginning,
Hope and Change; (4) Ideas, Principles and Lost
Opportunities; and (5) Corona Impeachment. Thus, he
asked for a reconsideration of the notice for him to undergo
MCLE. He asked for an exemption from MCLE compliance,
or in the alternative, for him to be allowed to practice law
while complying with the MCLE requirements.
In its 2 June 2014 Resolution, the Court referred
respondentÊs Compliance and Comment to the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and
recommendation.

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 85-86.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

The Report and Recommendation of the OBC

In its Report and Recommendation dated 25 November

2014, the OBC reported that respondent applied for
exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods on
the ground of expertise in law. The MCLE Governing Board
denied the request on 14 January 2009. Prof. Feliciano
informed respondent of the denial of his application in a
letter dated 1 October 2012. The OBC reported that
according to the MCLE Governing Board, „in order to be
exempted (from compliance) pursuant to expertise in law
under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850, the
applicant must submit sufficient, satisfactory and
convincing proof to establish his expertise in a certain area
of law.‰ The OBC reported that respondent failed to meet
the requirements necessary for the exemption.
The OBC reported that this Court requires practicing
members of the Bar to indicate in all their pleadings filed
with the courts the counselÊs MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption pursuant to Bar
Matter No. 1922. The OBC further reported that the MCLE
Office has no record that respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration; and thus, his representation in a pleading
that his „MCLE Application for Exemption [is] for
Reconsideration‰ in 2012 is baseless.
The OBC further reported that under Rule 12 of Bar
Matter No. 850 and Section 12 of the MCLE Implementing
Regulations, noncompliance with the MCLE requirements
shall result to the dismissal of the case and the striking out
of the pleadings from the records.7 The OBC also reported
that under Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing
Regulations, a member of the Bar who failed to comply
with the MCLE requirements is given 60 days from receipt
of notification to explain his deficiency or to show his
compliance with the

_______________

7 This was amended in the CourtÊs Resolution dated 14 January 2014

in Bar Matter No. 1922.

179

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 179

Arnado vs. Adaza

requirements. Section 12(e) also provides that a member

who fails to comply within the given period shall pay a
noncompliance fee of P1,000 and shall be listed as a
delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) upon the recommendation of the MCLE Governing
Board. The OBC reported that the Notice of Non-
Compliance was sent to respondent on 13 August 2013. The
OBC also reported that on 14 August 2013, the MCLE
Governing Board recommended that cases be filed against
respondent in connection with the pleadings he filed
without the MCLE compliance/exemption number for the
immediately preceding compliance period and that the
pleadings he filed be expunged from the records.
The OBC found that respondent had been remiss in his
responsibilities as a lawyer. The OBC stated that
respondentÊs failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements jeopardized the causes of his clients because
the pleadings he filed could be stricken off from the records
and considered invalid.
The OBC recommended that respondent be declared a
delinquent member of the Bar and guilty of noncompliance
with the MCLE requirements. The OBC further
recommended respondentÊs suspension from the practice of
law for six months with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely. The OBC also recommended that respondent
be directed to comply with the requirements set forth by
the MCLE Governing Board.

The Issue

The only issue here is whether respondent is

administratively liable for his failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements.

The Ruling of this Court

Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to

undergo continuing legal education „to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence,

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the

standards of the practice of law.‰8 The First Compliance
Period was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April 2004; the Second
Compliance Period was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April
2007; and the Third Compliance Period was from 15 April
2007 to 14 April 2010. ComplainantÊs letter covered
respondentÊs pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012
which means respondent also failed to comply with the
MCLE requirements for the Fourth Compliance Period
from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013.
The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent
failed to comply with the four compliance periods. The
records also showed that respondent filed an application for
exemption only on 5 January 2009. According to the MCLE
Governing Board, respondentÊs application for exemption
covered the First and Second Compliance Periods.
Respondent did not apply for exemption for the Third
Compliance Period. The MCLE Governing Board denied
respondentÊs application for exemption on 14 January 2009
on the ground that the application did not meet the
requirements of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of
Bar Matter No. 850. However, the MCLE Office failed to
convey the denial of the application for exemption to
respondent. The MCLE Office only informed respondent,
through its letter dated 1 October 2012 signed by Prof.
Feliciano, when it received inquiries from complainant,
Judge Sinfroso Tabamo, and Camiguin Deputy Provincial
Prosecutor Renato A. Abbu on the status of respondentÊs
MCLE compliance. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration after one year, or on 23 October 2013,
which the MCLE Governing Board denied with finality on
28 November 2013. The denial of the motion for
reconsideration was sent to respondent in a letter9 dated 29
November 2013, signed by Justice Pardo.

_______________

8 Section 1, Rule 1.
9 Rollo, p. 94.

181

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 181

Arnado vs. Adaza

Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his

responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar Matter No.
850. His application for exemption for the First and Second
Compliance Periods was filed after the compliance periods
had ended. He did not follow up the status of his
application for exemption. He furnished the Court with his
letter dated 7 February 201210 to the MCLE Office asking
the office to act on his application for exemption but alleged
that his secretary failed to send it to the MCLE Office.11 He
did not comply with the Fourth Compliance Period.
In its 1 October 2012 letter to respondent, the MCLE
Office enjoined him to comply with the requirements for
the First to Third Compliance periods. It was reiterated in
the 29 November 2013 letter denying respondentÊs motion
for reconsideration of his application for exemption. The
OBC also reported that a Notice of Non-Compliance was
sent to respondent on 13 August 2013. Under Section 12(5)
of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, respondent has 60
days from receipt of the notification to comply. However, in
his Compliance and Comment before this Court,
respondent stated that because of his involvement in public
interest issues in the country, the earliest that he could
comply with Bar Matter No. 850 would be on
10-14 February 2014 and that he already registered with
the MCLE Program of the University of the Philippines
(UP) Diliman on those dates.
Section 12(5) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations
provides:

Section 12. Compliance Procedures
xxxx

_______________

10 Id., at p. 92. Not 7 February 2013 as respondent stated in his

Compliance and Comment.
11 Id., at p. 91.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

(5) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or

intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE
requirements.
A member failing to comply with the continuing legal education
requirement will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating his
specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the receipt
of the notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show
compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall be written in
capital letters as follows:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION
FOR NONCOMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE MCLE REQUIREMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM RECEIPT
OF THIS NOTICE SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING YOU AS A
DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO
PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF
COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
The Member may use the 60-day period to complete his compliance
with the MCLE requirement. Credit units earned during this period
may only be counted toward compliance with the prior period
requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned in
which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement.
A member who is in noncompliance at the end of the compliance
period shall pay a noncompliance fee of P1,000.00 and shall be
listed as a delinquent member of the IBP by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in
which case Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.

Even if respondent attended the 10-14 February 2014

MCLE Program of UP Diliman, it would only cover his
deficiencies for the First Compliance Period. He is still
delinquent for the Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance
Periods. The Court has not been furnished proof of
compliance for the First Compliance Period.

183

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 183

Arnado vs. Adaza

The Court notes the lackadaisical attitude of respondent

towards complying with the requirements of Bar Matter
No. 850. He assumed that his application for exemption,
filed after the compliance periods, would be granted. He
purportedly wrote the MCLE Office to follow up the status
of his application but claimed that his secretary forgot to
send the letter. He now wants the Court to again reconsider
the MCLE OfficeÊs denial of his application for exemption
when his motion for reconsideration was already denied
with finality by the MCLE Governing Board on 28
November 2013. He had the temerity to inform the Court
that the earliest that he could comply was on 10-14
February 2014, which was beyond the 60-day period
required under Section 12(5) of the MCLE Implementing
Regulations, and without even indicating when he intended
to comply with his deficiencies for the Second, Third, and
Fourth Compliance Periods. Instead, he asked the Court to
allow him to continue practicing law while complying with
the MCLE requirements.
The MCLE Office is not without fault in this case. While
it acted on respondentÊs application for exemption on 14
January 2009, it took the office three years to inform
respondent of the denial of his application. The MCLE
Office only informed respondent on 1 October 2012 and
after it received inquiries regarding the status of
respondentÊs compliance. Hence, during the period when
respondent indicated „MCLE application for exemption
under process‰ in his pleadings, he was not aware of the
action of the MCLE Governing Board on his application for
exemption. However, after he had been informed of the
denial of his application for exemption, it still took
respondent one year to file a motion for reconsideration.
After the denial of his motion for reconsideration,
respondent still took, and is still taking, his time to satisfy
the requirements of the MCLE. In addition, when
respondent indicated „MCLE Application for Exemption for
Reconsideration‰ in a pleading, he had not filed any motion
for reconsideration before the MCLE Office.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

RespondentÊs failure to comply with the MCLE

requirements and disregard of the directives of the MCLE
Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent member of
the IBP. While the MCLE Implementing Regulations state
that the MCLE Committee should recommend to the IBP
Board of Governors the listing of a lawyer as a delinquent
member, there is nothing that prevents the Court from
using its administrative power and supervision to
discipline erring lawyers and from directing the IBP Board
of Governors to declare such lawyers as delinquent
members of the IBP.
The OBC recommended respondentÊs suspension from
the practice of law for six months. We agree. In addition,
his listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is also akin
to suspension because he shall not be permitted to practice
law until such time as he submits proof of full compliance
to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP Board of
Governors has notified the MCLE Committee of his
reinstatement, under Section 14 of the MCLE
Implementing Regulations. Hence, we deem it proper to
declare respondent as a delinquent member of the IBP and
to suspend him from the practice of law for six months or
until he has fully complied with the requirements of the
MCLE for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Compliance
Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the
required noncompliance and reinstatement fees.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
(1) REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Office to promptly act on matters that require
its immediate attention, such as but not limited to
applications for exemptions, and to communicate its action
to the interested parties within a reasonable period;
(2) DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be
exempted from MCLE compliance as the matter had
already been denied with finality by the MCLE Governing
Board on 28 November 2013;

185

VOL. 768, AUGUST 26, 2015 185

Arnado vs. Adaza

(3) DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a

delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and SUSPEND him from the practice of law for SIX
MONTHS, or until he has fully complied with the MCLE
requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully
paid the required noncom​pliance and reinstatement fees.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty.
Homobono A. AdazaÊs personal record in the Office of the
Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the
land. Let copies be also furnished the MCLE Office and the
IBP Governing Board for their appropriate actions.
SO ORDERED.

Del Castillo, Mendoza, Leonen and Jardeleza,** JJ.,

concur.
 Prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza for exemption from
MCLE compliance denied; he is suspended from practice of
law for six (6) months for being delinquent member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or until full compliance
with MCLE requirements.

Notes.·A member of the Bar may be penalized, even

disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney, for
violation of the lawyerÊs oath and/or for breach of the ethics
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). (Foster vs. Agtang, 744
SCRA 242 [2014])
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice
or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
conduct; (4)

_______________

** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2147 dated 24

August 2015.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arnado vs. Adaza

conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5)

violation of the lawyerÊs oath; (6) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance
as an attorney for a party without authority. (Id.)

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.