Atty Gustilo Vs Atty de La Cruz
Atty Gustilo Vs Atty de La Cruz
Atty Gustilo Vs Atty de La Cruz
A.C. No. 12318 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-4972), October 15, 2019
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This administrative case stems from the complaint-affidavit filed by Atty. Francis V.
Gustilo (complainant) in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking to disbar Atty. Estefano H. De La Cruz
(respondent) for his non-compliance with the requirements of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program, and for knowingly using a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings.1
Antecedents
Complainant alleges that Respondent is the lawyer for Spouses Melchor and Malyn
Macian, who were the respondents in an ejectment case filed by Complainant's
clients. During the trial of the case before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Makati,
Respondent allegedly used a non-existent MCLE Compliance number (IV-001565).
On appeal of the ejectment case, Respondent allegedly used again a fictitious MCLE
Compliance number when he filed a Memorandum of Appeal.
To prove the charge, Complainant attached a Certification from the MCLE Office
certifying that ATTY. ESTEPANO HILVANO DELA CRUZ has no
compliance/exemption for the Second Compliance, Third Compliance Period, Fourth
Compliance Period, and Fifth Compliance Period. He also attached copies of the
pages (showing Respondent's MCLE Compliance number as 001565) of a
Manifestation and Compliance and Memorandum on Appeal. Lastly, Complainant
attached a copy of a Manifestation and Motion filed by Respondent where
Respondent indicated his MCLE Number as 001565.
xxxx
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSES:
xxxx
The Investigating Commissioner observed that not only did the respondent not
disclose the required MCLE information in his pleadings but he also knowingly
violated the MCLE requirements by not attending the second to fifth compliance
periods, and by indicating a false MCLE compliance number to make it appear that
he had been MCLE compliant.5
On December 7, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation.6
Issue
Is the respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Canon 7 and Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he: (1) used a non-existent MCLE compliance
number in the pleadings that he filed; and (2) failed to submit proof of his
compliance for the second, third, fourth and fifth compliance periods?
The Court affirms the findings of the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD as
adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors, but modifies the
recommended penalty.
Bar Matter No. 1922 (entitled Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the
Counsel's MCLE Certificate of Compliance and Certificate of Exemption), as
amended on January 14, 2014, expressly directs attorneys to indicate their MCLE
certificate of compliance or certificate of exemption in all the pleadings they file in
the courts. The requirement ensures that the practice of the law profession is
reserved only for those who have complied with the recognized mechanism for
"keep[ing] abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain[ing] the ethics of the
profession, and enhanc[ing] the standards of the practice of law."7 "This
requirement is not a mere frivolity," according to Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v.
Maghari III:8
We note that the respondent did not refute the charge against him.12 Instead, he
misrepresented that he would be seeking his exemption from the requirement
based on his having served as Assistant City IBP Investigating Commissioner for
Makati City, his having worked in the National Prosecution Service of the
Department of Justice, and his having retired from government service on July 18,
2015. At best, his misrepresentations were another occasion for him to mislead, for
he did not thereby show any honest effort to explain or to justify his non-
compliance and concealment of his deficient status in the MCLE program. To be
sure, he did not present any certificate or other acceptable proof to substantiate his
proposed exemption.
The respondent was definitely guilty of violating Canon 1, Canon 7 and Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which state:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Pursuant to B.M. No. 1922, as amended, any attorney who fails to indicate in the
pleadings filed in court the MCLE certificate of compliance or certificate of
exemption may be subject to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action, like a fine
of P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense, and P4,000.00
for the third offense; and, in addition to the fine, he may be listed as a delinquent
member of the Integrated Bar, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of B.M. No. 850 and
its implementing rules and regulations; and he shall be discharged from the case
and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new attorney with the
concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the noncompliant
attorney.
Taking all the circumstances herein into account, the Court declares that the proper
penalty to be imposed on the respondent is disbarment, take effect upon notice of
this decision. This extreme penalty is fully called for in view of the serious affront
that the respondent displayed towards the Supreme Court no less in disregarding
the objectives of the MCLE program adopted under B.M. No. 1922, and of the
cavalier foisting of his concealment on the courts, his clients and the public in
general, including his colleagues in the Integrated Bar. Disbarment is in accord with
Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the
laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate
and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of
society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to
the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.
Let a copy of this decision be attached to the respondent's personal records in the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
Furnish a copy of this decision to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its
information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.