MCLE Compliance: Implementation of Bar Matter 1922 extended to 1 January 2009

The Supreme Court earlier issued Bar Matter No. 1922, requiring all lawyers to indicate the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance, and if they could not do so by 25, August 2008, it will result to the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. The SC has extended the compliance date to 1 January 2009. Thank God for small mercies. Here’s the full text of the amendment:

—————-

Sirs/Mesdames: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Bank dated September 2, 2008: “Bar Matter No. 1922. – 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 or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the

(a) 1st Indorsement, dated August 26, 2008, of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, relative to the letter of Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, IBP National President and the resolution of the Board of Governors dated August 21, 2008, requesting the Supreme Court to defer or extend the effectivity of the resolution in Bar Matter No. 1922, which makes it mandatory for all lawyers to indicate in all pleadings filed in Courts, their respective MCLE Certificates of Compliance Number or Certificates of Exemption;

(b) Aforesaid Board of Governors Resolution “Requesting the Supreme Court to Defer or Extend the Effectivity of the Resolution in Bar Matter No. 1992 until December 31, 2008”; and

(c) Letter-Comment, dated August 22, 2008, of Justice Carolina C. Grino-Aquino, Chairperson, MCLE, in compliance with the resolution of the Court dated August 19, 2008.

The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the MCLE Governing Board to

(a) GRANT the above request of the IBP Board; and

(b) AMEND the effectivity date of the Implementation of Bar Matter No. 1922 to January 1, 2009 instead of August 25, 2008.”

Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.

31 comments

  1. @Atty. Non-Compliant:

    recently, we had 3 runs that were “all-Saturday” schedules (Nov.17,24,Dec.8,15,2007 / Feb 16,23,March 1,8, 2008 & May 10,17,24,31, 2008) at the Podium 3 of RCBC Plaza. =)

  2. You are right jireh in saying that practice of law is a mere privilege. But impractical and unreasonable rules, just like that of the MCLE, must be questioned or asked to be reconsidered. As I said, lawyers can better learn from the internet and law libraries than attending MCLE. With the emergence of the internet, the topics being discussed in the MCLE are already known to lawyers, so what is the use of attending the MCLE? Is it just because that the SC mandates it? If you had attended a MCLE, you had noticed that only few lawyers are attentive due to the fact that the rest knows already what is being discussed by the lecturer. And not to mention the fact that many lawyers focus their practice in their special field and they do not need some of the law subjects requiered in the MCLE. The MCLE is really for compliance.

    Another funny thing is the need for submission of MCLE Compliance Report. The MCLE office has all the records of lawyers’Certificate of Attendance to the MCLE and yet it still requires each lawyer to submit the report such that failure to do so will be fined P300.00. Don’t you see the obvious that the MCLE is just a money-making industry? I really pity the litigants who are the ultimate payor of the MCLE fees. Where is now the constitutional guarantee on free access to courts? Didn’t the IBP march and rally when docket fees were increased a few years ago? I reiterate my position that lawyers are ROBOTS ha ha ha

  3. anyway po, it’s a good thing that the requirement was extended…
    at least, we can have a respite from the rush towards beating the deadline.

    i became a ‘panyero’ in 2007, at the height of the rush this july-august concerning mcle compliance, one court refused to
    receive my pleading bec i didnt indicate any compliance numbr
    (but of course i didnt have one yet!). of course, i told them
    that i’m a new lawyer. the judge (who happend to be in the staff office at that time) agreed to accept my pleading only when i presented my original cert of admissn to the bar (whew!)…
    i also told him politely that i’m not yet covered by the urgency posed by bar matter 1922 since the circular refers to “previous compliance period” at which period, I WASNT A LAWYER YET, and being
    a new lawyer, i said that i have ’til 2010 to comply. Then, he can berate me all he wants if i still dont show a compliance number by that time…

    tama po ba ung katwiran ko?
    kasi po, hindi ho lahat ng judge madaling paliwanagan…

  4. @geff

    tama po kayo sir, you just need 36 units for the 3rd compliance period in 2010 na po. 2nd compliance period ended on April 2007 so di na po kayo covered. hope to see you in one of our mcle seminars soon. =)

  5. Alpha_Mike/Orbil, your concerns are addressed in a subsequent post. Geff, I believe the same thing applies to your “dilemma”.

    Ptolemy, there is no express provision whether the dismissal could be motu propio. I believe that judges would be entitled to do just that…and they would most probably be right.

  6. @paulo Sep 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Be thankful that you was only charge 300 pesos for non submission of attorney compliance report. Rule 13 of Bar Matter 850 requires you to pay non compliance fee (1000).

    take note:

    (implementing rules of the mcle)

    Section 12: Compliance Procedures (implementing rules of the mcle)

    a. Each member not otherwise exempt under the Rules or whose exempt status the Committee may take judicial notice of, shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the end of the member’s compliance period

  7. Hi. Im asking on behalf of an uncle. May I know how long is each compliance period for the MCLE for not-so recent lawyers? Let’s say the first compliance period, when did it end? Same question with the second and the third?

    Thanks !!!

  8. Mabuhay!

    i wanna submit my mcle compliance for the 2nd compliance period. Yet, i dont know how much would it cost me in all? Pls enlighten me in this. Kindly itemize the fees i have to remit for the said compliance.

    Thanks so much maam and my best regards!

    Henricus

  9. in relation to my query, pls be informed that i was admitted to the bar on May 03, 2004. And i have not yet submitted any mcle compliance since.

    Thanks again Sir…

  10. LegalAdvantage MCLE schedules for 2010

    Venue : Romulo Hall, NEDA Makati Building, Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

    Scheduled dates:
    MCLE lecture series 41 – January 20,21,27,28, 2010 (Wed-Thurs)
    MCLE lecture series 42 – January 22,23,29,30, 2010 (Fri-Sat)
    MCLE lecture series 43 – February 9,10,16,17, 2010 (Wed-Thurs)
    MCLE lecture series 44 – February 11,12,18,19, 2010 (Fri-Sat)

    —————-
    Register Online at : http://www.legaladvantage.com.ph/signup/register.php

  11. Sir: Could you provide me the email address of MCLE or its fax No.? I have to inquire if I have already completed my MCLE Compliance No. 3.

    Thank you so much,

      1. Good day! What if the lawyer only indicates the firm name then the one who will sign the pleading is a partner who complied with the requirement but the one who appeared in court, also a partner of the firm , did not indicate his compliance not even his name. Can the opposing counsel move that the partner who appeared must also indicate his compliance?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *