Posted on September 5, 2008 in Legal Misc, Legal Procedure
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.
Loading ...
[...] This is already a requirement in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which, in our experience, is strict in enforcing it. Update: Compliance extended to 1 January 2009. Please see full text here. [...]
hi,pwede ba sumali sa phbar ng say walk in,me office kayo at ill go lang there ?i cant seem to register i exceeded na daw my number of attempt ,i give up sa net net im not very at this cyber web but im willing to go nalang to your office if you have one
, i have to try again later daw parang atm o cellphone yata hehe,i am interested sana to join o pa member:)
thanks a lot for this update, atty. fred.
atty. fred, tanong lang. for new lawyers like me who passed the bar just this year, do we need to secure a certificate of exemption, as required above? if yes, where can we secure that? thanks in advance.
Oo nga. Alala ko kasi, sabi nung isang lady dun sa last topic mo regarding this MCLE compliance, sa April 14, 2010 pa daw deadline for new lawyers. Tama ba sya o mali? Thanks Atty. Fred! ^__^
There’s something wrong – not with the MCLE program itself – but in its implementation. Lawyers who pay to attend MCLE seminars by providers already accredited by the MCLE Committee, and who are constantly monitored by MCLE representatives if they actually attend the sessions. should no longer be required to file any Attorney’s Compliance Report. Such requirement puts lawyers at an unnecessary disadvantage, especially those lawyers from the provinces who are often forced to take the subjects from different providers and at different times because of limitations. The Chan Robles has set an example that all accredited providers should follow – process everything as part of the tuition fees paid by lawyers, and mail to the attending lawyers their Compliance Certificates. The MCLE Committee should make this the norm instead of an exception.
mabuti na lang na extend, panic na kasi kaibigan ko na practicing, 2006 bar sya, wala pang mcle din, tulad ko…
whew! mercies and miracles indeed!
anyway, i was informed that some courts were preparing to dismiss cases and expunge pleadings on this ground alone.. whew!
tanong ko lang, mandatory ba to sa courts? o dependent sa motion ng parites?
salamat in advance!
Orbil17, if i remember correctly, new lawyers are only required to take 14 units within the compliance period (until 2010). Had i known it, i would not have taken the full 36 units. Sakit sa bulsa!
@Atty. Froi
Thanks a lot. At least things are clear to me now.
@Atty.Froi : perhaps, the provider where you took your MCLE didn’t (intended or not) inform you about the number of credit units/subject needed for new lawyers to take. we usually ask the lawyers what year they were admitted to the BAR before enrolling with us and check with the MCLE the number of credit units they need to take and the subjects they haven’t yet taken, so we can come up with an appropriate program for them.
in some cases, excess MCLE credit units earned can be applied naman to the next compliance period. =)
fyi:
Admiited to BAR in 2007 are required : 36 MCLE Credit Units
Admitted to BAR in 2008 are required : 24 MCLE Credit Units
Admitted to BAR in 2009 are required : 14 MCLE Credit Units
for the Third Compliance Period in 2010.
As if you lawyers, specially those in the private practice, are robots. You keep on swallowing all rules, orders or instructions prescribed by those who are no longer practising and are not adept with the high tech communication like the internet. I thought you are all intelligent. You see, MCLE is no longer practical now because of the internet where you can access the newest laws and jurisprudence. You must not forget that the MCLE was required during a time where there is no internet. One thing more, if you are indeed professionals, it must be incumbent upon you to update your knowledge without need of mandating you to have continuing legal education. Only those in Grade One or Kinder that need to be monitored whether they are studying their lessons.
Better scrap the MCLE because it outlived its purpose, or it was overtaken by the internet. Just like VAT, it is just an added burden to litigants to whom the laywer has to pass the expensive cost of MCLE. And the expensive MCLE is not a guarantee to fair resolution of a case nowadays. There is no use of a lawyer who became intelligent due to MCLE if judges or justices decide in favor of those who pay the right price. Look at the GSIS vs. Meralco case. That is just one of the many cases of (in)justice for sale.
to paulo — tagaUP ka ba? seems… talak ka ng talak kahit di mo naman alam sinasabi mo hehe ..
Thanks for the info on my extended lease to practice. Just a few more months till the next extension, or compliance, whichever comes first.
I prefer MCLE scheds for saturdays and sundays only. Otherwise, it’s so hard to fix ones sched at crunch time.
It took many years and extensions, and schedules for MCLE for the past compliance but then lawyer compliance is not complete. Stats are getting low maybe.
See how lawyers would rush to meet compliance to avoid the punitive aspect for the MCLE III for 2010. Thats not very far considering the number of lawyers. I hope the providers will make the scheds and documentation a lot easier.