For those who have not complied with the requirements for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), here’s an “incentive” to act really fast. The Supreme Court issued Bar Matter No. 1922 dated 3 June 2008 (published today, 26 June 2008, in the Manila Bulletin), which reads in full:
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 Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.”
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.
Related posts:
- MCLE Compliance: Implementation of Bar Matter 1922 extended to 1 January 2009
- MCLE Compliance for New Lawyers
- Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service issued by Supreme Court
- Sex reassignment surgery: Court rejects change of name and gender
- Bringing Back the Death Penalty
- What happens to the employees of Shariff Kabunsuan?
- Legal Support for the Child and R.A. 9262
by norbert
10 Sep 2008 at 17:56
yes 2008 lawyers are required to take 24 units but the deadline is on 2010
Pingback
by MCLE Compliance for New Lawyers at Atty-at-Work
15 Sep 2008 at 11:49
[...] the previous post on the extension of the compliance period (to 1 January 2009) for Bar Matter 1922, Alpha_Mike and Orbil inquired about the rule applicable to new lawyers. This is covered by MCLE [...]
by russel
27 Oct 2008 at 21:05
pls help me, how will i know that ive already complied with the mcle
by victor
26 Feb 2009 at 13:51
In Bar Matter No. 1922 dated 3 June 2008 (published today, 26 June 2008, in the Manila Bulletin),does the term “pleadings” include criminal Information filed by the prosecutors?
Supposing the assistant prosecutor and/or the chief failed to put the required mcle compliance number, can the judge dismiss the case and expunge it from the records? What if both of them could not comply, what will now happen to the criminal case filed?
Thank you.
by Abet
10 Mar 2009 at 08:12
Hi Atty. Fred. Where can we access the list of members who complied with the MCLE requirement? How about the list of delinquent members?
by Mano
10 Mar 2009 at 17:12
Hi. Based on Bar Matter 1922 and its extension there is a penalty if a lawyer does not indicate his MCLE Compliance in a pleading. What about appearing before the court? Can a lawyer who has not complied with MCLE make a formal appearance in court?
by Ephraim Cuadra Salcedo
15 Mar 2009 at 21:10
Sirs/Madames:
Your Honors -
It says “failure to disclose . . . would result to dismissal of case. This pre-supposes a plaintiff or petitioner’s position. How about if the lawyer is for the Respondent or Defendant? Certainly, a case may not and should not be dismissed from this end. As it is not specifically stated, if the lawyer who failed to provide MCLE compliance, would “default” with prejudice apply?
by purple
15 Mar 2009 at 22:35
for victor.
your query just happened last january somewhere in bicol. two judges dismissed the cases for violations of ordinances. it was premeditated. other cases filed by the prosecutor and his assistants were spared. bar matter no. 1922 was just used as a facade for the judges to avenge the local chief executive’s policy against indirect bribing of the local judiciary… well, i guess somebody should raise this trivial question of law to the higher court.
by Angela
31 Mar 2009 at 11:41
Hi atty. Fred…thanx for your blog…big help. well, i was admitted to Bar in 2007… i also completed my MCLE…already have my MCLE Compliance No. kaya lang, may ibang lawyers magaling palusot… they still have up to 2010 for the compliance… wala po ba implementing rules and Bar Matter 1922 as to who are exempted to comply? thanks a lot.
by Samuel L.
22 Apr 2009 at 15:01
I can tell that this is not the first time you write about this topic. Why have you chosen it again?
by waldner
12 May 2009 at 18:19
Anyone could enlighten me again on my predicament:
I was tasked to appear before the City Prosecutor’s Office here in Manila. I handed over to the fiscal the ex parte entry of appearance in behalf of our client and he noticed that there is no MCLE compliance stated after the name ang signature of the counsel. The opposing counsel objected the same considering that allegedly it is not in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court regarding MLCE Compliance among lawyers. After a careful reading about the provisions relating to MCLE Compliance, it uses the word “ALL PLEADINGS”. I look into the Black’s Law dictionary and the Rules of Court regarding the definition of Pleading and I think Ex Parte Entry of Appearance is not considered as a pleading. The same holds true with Manifestation in compliance with the Court’s Order. Who is correct?
Last thing, are the receiving clerks allowed to REFUSE to accept pleadings submitted before them when the counsel failed to indicate MCLE Compliance? Does it run contrary to their ministerial duty?
by thornbird
03 Jan 2010 at 18:41
what is the penaty for bogus lawyers fabricating a no. to indicate that he attended mcle seminars?