A lawyer who used a false Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in his pleadings was disbarred by the Supreme Court (SC)
The SC en banc issued a Per Curiam Decision which disbars Atty. Jose Hidalgo (Atty. Hidalgo) for dishonest conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
The decision revealed that Atty Hidalgo represented an accused in a malicious prosecution case pending at the Regional Trial Court Branch 153 in Biñan City and filed an answer for his client bearing his MCLE compliance number.
However, the complainant’s lawyer filed a motion to expunge the answer filed by Atty. Hidalgo, and claimed that the latter did not comply with the MCLE requirements. The RTC granted the motion and sent copies of the court’s Order, for possible administrative proceedings against Atty. Hidalgo, to the MCLE Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
The IBP immediately conducted an investigation and found that Atty. Hidalgo knowingly used a false MCLE compliance number. Then, certification from the MCLE Office showed that Atty. Hidalgo has no record of compliance or exemption from 2001 to 2019.
Under Bar Matter No. 850, non-exempt Bar members are required to complete 36 hours of legal education every three years to ensure lawyers stay updated on law and ethics. In addition, Bar Matter No. 1922, as amended, also requires lawyers to include the number and date of their MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption on all pleadings filed before courts or quasi-judicial bodies.
The SC adopted the IBP’s findings and held that Atty. Hidalgo violated Canons II and III of the CPRA stating that “The act of indicating patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts constitutes bad faith and dishonesty, and shows blatant disrespect of the courts and its rules. Worse, it prejudiced the clients, whose cause was adversely affected when the RTC granted the expunction of the answer with counterclaim and motion to dismiss from the records.”
The SC ordered the disbarment of Atty. Hidalgo effective immediately, seeing that his misconduct is a serious offense under the CPRA and that he was previously suspended for one year in another administrative case. Atty. Hidalgo was also fined P35,000 for willful disobedience for ignoring the IBP’s order when he did not submit an answer and a verified position paper.