BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
IN RE: CIVIL CASE NO. B-10581 (ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO), A.C. No. 14311, OCTOBER 7, 2025: SUPREME COURT DISBARS LAWYER FOR FAKE MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE) CREDENTIALS
Respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo appeared as counsel for the defendant in the case for malicious prosecution with damages entitled “Jaime J. Briones and Shirley C. Yeh vs. Mercedes G. Gagnon” before the Regional Trial Court of Biňan City, Laguna, Branch 153. Counsel for the plaintiff, Atty. Mariano Rubia, discovered that Atty. Hidalgo has not complied with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) and filed a Motion to Expunge from the records the Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss of Atty. Hidalgo. Atty. Rubia attached a Certification from the MCLE Office attesting that the Atty. Hidalgo did not comply the MCLE requirement from the 1st Compliance Period until the 6th Compliance Period. The RTC granted the Motion to Expunge and further required Atty. Hidalgo to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt. The trial court furnished the Integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP) with a copy of the Order for possible administrative proceedings against Atty. Hidalgo.
In its Order dated January 28, 2020, the IBP treated the referral as an administrative complaint and ordered Atty. Hidalgo to submit his Answer. In a Report and Recommendation dated October 18, 2023, by Investigating Commissioner Jhimy Santiago, the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended imposing the penalty of Disbarment for “Serious Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, including making untruthful statements” which is a serious offense under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors. The Court underscored the importance of continuing legal education by requiring lawyers to undergo MCLE for 36 hours every compliance period of three (3) years to ensure that the members of the Bar keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. In the instant case, the MCLE Office issued a Certification that Atty. Hidalgo has not complied with the MCLE from the first compliance period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) up to the 6th Compliance Period (April 15 to April 14, 2019). Atty. Hidalgo violated Bar Matter NO. 850 and Section 24, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) which states that “A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, and support to achieve the standards of excellence in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students.”
The Supreme Court also held that the act of Atty. Hidalgo of providing a spurious MCLE compliance number in his Answer and Motion to Dismiss in the civil case, despite knowing his non-compliance, is an act indicating patently false information in pleadings filed in courts constituting bad faith and dishonesty. The Court held that Atty. Hidalgo also violation Sections 1, 2 and 11 of Canon II of the CPRA:
“SECTION l. Proper conduct. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. -A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.
x x x x x x x x x
SECTION 11. False representations or statements; duty to correct. – A lawyer shall not make false representations or statements. A lawyer shall be liable for any material damage caused by such false representations or statements.”
The Court also held that Atty. Hidalgo violated Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity and zeal within the bounds of the law and the CPRA.”
The Supreme Court also considered as an aggravating circumstance the previous suspension of Atty. Hidalgo for one (1) year in a previous case for withdrawing as counsel from a case without notice to the client and neglecting matters entrusted to him. The Court held that the prior finding of administrative liability demonstrates a pattern of consistent infractions, indicating a disregard for the Code of Professional Responsibility, as revised by the CPRA.
The Court citing the cases of Turla vs. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641 (March 12, 2019), wherein the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years for his willful statement of false MCLE details in his pleadings and for non-compliance with the MCLE requirements; Mapalad vs. Atty. Echanez, A.C. No. 10911 (June 6, 2017), wherein the lawyer was disbarred for indicating a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings and for disobeying legal orders, taking into consideration his prior sanctions in two (2) cases; and Atty. Francis Gustilo vs. Atty. Estefano H. De la Cruz, A.C. No. 12318 (October 15, 2019), wherein a lawyer was likewise disbarred for his noncompliance with the requirements of the MCLE program and for using a fictitious MCLE compliance number in his pleadings in an ejectment case.
Based on this most recent case and the previous cases decided by the Supreme Court on MCLE compliance by a lawyer, it behooves for a lawyer to comply with the MCLE requirements. It is different when you failed to comply but signed pleadings indicating the only compliance period you complied in which case it may merit only suspension, admonition or fine. But it is a serious matter when you misrepresent that you complied with the most recent MCLE compliance period using fictitious MCLE credentials as it is serious dishonesty rendering a lawyer unfit to continue to be a member of the Bar.