Daily Tribune

Archive

SC: Gadon ‘non-compliant’ on MCLE

TDT · Oct 4, 2019, 11:34 PM

The Supreme Court (SC) mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) Office on Friday revealed that lawyer Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon — known for filing an impeachment complaint against ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and who now represents Peter Joemel “Bikoy” Advincula — has not complied with the mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) requirement for lawyers since 2009.

In a statement, the MCLE Office said in its certification dated 2 October 2019 that Gadon had only attended one MCLE training on 25 May 2009, which was credited to the first compliance period from April 2001 to 2004, valid until April 2007.

According to the High Court’s legal education office, the lawyer has not attended MCLEs for the second up to the sixth compliance periods from April 2004 to April 2019.

Under SC’s Bar Matter No. 850, lawyers are required to attend at least 36 hours of continuing legal education every three years and lawyers who fail to comply shall pay a non-compliance fee at the end of the compliance period.

If they fail to justify their non-compliance, they will be listed as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and subject to its disciplinary power.

“You will be listed when you don’t comply as delinquent member of the IBP and which means that you can’t practice law, technically,” lawyer Jun Viterbo, a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said in a televised interview.

The certification was issued upon the request of FLAG lawyers Rafael Aquino, Chel Diokno, Ted Te, Erin Tañada and Fhilip Sawali.

Gadon, on the other hand, said he was busy that’s why he was unable to attend MCLE classes but he insisted he is not prohibited from practicing law.

“The FLAG lawyers should know that the MCLE is required only if you will sign a pleading…But it does not bar you from practicing law,” said Gadon in a separate statement, adding that he is confident that he will only face fines following a Supreme Court decision in July 2015 and a resolution in January 2014 which supposedly reduced the penalty.