MAPALAD V. ECHANEZ (AC NO. 10911)
JUNE 06, 2017 TIJAM, J.
FACTS:
Complainant, Virgilio Mapalad, Sr., was one of the plaintiffs in an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction while respondent, Atty. Anselmo Echanez, was the defendants’ counsel therein. In a Notice of Appeal filed by respondent, he only indicated his MCLE compliance no without indicating the date of issue thereof. He once again excluded the same in a brief filed for the appellants. Complainant then found out upon inquiry with the MCLE Office that said respondent had no MCLE compliance yet.
Mapalad then filed a complaint against respondent however, respondent failed to comply with the necessary measures.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence on record
RULING:
Yes. There is no denying that the respondent was given ample opportunity to answer the imputations against him and defend himself but he did not do so despite due notices.
First, it was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had no complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
Second, despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty and deceit.
Third, the respondent also repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP-CBD, and also this Court despite due notice. Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of law and not of men.
Taken altogether, considering respondent’s act of using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, his repeated failure to obey legal orders, and the fact that he had already been sanctioned twice by this Court on separate cases, We are constrained to affirm the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XXI-2014-685, recommending his disbarment to prevent him from further engaging in legal practice.
FULL TEXT HERE