Petition For MCLE Exemption

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Governing Board
IBP Headquarters Vargas Avenue
Pasig City
PETITION FOR MCLE EXEMPTION
I, ATTY. ROMEO VIERNES VILORIA, Filipino, retired Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva

Ecija, 83 years old, single, and a resident of No. 149 Makiling St., 3100 Mabini
Homesite, Cabanatuan City, after having been duly sworn to an oath in
accordance with the law, depose and state that:
1. This instant petition for exemption is based on MCLE Resolution of Republic
Act 20071 which passed into law, not having been vetoed by former
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo;
2. Petitioner failed to enroll in and attend MCLE 5th Seminar;
3. Attached as Annex “A” hereof is the original copy of my Attorney’s MCLE

Compliance Report dated January 26, 2018;
4. Petitioner would like to inform the MCLE Governing Board that he had
enrolled in and attended the MCLE 6th Seminar which was held in the Rico
Fajardo Hall, NEUST, Cabanatuan City on January 18, 2018, January 19, 2018,
January 25, 2018 and January 26, 2018, inclusive. Attached as Annex “B” is a
true copy of the Draft Program for Exclusive Use of UPLC 2018 Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education, IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter, NEUST, Cabanatuan
City;
5. According to my Credit Unit Assessment, I have to pay a non-compliance fee

of P1,000.00 and that I lack 1.5 units in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2 units
in legal writings and oral advocacy and 2 units in International Law and
International Conventions. Attached as Annex “C” is a postal money order in
the amount of P1,000.00 payable to the MCLE Governing Board;
6. I respectfully invite the attention of the Honorable Governing Board that the
MCLE subjects and units in the 5th MCLE Compliance Seminar and 6th MCLE
Compliance Seminar are almost identical, and that I bought a copy of
Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on
Judicial Dispute Resolution. In fact, I have appeared in and represented some
clients in JDR Proceedings which are confidential in nature. I perform the art
of oral and written advocacy every time that I represent a client in the court.
7. And by way of allegations in support of the instant Petition for Exemption, I

respectfully invite the attention of the Honorable Governing Board to the
provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
where resolutions of municipal trial court judges and municipal circuit trial
courts in the preliminary examination of criminal cases are subject to the
review and approval of the provincial prosecutor, which position I held for
five years from 1995 up to February 14, 2000 when I was compulsory retired
from the National Prosecution Service;
8. I most respectfully contend that if a Municipal Trial Court Judge who has
retired from judicial service is exempt from MCLE Compliance, the more
reason that a retired Provincial Prosecutor should likewise be exempted.
“What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander too”.
9. I respectfully contend that for the Honorable Governing Board to exempt a

retired Municipal Court Judge from MCLE Compliance and to require a
retired Provincial Prosecutor to undergo MCLE compliance would be
tantamount to a blatant violation of the Constitutional provision on Equal
Protection of the Law. Equal Protection is so enshrined in the concept of due
process as every unfair discrimination that offends the requirements of fair
play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III
Section 1 of the Constitution to provide basic guaranty against any form of
undue favoritism or hostility from the government.
According to a long line of decisions, Equal Protection simply requires that all
persons and things of similar situation should be treated alike, both as to the rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed on similar subjects. In other words, persons
should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminating against others. The equal protection is directed principally against
undue favor and individual or class privilege. It is limited to the object to which it is
directed and the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute
equality and merely that the persons be treated alike under like conditions both as
to the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. (JMM Promotion and
Management vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120095, August 5, 1996. 260 SCRA 319.
But substantive equality is not enough. It is also required that the law be fair and
applied equally. As held by the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the law is fair and
impartial on its face, it will still violate Equal Protection if it is administered with an
“evil eye” and an “uneven hand”. So as to unjustly benefit some and prejudice
others. What the Constitution requires is “equality among equals”.)
I respectfully wish to invoke Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10071 which reads:
“Prosecutor with the rank of Prosecutor V shall have the same qualification for
appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary grade, and salaries, allowances,
and emoluments and other privileged, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and
disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of
an associate justice of the Court of Appeals”.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

instant Petition be GRANTED and that petitioner be granted an MCLE Exemption. It
is further prayed that an MCLE V Number be issued to him and that a ruling be
rendered declaring that he has substantially complied with the requirements of
MCLE 4th and 5th seminars.
Respectfully Submitted.
Cabanatuan City for Pasig City, April 5, 2018.
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, ROMEO V. VILORIA, 83 years old, Filipino, single and a resident of #149

Makiling St., Mabini Homesite, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija after being duly sworn
in an oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. That, I am the petitioner in the foregoing petition for MCLE exemption;
2. That I have read and understood the contents therein;
3. That all the allegations contained therein are true and correct
according to my own knowledge and based on available authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of April, 2018
at Cabanatuan City, Philippines.
ATTY. ROMEO VIERNES VILORIA

(Petitioner)
149 Makiling St., 3100 Mabini Homesite,
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
PTR. No. CBN-1018086, Cab. City-1-05-18
IBP OR No. 1065032, Cab. City, 12-29-2017 (for 2018)
Roll No. 20751
Contact No.: 463-0705
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 5th day of April, 2018 at
Cabanatuan City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Senior Citizen Identification
Card.
ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

Doc. No.:____; NOTARY PUBLIC
Page No.: ___; UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2018
Book No. :___; PTR NO. CBN-1015518/1-3-2018-CAB. CITY
Series of 2018. IBP NO. 1065031/12-28-2017(for2018)/CAB. CITY
ROLL OF ATTY’S NO. 45770
MCLE V-0006030
Republic of the Philippines
Office of the Census & Statistics
Ground Floor, N.E. Pacific Bldg.
Brgy. H. Concepcion
Cabanatuan City
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that this office cannot issue a certified true copy of the Birth
Certificate of MS. TRINIDAD VIERNES, who is reported to have been born in Laur,
Nueva Ecija, her parents being JOE A. VILORIA and CALIXTA VIERNES, respectively.
This certification is being issued for whatever legal purpose it may serve.
Issued this ___ day of _______, 2018 at Brgy. Concepcion, Cabanatuan City.

Petition For MCLE Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For MCLE Exemption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For MCLE Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

PETITION FOR MCLE EXEMPTION

I, ATTY. ROMEO VIERNES VILORIA, Filipino, retired Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva

2. Petitioner failed to enroll in and attend MCLE 5th Seminar;

3. Attached as Annex “A” hereof is the original copy of my Attorney’s MCLE

5. According to my Credit Unit Assessment, I have to pay a non-compliance fee

7. And by way of allegations in support of the instant Petition for Exemption, I

9. I respectfully contend that for the Honorable Governing Board to exempt a

WHEREFORE, Premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

I, ROMEO V. VILORIA, 83 years old, Filipino, single and a resident of #149

1. That, I am the petitioner in the foregoing petition for MCLE exemption;

2. That I have read and understood the contents therein;

ATTY. ROMEO VIERNES VILORIA

ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

You might also like