Thursday, July 30, 2009

Criminal Law 1 Cases

Criminal Law 1


EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

4. People vs. Catanyag GR No. 103974 (September 10, 1993)

7. US vs. Knight 26 Phil 216

8. People vs. Bindoy 36 Phil 15

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

28. People vs. Pagador

30. US vs. Bautista

31. People vs. Delada

Saturday, July 25, 2009

DIGEST: Legal Profession Case 24

LEGAL PROFESSION CASE 24
Tapucar vs. Tapucar
A.M. No. 4148 July 30, 1998
Per Curiam

FACTS:
• Complainant Remedios Tapucar and respondent Atty. Lauro Tapucar were married with 11 children. When respondent became a CFI judge, he cohabited with Elena Peña of whom he had 2 children. A certain Atty. Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative complaint against respondent for immorality. After investigation, the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months without pay was meted by this Court upon respondent.
• Despite this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with Elena, giving rise to another charge of immorality and other administrative cases, such as: conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, and grossly immoral conduct. These cases were consolidated and after investigation, this Court ordered his dismissal and separation from the service. But his dismissal as a judge did not impel respondent to mend his ways, and even continued living with Elena. Moreover, he completely abandoned complainant and his children.
• Respondent later contracted marriage with Elena while the respondent's marriage to complainant subsists. Upon knowing of that her children allegedly misery because of their father's acts, including deception and intrigues against them. Complainant filed the present petition for disbarment under the compulsion of the maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts of their own father.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s actuations merit the penalty of disbarment?

HELD:
Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

RATIO:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Members of the Bar, must live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct — both public and private — fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.

In the case at bar, keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Moreover, it should be recalled that respondent here was once a member of the judiciary, a fact that aggravates his professional infractions. For having occupied that place of honor in the Bench, he knew a judge's actuations ought to be free from any appearance of impropriety. For a judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. Indeed, a judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in all of his actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Surely, respondent could not have forgotten the Code of Judicial Conduct entirely as to lose its moral imperatives.

Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.


DIGEST: Legal Profession Case 23

LEGAL PROFESSION CASE 23
ROYONG VS. OBLENA
AC No. 376 April 30, 1963
En Banc, Barrera

FACTS:
• Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston Oblena, a member of the bar and bench, with rape. The Solicitor General immediately conducted an investigation and found out that there was no rape, the carnal knowledge between complainant and respondent seems to be consensual sex.
• In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape, nevertheless, he was guilty of other misconduct. The Solicitor General made another complaint charging the respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral character, of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the 18 year old Josefina Royong. Thus rendering him unfit to practice law, praying that this Court render judgment ordering the permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina Royong and the adulterous cohabitation of respondent with Briccia Angeles warrants disbarment.

HELD:
Ariston Oblena was disbarred.

RATIO:
The continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for disbarment.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law.
As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known.
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who knew him sqemed to have acuuiesced to his utatus, did noq render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.

http://anito001.blogspot.com

Sunday, July 19, 2009

DIGEST: Legal Ethics Case 34

In Re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr.
B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998
En Banc, Francisco

FACTS:
(1) Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, for his participation in the September 1991 initiation rites of LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITY (San Beda College of Law) wherein a neophyte Raul Camaligan died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him.
(2) Petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On May 10, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case was closed and terminated.
(3) Petitioner was allowed to take the bar examinations subject to the condition that; should he pass he will not be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath pending approval by the Court.
(4) Petitioner passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Petitioner prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not petitioner Cuevas has the moral fitness required to take the lawyer’s oath?

HELD:
Petitioner is allowed to take the LAWYER’S OATH and sign the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

RATIO:
The Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Camaligan, father of hazing victim Raul Camaligan, and condoles with the untimely death of a son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his father. In his comment submitted to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits petitioner’s plea to be admitted to the membershop to the Philippine Bar, to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court.
The deliberate participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neophyte which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However, petitioner was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of the conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court then decides to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed AL ARGOSINO, petitioner’s co-accused to take the lawyer’s oath.

http://anito001.blogspot.com

DIGEST: Legal Ethics Case 33

DIGEST
Legal Ethics Case 33
MERCADO VS. UBAY
GR No. L-35830 July 24, 1990
First Division, Medialdea

FACTS:
(1) CIVIL CASE NO. TM-223: Herein petitioners - The MERCADO (siblings) filed an action for partition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cavite Br. 1 against the SAMONTE siblings. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint thru their counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine.
(2) CFI rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Since no appeal was made by any of the defendants, the decision became final and executory, then the trial court issued the corresponding writ of execution.
(3) Before the writ of execution could be carried out, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to annul the writ of execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
(4) CIVIL CASE NO. C-2442: Respondent Lucina and Trinidad Samonte filed an action before the CFI of Rizal for the annulment of the judgment rendered by the trial court on CIVIL CASE NO. TM-223, alleging that they did not authorize anyone including Atty. Pine to represent them in said case. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was denied.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not a CFI or a branch thereof has the authority to annul a final and executory judgment rendered by another branch of the same court?
(2) Whether or not Atty. Pine is duly authorized to represent petitioner in the case at bar?

HELD:
Petition is granted and respondent judge of the CFI or Rizal is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 2442.

RATIO:
(1) BP 129 enacted August 10, 1982, transferred jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment to the Court of Appeals. Although the prevailing rule before the enactment of BP 129 was that the CFI and their branches have jurisdiction to annul each other’s final judgments. However fundamental principles still dictate that the better policy, as a matter of comity or courteous interaction between courts of first instance and branches thereof, the annulment of cases to be tried by the same court or branch which heard the main action sought to be annulled, pursuant to judicial stability, the doctrine of non-interference should be regarded as highly important in the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
(2) An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required of him to appear in Court for his client. (SEC 21, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

http://anito001.blogspot.com

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Legal Ethics Cases

LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS

Posted herein are the full text of the cases in LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS.

Click on the cases to view full text.

31. Porac Trucking, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 202 SCRA 674 October 15, 1991 (im not sure if these is the correct case)

32. Garrido vs. Quisumbing 28 SCRA 614 June 30, 1969

33. Mercado vs. Ubay 187 SCRA 720 July 24, 1990

34. In Re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr. BM No. 810 January 27, 1998

35. Fernandez vs. Grecia A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1988

36. Zaldivar vs. Gonzales 166 SCRA 316 October 7, 1988

37. In Re: Dacanay BM No. 1678 December 17, 2007

38. Syjuco vs. Castro GR No. 70403 July 7, 1989

39. Masinsin vs. Albano GR No. 86421 May 31, 1994

40. Foronda vs. Guerrero 480 SCRA 201 AC No. 5469 January 27, 2006

41. Bun Siong Yao vs. Aurelio 485 SCRA 553 AC No. 7023 March 30, 2006

42. Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion, et. al. GR No. 153785 August 3, 2006

43. Yee vs. Bernabe 487 SCRA 385 GR No. 141393 April 19, 2006

44. Go vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 128954 October 8, 1998

45. Gachon vs. de Vera GR No. 116695 June 20, 1997

46. Lucas vs. Fabros AM No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000

47. People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 185 GR Nos. 168188-89 June 16, 2006

48. Rondina, et. al. vs. Bello AM No. CA-05-43 July 8, 2005

49. De Guzman vs. Pamintuan 405 SCRA 22 AM No. RTJ-02-1736 June 26, 2003

50. Mercado vs. Security Bank Corporation GR No. 160445 February 16, 2006

51. Dalisay vs. Mauricio, Jr. 479 SCRA 307 AC No. 5655 January 23, 2006

53. Republic of the Philippines vs. Lim GR No. 161656 June 29, 2005

54. Equatorial Realty vs. Mayfair Theaters GR No. 106063 November 21, 1996

55. PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, et. al. GR Nos. 151809-12 April 12, 2005

56. Abragan vs. Rodriguez 380 SCRA 93 AC No. 4346 April 3, 2002

57. Zaldivar vs. Gonzales 166 SCRA 316 GR No. L-80578, Nos. L-79690-707 October 7, 1988

PART 2

1. In Re: Climaco 55 SCRA 107

2. De Borja vs. De Borja GR No. L-6622 July 31, 1957

3. Surigao Minerals Reservation Board, et. al. vs. Cloribel 31 SCRA 1 GR No. L-27072 January 9, 1970

4. Montecillo vs. Gica 60 SCRA 234 GR No. L-36800 October 21, 1974

5. Achacoso vs. Court of Appeals 51 SCRA 424 GR No. L-35867 June 28, 1973

Full text courtesy of LawPhil Project.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Family Code Cases

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Family Code of the Philippines

Posted herein are the full text of the cases in PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS - FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Click on the cases to view full text.

1. Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals 253 SCRA 699 GR No. 107383 February 20, 1996

2. Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals 266 SCRA 324 GR No. 119190 January 16, 1997

3. Eugenio, Sr. vs. Velez 185 SCRA 425 GR No. 85140/GR No. 86470 May 17, 1990

4. Cosca vs. Palaypayon 237 SCRA 249 September 30, 1994

5. Ramirez-Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 12 SCRA 505 L-20043 November 28, 1964

6. Navarro vs. Domagtoy A.M. No. MTJ 06-1088 July 19, 1996

7. Garcia-Recio vs. Recio GR No. 138322 October 2, 2001

8. People vs. Velasco GR No. 135231-33 February 28, 2001

9. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Castro 236 SCRA 257 GR No. 103047 September 2, 1994

10. Ching Huat vs. Co Heong 77 PHIL 988 GR No. L-1211 January 30, 1947

11. Board of Commissioners vs. Dela Rosa 197 SCRA 853 GR No. 95612-13 May 31, 1991

12. Ninal vs. Bayadog 328 SCRA 122 GR No. 133778 March 14, 2000

13. Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals 266 SCRA 324 GR No. 119190 January 16, 1997

14. Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court 260 SCRA 221 GR No. 122749 July 31, 1996

15. Domingo vs. Court of Appeals 226 SCRA 572 GR No. 104818 September 17, 1993

16. Republic of the Philippines vs. Dagdag GR No. 109975 February 9, 2001

17. Santos vs. Court of Appeals and Rosario Bedia-Santos GR No. 112019

18. Marcos vs. Marcos GR No. 136490 October 19, 2000

19. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina GR No. 108763 February 13, 1997

20. Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris GR No. 162368 July 17, 2006

21. Antonio vs. Reyes GR No. 155800 March 10. 2006

22. Domingo vs. Court of Appeals 226 SCRA 572 GR No. 104818 September 17, 1993

23. Gomez vs. Lipana 33 SCRA 615 GR No. L-23214 June 30, 1970

24. Republic of the Philippines vs. Nolasco 200 SCRA 20 GR No. 94053 March 17, 1993

25. Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee 18 SCRA 450 GR No. L-18176 October 26, 1966

26. Sin vs. Sin GR No. 137590 March 26, 2001

27. Silva vs. Court of Appeals 275 SCRA 604 GR No. 114742 July 17, 1997

28. Valdez vs. Regional Trial Court 260 SCRA 221 GR No. 122749 July 31, 1996

29. Nicdao vs. Cario GR No. 132529 February 2, 2001

33. Manuel G. Almelor vs. Regional Trial Court GR No. 179620 August 26, 2008

34. Ocampo vs. Florenciano 107 Phil 35 GR No. L-13553 February 23, 1960

35. Sabalones vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 106169 February 14, 1994

36. Lapuz vs. Eufemio 43 SCRA 177 GR No. L-30977 January 31, 1972

37. Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals 108 SCRA 314 GR No. L-38287 October 23, 1981

38. Ty vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 127406 November 27, 2000

39. Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 GR No. 119976 September 18, 1995

40. Ayala Investment and Development Company vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 118305 February 12, 1998

41. Agapay vs. Palang 276 SCRA 340 G.R. No. 116668. July 28, 1997

42. Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez 20 SCRA 908 GR No. L-23002 July 31, 1967

43. Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz 130 Phil 324 G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968

44. Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc 17 Phil 107 G.R. No. 4883 September 27, 1910

45. Hagosojos vs. Court of Appeals 155 SCRA 175 GR No. L-59690 October 28, 1987

46. Imperial Insurance vs. David 133 SCRA 317 GR No. L-32425 November 21, 1984

47. Santiago vs. Commission on Audit GR No. 92284 July 12, 1991

48. Villanueva vs. IAC 192 SCRA 21 GR No. 74577 December 4, 1990

49. Jocson vs. Court of Appeals 170 SCRA 333 G.R. No. L-55322 February 16, 1989

50. People vs. Lagrimas 29 SCRA 153 G.R. No. L-25355 August 28, 1969

51. BA Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals 161 SCRA 608

52. Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 125172 June 26, 1998

53. Uy vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 109557 November 29, 2000

54. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals 277 SCRA 57

55. Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals 100 SCRA 73 (1980)

56. Babiera vs. Catotal GR No. 138493 June 15, 2000

57. DSWD, et. al. vs. Belen AM No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1987

58. Republic of the Philippines vs. Toledano GR No. 94147 June 8, 1994

q9. Advincula vsu Advincula 10 SuRA 189 GR No. Lu19065 January 31, 1964

60. Cang vs. Court of Appeals 296 SCRA 128

61. Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals 242 SCRA 362 GR No. 115640 March 15, 1995

62. Republic of the Philippines vs. Jennifer B. Cagandahan GR. No. 166676 September 12, 2008

Full text courtesy of LawPhil Project