HOME

SEARCH

REGISTER RSS

MY ACCOUNT

EMBED RSS

SUPER RSS

Contact Us

Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J.

Laserna Jr.
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate
Account: (login)

More Channels

Showcase

RSS Channel Showcase 8856341

RSS Channel Showcase 9738231

RSS Channel Showcase 3506857

RSS Channel Showcase 9397893

Channel Catalog

Subsection Catalog

Articles on this Page

(showing articles 401 to 420 of 799)

03/07/14--22:50: _Why Luy dropped Bal...

03/11/14--05:27: _Legal Ethics. - De...

03/11/14--05:45: _BusinessMirror - Sa...

03/11/14--05:49: _Cybercrime law - Re...

03/18/14--00:14: _Bar Exam Results 20...

03/18/14--00:21: _BusinessMirror - Ph...

03/18/14--02:52: _BAR EXAMS 2014

03/20/14--02:11: _JBC gets 8 names fo...

03/23/14--22:27: _SC: Illegitimate ch...

03/24/14--01:17: _New MARINA law - Re...

03/26/14--03:33: _January 2014 Philip...

03/29/14--10:44: _Prayer to Saint Tho...

03/29/14--11:13: _B.M. No. 1755: Rule...

03/29/14--11:52: _"PROTECTING THE NAT...

03/29/14--12:44: _A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC...

03/29/14--13:08: _"Compensation" in C...

03/29/14--13:28: _Probable cause: whe...

04/08/14--13:20: _To restrain the gov...

04/08/14--13:23: _On stealing...

04/08/14--13:25: _When the law is unj...

(showing articles 401 to 420 of 799)

Browse the Latest Snapshot

Browsing All Articles (799 Articles)

Live Browser

Channel Description:

Email - mjlasernajr@gmail.com, cc: lcmlaw@gmail.com. Tel. No. (63 2)

8725443, 8462539. Fax No. (63 2) 8462539. Address: Unit 15, Star Arcade,
C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740 Metro Manila,
Philippines.
older | 1 | .... | 18 | 19 | 20 | (Page 21) | 22 | 23 | 24 | .... | 40 | newer

03/07/14--22:50: Why Luy dropped Baligod as counsel

See - Why Luy dropped Baligod as counsel

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines The cracks are starting to show. After principal pork barrel scam witness
Benhur Luy relieved lawyer Levito Baligod as his counsel, there are indications more witnesses will
do the same. (READ: Luy relieves Baligod as PDAF scam counsel)
Luys mother Getrudes and another unnamed whistleblower are also reportedly contemplating
cutting the services of Baligod, who is also a private complainant in the pork barrel case that has
implicated 3 senators and a number of lawmakers in the House of Representatives.For now, Baligod
is still representing Merlina Suas, another whistleblower.

Luy had been seeking attention and sending signals to Baligod a number of times that he felt
ignored, but the lawyer apparently paid no attention.
A source privy to developments in the witnesses' camp said Luy and Baligod tried to patch things up,
at least once, but it did not work. They already had a one-on-one meeting to discuss each others
issues but apparently they were not able to arrive at a compromise, the source said.
Newly widowed when he took on Luy's case in early 2013, Baligod got engaged last January to a
wealthy Leyte politician, Marilou Galenzoga. Baligod was frequently seen in Baybay, his fiance's
home city, almost every week since Super Typhoon Yolanda devastated the place last November. He
has also become part of Galenzoga's legal team in her pending election cases.
Last straw: Justice Gregory Ong probe
Luy reportedly first observed that Baligod had his mind on other things whenever they would have
hearings at the Makati Regional Court, which is trying the illegal detention case.
Luy repeats this explanation at a Senate Blue Ribbon committee hearing.
Baligod only attended at least twice in the many times Luy and other witnesses were summoned by
the court. In one instance, Baligod reportedly left the court after being there for only 15 minutes.
A reporter covering the proceedings confirmed she saw Baligod only once or twice in court. Baligod
would also miss several appearances in the Senate blue ribbon committee hearings on the pork
barrel scam.
But what apparently broke the camels back was when Baligod failed to accompany Luy when he
appeared before a Supreme Court investigation into the allegations raised against Sandiganbayan
Senior Justice Gregory Ong. (READ: Exclusive: Napoles parties with anti-graft court justice)
The SC has tapped retired Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez to look into the allegations raised by
Luy during one Senate hearing that Ong was a regular fixture in parties where Napoles was also
present. Ong is a member of the 4th Division that tried the P3.8 million Kevlar helmet case where
Napoles was among the accused.
Napoles was acquitted of the charges but her brother Reynald and his wife Anna Marie Dulguime
were convicted for conspiracy to falsify public documents. (READ: How Janet-Lim Napoles got
away )
In that SC hearing, Luy was instead accompanied by two lawyers sent by Baligod. They also
reportedly argued over the phone over an issue involving disclosures. The source would not reveal
details of what led to the argument, citing lawyer-client confidentiality.
Rappler tried to call Baligod several times but he has not returned calls.
Legal strategy

Luy also complained that he was being kept in the

dark by Baligod about legal strategies in building up
the pork barrel case.
One particular instance involved Technology
Resource Center chief Dennis Cunanan (officially on
leave), who was initially tagged by Luy as among
those who benefitted from the pork barrel scam.
Cunanan however denied that he pocketed rebates
from Napoles.
Baligod has tapped Cunanan to help pin Senator
Ramon Bong" Revilla Jr in the pork barrel scam.
Cunanan is now a provisional state witness.
A source from the whistleblowers camp said Luy is
concerned that his and Cunanans testimony will not
jibe as far as his culpability in the scam is concerned.
Were saying he accepted bribes. He is saying he did
not. How do we reconcile this conflicting claim? the
source said.
Luy is also reportedly uncomfortable about Baligod
being Cunanans counsel. In an earlier phone
interview, Baligod confirmed that he is counsel for
Cunanan, stressing that he had known Cunanan even
before the pork barrel scandal broke out.

In fact, only after I got confirmation from Cunanan

that the pork barrel of the lawmakers was misused
that I found the resolve to pursue the case, Baligod
said in that interview.
Thankful
On Monday afternoon, March 3, Luy proceeded to the National Bureau of Investigation to formally
inform authorities that he was severing ties with Baligod, his counsel in the pork barrel case and in
the illegal detention case he filed against former employer and cousin Janet Lim Napoles.
On Tuesday, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima confirmed that Luy had severed his ties with Baligod,
on the ground that Baligod lacked the time to attend to Luy's legal needs.
It has been a rough and rugged road for us, and for all you have done, I am eternally thankful.
However, I have noticed that you are very busy with your other advocacies and that is why I have
decided to pursue this journey even without [you] guiding me, a portion of Luys letter to Baligod
said.

The witnesses who want to drop Baligod are also

citing "lack of time" on his part to attend to their legal
needs.

In several instances, Luy complained that Baligod

lacked time for us, and these would reach Baligod.
When Super Typhoon Haiyan struck, Baligod could
not be reached by the whistleblowers, who found out
later that the lawyer went to Baybay, Leyte, to help out
in his fiance's relief operations. Rappler.com
x xx ."

03/11/14--05:27: Legal Ethics. - December 2013 Philippine

Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics |
LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

See - December 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics |
LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

"x x x.

Attorney; Applicability of the Code of Professional Responsibility to

lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks. Private respondents were charged before the Court of Tax Appeals for
violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended.
However, the CTA dismissed the case since the prosecution failed to present
certified true copies of the documentary evidence submitted contrary to Section

7, Rule 130 and Section 127, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The Run After the
Smugglers (RATS) Group, Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG), as
counsel for the BOC, filed a petition for certiorari but the petition was filed beyond
the reglementary period.
The Supreme Court held that the display of patent violations of even the
elementary rules shows that the case against respondents was doomed by
design from the start. This stance taken by the lawyers in government service
rouses the Courts vigilance against inefficiency in the administration of justice.
Verily, the lawyers representing the offices under the executive branch should be
reminded that they still remain as officers of the court from whom a high sense of
competence and fervor is expected. The Court will not close its eyes to this sense
of apathy in RATS lawyers, lest the governments goal of revenue enhancement
continues to suffer the blows of smuggling and similar activities. The Court
reminded the lawyers in the BOC that the canons embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility equally apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks. Thus, RATS lawyers should exert every effort and
consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. People of the Philippines v. The Hon. Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., et
al., G.R. No. 208290, December 11, 2013.
Attorney; Champertous contract. Complainants engaged the legal
services of Atty. Baez, Jr. in connection with the recovery of their
properties from Fevidal. Complainants signed a contract of legal
services, where they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees
to Atty. Baez Jr., but that the docket fees would instead be shared by
the parties. Under the contract, complainants would pay him 50% of
whatever would be recovered of the properties. Later, however,
complainants terminated his services and entered into an amicable
settlement with Fevidal. Atty. Baez, Jr. opposed the withdrawal of their
complaint in court. Thus, complainants filed a case against him
alleging that the motion of Atty. Baez, Jr. for the recording of his
attorneys charging lien was the legal problem preventing them from
enjoying the fruits of their property.
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows an attorney to
intervene in a case to protect his rights concerning the payment of his

compensation. According to the discretion of the court, the attorney

shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money
rendered in a case in which his services have been retained by the
client. In this case, however, the contract for legal services is in the
nature of a champertous contract an agreement whereby an attorney
undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the
clients rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing
in dispute. Such contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus
void or inexistent. They are also contrary to Canon 16.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which states that lawyers shall not lend
money to a client, except when in the interest of justice, they have to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling for
the client. Thus, the Court held that Atty. Baez, Jr. violated Canon
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conchita Baltazar,et al. v.
Atty. Juan B. Baez, Jr., A.C. No. 9091, December 11, 2013.
Attorney; Disbarment proceedings. A disbarment case was filed against
Atty. Macapagal. He was charged with dishonesty (1) when he stated in
the defendants Answer in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 that the parties
therein are strangers to each other; (2) when he introduced a falsified
Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence in Civil Case No. A-9522906; and (3) when he knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading
captioned as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction in the same case. The Supreme Court held that
these issues are proper subjects of and must be threshed out in a
judicial action. However, since Atty. Macapagal failed to file a comment
and his position paper despite his receipt of Notice, he was
reprimanded for failing to give due respect to the Court and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Nestor V. Felipe, et al. v. Atty. Ciriaco A.
Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 2, 2013.
Attorney; Disobedience to court directives. Complainant Sy charged
Respondent Esponilla, Legal Researcher and then Officer-In-Charge of
Br. 54 of RTC Manila, and Atty. Buendia, clerk of court and ex-officio
sheriff of RTC Manila with Gross Misconduct, Negligence and
Dishonesty. The complaint was in connection with the irregular
withdrawal of deposits for monthly rentals in a civil case based on a

purported Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits filed by Atty.

Bayhon in the civil case. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Bayhon
violated the Lawyers Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for failing to explain, in good faith the
circumstances surrounding the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion which he
himself filed, for proffering misleading claims in the course of the
subject administrative investigation, and for not having shown and
proved that he exerted his best efforts to secure and submit a copy of
the Ex-Parte Motion all in violation of the resolutions issued by the
Court. Atty. Bayhon was suspended for six (6) months from the practice
of law. Elpidio Sy, President, Systems Realty Development Corporation v. Edgar
Esponilla, Legal Researcher and Officer-in-Charge, et al., A.M. No. P-06-2261,
December 11, 2013.
Attorney; Due diligence in handling clients case. Respondents were
charged for gross negligence in handling the labor complaints of
complainant. The Supreme Court held that the relationship between a
lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be evermindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of
diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote
his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He is
likewise expected to act with honesty in all his dealings, especially with
the courts. These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule
10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. In this case, Atty. Quesadas failure to
attend the scheduled conference hearings, despite due notice and
without any proper justification, exhibits his inexcusable lack of care
and diligence in managing his clients cause in violation of Canon 17
and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code. Felipe C. Dagala v. Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, A.C. No. 5044, December 2,
2013.
Attorney; Duty to represent a client must be within the bounds of
law. The Supreme Court issued a Resolution dismissing the

administrative complaint of Tomas Merdegia against Court of Appeals

Justice Veloso. The Resolution directed Atty. Adaza II, Merdegias
counsel, to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. The
Supreme Court held Atty. Adaza II guilty of indirect contempt. Atty.
Adaza prepared the administrative complaint after Justice Veloso
refused to inhibit himself from a case he was handling. The complaint
and the motion for inhibition were both based on the same main cause:
the alleged partiality of Justice Veloso during the oral arguments of
Merdegias case. The resolution dismissing the motion for inhibition
should have disposed of the issue of Justice Velosos bias. If they
doubted the legality of the Resolution, they could have filed a petition
for certiorari.
Administrative complaints against justices cannot and should not
substitute for appeal and other judicial remedies against an assailed
decision or ruling. While a lawyer has a duty to represent his client with
zeal, he must do so within the bounds provided by law. He is also dutybound to impress upon his client the propriety of the legal action the
latter wants to undertake, and to encourage compliance with the law
and legal processes. Atty. Adaza failed to impress upon his client the
features of the Philippine adversarial system, the substance of the law
on ethics and respect for the judicial system, and his own failure to
heed what his duties as a professional and as an officer of the Court
demand of him in acting for his client before the courts. Re: Verified
Complaint of Tomas S. Merdegia against Hon. Vicente S.E. Veloso, etc./Re:
Resolution dated October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-205-CA-J against Atty.
Homobono Adaza II, IPI No. 12-205-CA-J/A.C. No. 10300, December 10,
2013.
Attorney; Gross misconduct. Heenan filed a complaint against Atty.
Espejo for violation of the Lawyers Oath due to the latters failure to
pay a loan. The Supreme Court found Atty. Espejo guilty of gross
misconduct. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance
of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned. Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform
their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. The
prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of a

lawyer. The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the
worthless checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney of
Heenan is of no moment. A lawyer may be disciplined not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross
misconduct outside of his professional capacity. While the Court may
not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his nonprofessional or private capacity, the Court may be justified in
suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct
outside of the lawyer professional dealings is so gross in character as
to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his
licenses and the law confer. Thus, Atty. Espejo was suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years. Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda
Espejo, A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013.
Judge; Gross Ignorance of the Law. Complainant claimed that since
Judge Cajigals appointment as presiding judge of RTC, Branch 96,
Quezon City, the latter has displayed gross inefficiency by failing to
resolve within the prescribed period a number of incidents. Moreover,
complainant questions the propriety of the Judges decision in a case
he is involved in. The Supreme Court held that the charges of
ignorance of the law are bereft of merit. Judge Cajigals order was
issued in the proper exercise of his judicial functions, and as such, is
not subject to administrative disciplinary action; especially considering
that the complainant failed to establish bad faith on the part of the
judge. Well entrenched is the rule that a judge may not be
administratively sanctioned for mere errors of judgment in the
absence of showing of any bad faith, fraud, malice, gross ignorance,
corrupt purpose, or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her
part. Moreover, as a matter of public policy, a judge cannot be
subjected to liability for any of his official acts, no matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. To hold otherwise would be
to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the
facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
infallible in his judgment. Narciso G. Dulalia v. Judge Afable E. Cajigal, RTC,
Br. 96, Quezon City, A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-3492-RTJ, December 4, 2013.

Judge; Voluntary inhibition. Rallos charges Justice Hernando with bias

because he voluntarily inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676
only after the promulgation of the March 28, 2012 and April 13, 2012
resolutions. The Supreme Court held that the fact that Justice
Hernando voluntarily inhibited himself after writing the assailed
resolutions did not establish his bias against Rallos and her co-heirs
considering that the inhibition was for the precise objective of
eliminating suspicions of undue influence. The justification of Justice
Hernando was commendable, and should be viewed as a truly just and
valid ground for his self-disqualification as a judicial officer in a specific
case. Further, Rallos insists that she was entitled to be informed about
the inhibitions of the Justices and about their reasons for the
inhibitions. The Court held that there is nothing in Rule V or in any
other part of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals that specifically
requires that the party-litigants be informed of the mandatory or
voluntary inhibition of a Justice. Nevertheless, a party-litigant who
desires to be informed of the inhibition of a Justice and of the reason
for the inhibition must file a motion for inhibition in the manner
provided under Section 3, Rule V of the Internal Rules of the Court of
Appeals.
However, the Court held that henceforth all the parties in any action or
proceedings should be immediately notified of any mandatory
disqualification or voluntary inhibition of the Justice who has
participated in any action of the court, stating the reason for the
mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition. The requirement of
notice is a measure to ensure that the disqualification or inhibition has
not been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to prejudice any
party or cause. Re: Letters of Lucena B. Rallos, for alleged
acts/incidents/occurences relative to the resolutions(s) issued in CA-G.R. SP No.
06676 by Court of Appeals Executive Justice Pampio Abarintos and Associate
Justices Ramol Paul Hernando and Victoria Isabel Paredes/Re: Complaint filed
by Lucena B. Rallos against Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Pamela Ann Maxino, and
Carmelita S. Manahan, IPI No. 12-203-CA-J/A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA,
December 10, 2013.

x x x."

03/11/14--05:45: BusinessMirror - Savants optimistic about SC

reversal on ban on Bt eggplant trials

See - BusinessMirror - Savants optimistic about SC reversal on ban on Bt eggplant trials

"x x x.

Savants optimistic about SC reversal on ban on Bt

eggplant trials
O

Details
Category: Science
08 Mar 2014
Written by Marvyn N. Benaning

SCIENTISTS promoting the propagation of biotech crops in the Philippines are optimistic that the Supreme

Court (SC) would overturn the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that barred the field testing of Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant.
In a news briefing on Thursday in Makati City, former University of the Philippines (UP) President Emil Q. Javier
noted that the magistrates at the High Court were receptive to the scientific position taken by the proponents of the Bt
eggplant field testing.
The CA has earlier granted the injunction against the field tests on the basis of the findings of a French team that
laboratory mice developed tumors when fed with Bt corn, which possess the same proteins for Bt eggplant.

The study undertaken by Dr. Eric Seralini of the University of Caen was eventually withdrawn by the Food and
Chemical Toxicology (FCT) Journal upon finding out that the number of mice used in the experiment was so few to
merit a binding general conclusion.
FCT found out that the strain of mice used had a proclivity to tumors to the extent that even those fed with standard
non-Bt corn diet developed tumors and died while those that consumed Bt corn survived.
Supporters of Bt eggplant have used the retraction of the article in November 24, 2013, as an additional argument for
the SC to strike down the writ of kalikasan issued by the CA against the Bt eggplant field trials.
Moreover, claimed the scientists, the field tests have been completed, thus, making the argument of Greenpeace
moot.
Dr. Gil C. Saguiguit Jr., director of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in
Agriculture (Searca), said biotech crops are crucial for agricultural rural development, with the figures showing that
farmers have benefited from Bt corn cultivation since 2002 without any deleterious impact on their health and the
environment.
Reacting to suggestions that the coalition backing biotech crops must also have the fire in the belly and the zeal in
pushing their cause, officials of the Department of Agriculture (DA), Institute of Plant Breeding of the University of the
Philippines Los Baos (UPLB) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA)
noted that scientists are not given to waging propaganda campaigns.
Nonetheless, they vowed to intensify their information campaign to promote the truth and make all their pieces of
scientific information palatable to SC justices, government officials, farmers, consumers, nongovernmental
organization members, the religious and even to Greenpeace leaders and members.
In the same briefing, Agriculture Undersecretary for Policy Segfredo Serrano said, It is hard to believe that
Greenpeace and the other petitioners were demanding 100 percent certainty that Bt eggplant would not pose any
threat. There is no such thing, he explained, since even conventional varieties pose risks to consumers, particularly if
the eggplants are bombarded with insecticides.
Dr. Randy Hautea, global coordinator of ISAAA, said that some magistrates had told him pag-usapan na lang ninyo
ito [talk this over], which means the parties should allow both biotech crops and conventional varieties to be grown.
Hautea said he is always open to a discussion with the critics of Bt eggplant but complained that some people see
things in black and white and consequently would not let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand schools of
thought contend.
Roger Navarro of the Philippine Maize Federation Inc. said the Philippines is so large that both biotech crops and
conventional varieties could be cultivated and could even engage in friendly competition. Marvyn N. Benaning.
x x x."
In Photo: A researcher from the University of the Philippines Los Baos Institute of Plant Breeding shows Bt
eggplants harvested from the field test site in Santa Maria, Pangasinan, in June 2010. (Lyn Resurreccion)

03/11/14--05:49: Cybercrime law - Rest of iceberg | Inquirer

Opinion

See - Rest of iceberg | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

Rest of iceberg
By Ibarra Barry M. Gutierrez III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Ads by Google
Much of the online outrage that came in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Disini v.
Secretary of Justice was directed at the portion of the ruling upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(c)4 of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175)the cyberlibel provision.
Even the three dissenting members of the courtChief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and Justices Antonio Carpio
and Marvic Leonenall focused their dissents mainly on the question of cyberlibel and the related libel provision in
the Revised Penal Code.
But while the cyberlibel question is indisputably significant, it is not the only concern in relation to free speech in the
cybercrime law.
More insidious threat
The seemingly innocuous Section 6, which transplants provisions of the Revised Penal Code into the law, so
long as they are committed by, through and with the use of communication and information technologies
(ICT), is potentially an even more insidious threat to online speech than cyberlibel. Yet, thus far, it has sailed
largely unscathed through the storms of protest that came in the wake of the laws enactment and its
ratification by the Supreme Court in Disini.
The decision in Disini devotes a single, somewhat dismissive, paragraph to discussing Section 6, saying that
the provision merely makes the commission of existing crimes through the Internet a qualifying
circumstance.
Section 6 is phrased simply enough: All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, that the penalty to be imposed
shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws, as the case may be.
ICT undefined
To my mind, there are at least two problems with Section 6 that were not substantially taken up either in the main
decision, or in the dissenting opinions.
The first is that by treating the use of information and communications technologiesa term that is not even defined
in the law itselfas a qualifying circumstance to all crimes defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, it
opens the floodgates to a slew of prosecutions that have nothing to do with cyberspace.
Cyberestafa

For instance, using a cell phone to send threatening text messages, mislead strangers into thinking that theyve won
a cash prize, or inform your fellow burglars that the guards by the backdoor of the warehouse are gone, can now all
be potentially penalized as cyberthreats, cyberestafa, and cyberrobbery, respectively.
And as we come to rely more on our mobile phones, laptops, tablets, Google glasses andwho knows, eventually
surgically implanted chips, at some point, it is conceivable that all crimes will be cybercrimes due to the phrasing of
Section 6.
The second problem is more specific and relates to other provisions of the Revised Penal Code that have been
imported into the cybercrime law, again through Section 6.
The most glaring example here is Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the crime of inciting to
sedition. This punishes any personx x x who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish or circulate
scurrilous libels against the Government of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which
tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to
cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which
lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety
and order of the Government x x x
Adopted from sedition law
This provision is adopted from the 1901 Sedition Law promulgated by the US colonial government to deter uprisings
by Filipinos. It has persisted in our statute books. It was used by presidents, such as Ferdinand Marcos and, more
recently, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to crack down on their critics and political opponents.
It has been given a new, more potent existence through Section 6.
Tweeting that the government is dirty, a dictatorship, or shameful will likely subject the hapless netizen to
prosecution for cybersedition as these are all invectives that the Supreme Court, in the 1951 case of Espuelas v.
People, has deemed seditious.
In fact, according to the same case, unless the criticism is specific and therefore constructive, reasoned or
tempered, it is punishable.
Feelings of the faithful
Another is Article 133, used to convict Carlos Celdran. This provision penalizes anyone who x x x shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
The phrase notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful has tremendous potential for taking to task for
cyberblasphemy all those people with proreproductive health (RH) posts who clutter our online spaces.
I have a friend who makes a habit of debating RH opponents online and I suppose I have to warn him that he is now
potentially opening himself up to criminal prosecution.
Finally, there is Article 287, which penalizes unjust vexation with imprisonment of up to 30 days. While seemingly
trivial, this provision becomes potent when fused with Section 6 since a person can now face up to six months
imprisonment for any vexing, irritating or annoying statements posted online. And really, on a regular day, how many
annoying posts do you see on your news feed?
6 months for cybervexing
Post an acerbic comment about all those selfies your friend uploads, and, thanks to Section 6, you may be looking at
six months in Bilibid for cybervexing.
Ultimately, the problem with Section 6 is that it transplants wholesale hundreds of crimes from an 82-year-old law
many of which were in turn adopted from laws enacted centuries earlierand attempts to adopt them to the
completely new, completely different terrain of cyberspace.
And cyberlibel is, very much, just the tip of a very large, very heavy iceberg.
(Ibarra Barry M. Gutierrez III is a former director of the University of the Philippines Institute of Human
Rights and former Criminal Law professor at the UP College of Law. He is also an Akbayan party-list
representative.)

x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/72387/rest-of-iceberg#ixzz2veqUYgE2
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

03/18/14--00:14: Bar Exam Results 2013, Complete List of

October 2013 Philippine Bar Exams Passers | Zeibiz

See - Bar Exam Results 2013, Complete List of October 2013 Philippine Bar Exams Passers | Zeibiz

2013 Bar Topnotchers

1. Nielson Pangan
University of the Philippines
85.8%
2. Mark Oyales
University of the Philippines
Dianna Wilwayco
Ateneo De Manila University
3. Rudy Ortega
University of Batangas
4. Eden Mopia
University of the Philippines
5. Tercel Mercado
University of San Carlos
6. Manuel Sarausad
University of Cebu
7. Katrine Suyat
San Beda College-Manila
8. Michael Tiu, Jr.
University of the Philippines
9. Marjorie Fulgueras
Ateneo De Manila University

10. Cyril Arnesto

University of the Philippines

03/18/14--00:21: BusinessMirror - Philippine libel laws must be

repaired

See - BusinessMirror - Philippine libel laws must be repaired

"x x x.

Philippine libel laws must be repaired

O

Details
Category: Opinion
12 Mar 2014
Written by The BusinessMirror Editorial

THE recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the online-libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act

of 2012 as constitutional has not resolved the general libel laws in the Philippines.
Libel is defined as the publication of words and/or images that damage the good reputation of a person or legal entity.
The question of which published statements are considered libelous goes back at least 2,000 years to ancient Rome.
During the time, it was established that even if negative comments about a person were true, it could be considered
libelous and as going against proper public behavior. A person was protected from unnecessary public humiliation,
insults and shame.
The defense against libel has evolved to where a person accused of libelous behavior could respond that the
offensive statements he or she made were true and that these were being disseminated for the greater public good.

But if the statements were made public only to hurt someones reputation, then the libel law could be invoked.
Further, there is a difference between the application of libel laws to a public figure and that to a private citizen.
However, libel laws have never been fixed or completely clear. Sometimes, false statements, if made without malice
and believed as true, could be deemed nonlibelous. Calling another person foolish could be acceptable if it was only
the name-callers opinion. If a newspaper published an article that said a person acted as though he or she was
crooked, that could either be an opinion or a fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Truly, libel laws, whether criminal or civil, are

confusing and subject to many interpretations.
But one thing is clear. In 2011 the United Nations Human Rights Council described the Philippine libel law as
excessive, antiquated and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the
country is a signatory.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility reported on March 10 that Mindanao Gold Star Daily Editor in
Chief Herbie Gomez has been charged with criminal libel for publishing allegedly libelous advertisements in 2012.
Contending factions in a lending company placed the ads sometime in September 2012, after which one faction filed
a libel case against the other, implicating Gomez and the newspaper.
In other words, a newspaper that publishes an advertisement from private citizens criticizing other private citizens is
now facing prosecution.
This is not acceptable.
It is important that free speech is not censored or threatened with criminal prosecution. It is also important that a
person or legal entity must have protection against unwarranted, false and/or malicious statements. Congress must
create laws that will maintain a balance between these two basic human rights. Also, the media should not be given
the job of deciding what is libelous or not under threat of prosecution.
It is time for the legislature to take responsibility and do its job of making realistic and proper laws on this issue.
x x x."

03/18/14--02:52: BAR EXAMS 2014

see - BAR 2014

BAR Bulletins
BAR Bulletin No. 1: SYLLABUS FOR 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS

Political Law

Labor Law

Civil Law

Taxation

Mercantile Law

Criminal Law

Remedial Law

Legal and Judicial Ethics

03/20/14--02:11: JBC gets 8 names for SC post | Headlines,

News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

See - JBC gets 8 names for SC post | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has received at least eight
nominations for the post in the Supreme Court (SC) to be vacated by the retirement of
Associate Justice Roberto Abad in May.
Of the nominees, seven are insiders in the judiciary: four from the Court of Appeals, two
from the Sandiganbayan and a regional trial court judge.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza was included in the list obtained by The STAR as
the lone outsider.
Among the nominees is Associate Justice
Ramon Paul Hernando of the CAs 19th division in Cebu City, currently the youngest
magistrate in the judiciary at 47.

Hernando, a law professor and law book author, has been leading all CA justices in
terms of case disposition over the past two years a distinction previously held by
Justice Mariano del Castillo before his appointment to the high court.
A product of San Beda College of Law, Hernando served as a prosecutor in the
Department of Justice from 1998 to 2003 and a judge in various RTCs from 2003 until
he was appointed to the CA in 2010.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Edwin Dayog nominated Hernando, citing his
competence and integrity as qualifications for the SC post.
Also nominated were CA Presiding Justice Andres Reyes Jr. and CA Associate Justices
Rosmari Carandang and Noel Tijam.
Reyes comes from a family of magistrates. His father and namesake was also presiding
justice of the CA while his grandfather Alex Reyes was former justice of the SC.
Carandang is a Bar 9th placer from the UP College of Law while Tijam served as judge
from 1994 before being appointed to the CA in 2003.
From the Sandiganbayan, Associate Justices Ma. Cristina Cornejo and Rafael Reyes
were also in the list of candidates, along with Jardeleza and Quezon City RTC Judge
Reynaldo Daway.
Other nominations received by the JBC during the deadline for filing of applications and
nominations last Tuesday were still being processed, which means more names could
be included in the list.
The JBC secretariat said the deadline for the submission of nomination would no longer
be extended.
The Constitution requires a candidate for the position of associate justice of the SC to
be a natural born citizen, at least 40 years of age, and with 15 years or more of
experience as a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the country.
The magistrate must also be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
The new justice will be the fifth appointment to the 15-member high court by President
Aquino. The first four were Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justices
Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen.
x x x."

03/23/14--22:27: SC: Illegitimate children dont have to use

fathers name | Inquirer News

see - SC: Illegitimate children dont have to use fathers name | Inquirer News

"x x x.

MANILA, PhilippinesA father may not compel his illegitimate minor children to use his surname, the Supreme Court
has ruled.

The Supreme Court building in Manila. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

In a 12-page decision released Friday, the high court voted 11-0 to partially grant the petition of a congressmans
former mistress questioning a ruling by the Court of Appeals that compelled her two sons to take the surname of their
father.
The justices found merit in the petitioners contention that requiring her children to take the surname of their
father was not mandatory but merely optional under Republic Act No. 9255.
The exception provided is in case his or her filiation is expressly recognized by the father through the
record of birth appearing in the civil register or when an admission in a public document or private
handwritten instrument is made by the father. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname
of the father, the court said in the decision written by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.
The case stemmed from a custody petition filed by the congressman in the Aparri regional trial court (RTC) seeking to
change the childrens surname and appending a notarized deed of voluntary recognition of paternity of the children.
The RTC granted the congressmans plea and ordered the registrars office in Makati City where the children were
born to change their surname to that of their father.

RELATED STORIES
Rights of illegitimate children
Bill seeks to omit legitimate, illegitimate children in Family Code
x x x."
Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/588203/sc-illegitimate-children-dont-have-to-use-fathersname#ixzz2wr4L4FkA
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

03/24/14--01:17: New MARINA law - Republic Act No. 10635 |

Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Republic Act No. 10635 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10635]

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY (MARINA) AS THE
SINGLE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE 1978 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING FOR
SEAFARERS, AS AMENDED, AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OR
COVENANTS RELATED THERETO
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.The following are hereby declared to be the policies
of the State:
(a) The State shall ensure compliance with the 1978 International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW
Convention), as amended; all international agreements implementing or applying the
STCW Convention; and other international maritime safety conventions or agreements
that the STCW Convention seeks to promote compliance with;

(b) The State recognizes the vital contribution of the seafarers to the national economy.
Toward this end, the State shall establish systems and mechanisms for the promotion
and protection of the well-being of the seafarers to ensure their professionalism and
competitiveness, both in local and international trade, consistent with existing local labor
laws and applicable international laws;
(c) The State shall create a single maritime administrative system and structure that
shall provide an enabling environment for the business of Philippine seafaring; establish
appropriate institutional arrangements with other agencies of government; and create an
effective regulatory framework conducive to the efficiency, transparency and
competitiveness of the Philippine seafaring industry consistent with the STCW
Convention; and
(d) The State shall harmonize all legal and administrative measures which are taken and
provided for by government regulatory agencies and ensure that such measures are
appropriate and consistent with the STCW Convention.
SEC. 2. Definition of Terms.As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(a) Certificate of competencya certificate issued to masters, officers and Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) radio operators in accordance with the
provisions of Chapters II, III, IV or VII of the Annex to the STCW Convention entitling the
lawful holder to serve and perform the functions involved at the level of responsibility
specified therein.
(b) Certificate of endorsementan attestation of the maritime administration as to the
authenticity and validity of the certificates, incorporated in the format of the certificates
issued to masters and officers, stating that the issuance of the relevant certificate is in
compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention.
(c) Certificate of proficiencya certificate other than a certificate of competency issued
to a seafarer, stating that the relevant requirements of training competencies or
seagoing service under the STCW Convention have been met.
(d) Documentary evidenceall the documentation, other than a certificate of
competency or certificate of proficiency, used to establish that the relevant requirements
of the STCW Convention have been met.
(e) Maritime administration or single maritime administrationthe Maritime Industry
Authority (MARINA), as the single government agency mandated to ensure complete
and effective implementation of the STCW Convention.

(f) Seafarerany person who is employed, engaged or works onboard seagoing ships,
whether or not such ships are engaged in the domestic or overseas trade, and to whom
the STCW Convention applies.
(g) STCW Conventionthe 1978 International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, and its subsequent amendments.
SEC. 3. MARINA as the Single Maritime Administration.The MARINA, created under
Presidential Decree. No. 474, as amended, shall be the single maritime administration
mandated to implement and enforce the 1978 International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. It shall carry out an effective
regulatory framework conducive to the efficiency, transparency and competitiveness of
the Philippine seafaring industry.
SEC. 4. Powers and Functions of the MARINA.In addition to the mandate of the
MARINA under Presidential Decree No. 474, as amended, and in order to carry out the
provisions of this Act, the MARINA shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(a) Act as the single and central maritime administration for all purposes relating to
compliance with the STCW Convention.
(b) Administer and ensure the effective implementation of the STCW Convention;
including all international conventions or agreements implementing or applying the
same, as well as international maritime safety conventions or agreements that it seeks
to promote compliance with.
(c) Assume all powers and functions of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC),
the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA), the Department of Health (DOH) and the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) relative to the issuance, validation, verification,
correction, revocation or cancellation of certificates of competency, endorsement,
proficiency and documentary evidence required of all seafarers and all such other
matters pertaining to the implementation of the STCW Convention, subject to the
following:
(1) The MARINA shall ensure that the examination, licensing and certification system for
marine deck and engine officers are in accordance with the requirements prescribed
under the STCW Convention. All powers, duties and functions of the PRC on
examination, licensing and certification system for marine deck and engine officers as
provided in Republic Act No. 8544, otherwise known as The Philippine Merchant
Marine Officers Act of 1998, shall henceforth be exercised by the MARINA. The

compensation and allowances of the Board of Marine Deck Officers and Marine Engine
Officers under Article TV, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8544 shall, however, be
comparable to the compensation and allowances being received by the chairpersons
and members of other existing regulatory boards under the PRC and as provided in the
General Appropriations Act.
(2) The MARINA shall adopt rules and regulations, in accordance with the STCW
Convention, governing able-bodied deck and engine ratings including:
(i) Monitoring and verification of compliance with the standards of ratings;
(ii) Harmonization of the procedures for periodic evaluation, assessment and monitoring
activities undertaken by accredited institutions with registered programs for ratings; and
(iii) Issuance of certificates of proficiency to ratings.
(3) The MARINA shall ensure that all legal and administrative measures relative to the
issuance of certificates of competency of GMDSS radio operators are in accordance
with the STCW Convention. For this purpose, the MARINA shall assess, revalidate and
issue GMDSS radio operators certificate in accordance with the provisions under the
STCW Convention.
(4) The MARINA shall ensure that all maritime education, including the curricula and
training programs, are structured and delivered in accordance with the written programs,
methods and media of delivery, procedures, and course materials compliant with
international standards as prescribed under the STCW Convention. For this purpose,
the MARINA shall:
(i) Chair the Technical Panel on Maritime Education (TPME) of the CHED; the TPME
shall among others, formulate, review and recommend to the CHED en banc all policies,
standards, and guidelines for maritime education, including curricula, facilities and
guidelines;
(ii) Monitor and verify, in coordination with the CHED, compliance with the policies,
standards, and guidelines of maritime education in the conduct of maritime education
and training programs;(iii) Review and harmonize the procedures for periodic evaluation, assessment and
monitoring of all maritime education and training institutions in accordance with the
standards of the CHED and other recognized international organizations;
(iv) Develop, formulate and recommend for implementation, strict quality assurance
mechanisms and relevant typology for maritime education programs and institutions;

(v) Recommend to the CHED en banc the closure/phase-out of substandard maritime

education institutions, in accordance with the rules and regulations, as well as
recommend alternative schemes or options for the affected maritime educational
institution;
(vi) Maintain an updated list of compliant and phased-out maritime education and
training programs, publish such lists in appropriate media, and provide the public with a
clear understanding of the consequences of enrolling in a phased-out program;
(5) The MARINA shall coordinate with the DOH to ensure that the medical standards
established to ascertain the medical fitness of seafarers are in accordance with the
international conventions/treaties and existing laws. For this purpose, the MARINA shall:
(i) Ensure that the medical examinations and issuance of medical certificates by the
DOH accredited hospitals, medical clinics, and laboratories, including medical
practitioners are in accordance with the standards prescribed by the STCW Convention;
and
(ii) Ensure that medical certificates are issued by a duly-qualified medical practitioner
recognized by and accredited with the DOH, and for this purpose, a register of
recognized medical practitioners shall be maintained and made available to seafarers,
shipping companies and State parties to the STCW Convention,
SEC. 5. Composition of the Maritime Industry Board.To ensure the proper
implementation and enforcement of the STCW Convention in relation to international
maritime safety and environmental agreements, the Commandant of the Philippine
Coast Guard (PCG), in lieu of the Secretary of National Defense, shall be included as
member of the Maritime Industry Board established pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
474 creating the MARINA. The Maritime Industry Board may create an advisory council
that will assist the MARINA in ensuring compliance with the STCW Convention, as it
may deem proper. The number and members of this council shall be identified and
determined by the Maritime Industry Board.
SEC. 6. Appropriations.The Secretary of Transportation and Communications,
through, the MARINA, shall immediately include in its programs the operationalization
requirement of the STCW Services, the initial funding of which shall be charged against
the savings or current years appropriations of the MARINA. Thereafter, such sums as
may be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be included in the
annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations.The MARINA shall issue the required
implementing rules and regulations in accordance with the provisions of this Act within
six (6) months from the effectivity hereof. In the formulation of such rules and
regulations, the MARINA shall ensure that the processes and procedures for issuance,
validation, verification, correction, revocation, or cancellation of certificates of
competency, endorsement, proficiency arid documentary evidence required of seafarers
under the STCW Convention shall be the most efficient and convenient way for the
seafarers including, but not limited to, the establishment of one-stop shop
arrangements, computerization and automation, and elimination of redundant fees and
charges.
SEC. 8. Transitory Provisions.All certificates of competency, endorsement, proficiency
and documentary evidence issued prior to the effectivity of this Act shall be deemed
valid without necessity of revalidation or reissuance until the date of expiration as stated
in such certificates or other documents. Thereafter, new certificates or other documents
shall be revalidated or reissued only in accordance with the implementing rules and
regulations issued pursuant to this Act, in conformity with the STCW requirements.
SEC. 9. Separability Clause.If for any reason any section or provision of this Act is
declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections, or provisions hereof not affected
by such declaration shall remain in force and in effect.
SEC. 10. Repealing Clause.The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 474 on the
composition of the Maritime Industry Board and all the provisions under Republic Act
No. 8544 relating to the examination, licensing and certification system for marine deck
and engine officers are hereby amended. All existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 11. Effectivity Clause.This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its
publication in theOfficial Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.

03/26/14--03:33: January 2014 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Commercial Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE
BLAWG

See - January 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Commercial Law | LEXOTERICA: A
PHILIPPINE BLAWG

"x x x.

Corporations; liability of corporate officers. As a general rule, the officer

cannot be held personally liable with the corporation, whether civilly or otherwise,
for the consequences his acts, if acted for and in behalf of the corporation, within
the scope of his authority and in good faith. Rodolfo Laborte, et al. v. Pagsanjan
Tourism Consumers Cooperative, et al., G.R. No. 183860, January 15, 2014.
Banks; degree of diligence. Being a banking institution, DBP owed it to
Guaria Corporation toexercise the highest degree of diligence, as well as to
observe the high standards of integrity and performance in all its
transactionsbecause its business was imbued with public interest. The high
standards were also necessary to ensure public confidence in the banking
system. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. Guaria Agricultural and
Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 160758. January 15, 2014.
x x x."

03/29/14--10:44: Prayer to Saint Thomas More - A Prayer for

Lawyers

See - Prayer to Saint Thomas More - A Prayer for Lawyers - A Prayer to Saint Thomas More for
Lawyers

"x x x.

Prayer to Saint Thomas More

A Prayer for Lawyers
By Scott P. Richert

This prayer invokes St. Thomas More as the patron saint of lawyers, asking him to pray to God for the
grace to rise to the highest standards of that profession. It also makes reference, in the final verse, to
St. Thomas Mores status as the patron saint of large families, and it would be appropriate for a nonlawyer to pray that verse as a separate prayer.

Prayer to Saint Thomas More

Thomas More, counselor of law and statesman of integrity, merry martyr and most human of
saints:
Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be trustworthy with
confidences, keen in study, accurate in analysis, correct in conclusion, able in argument,
loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, ever attentive to conscience. Sit
with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and
stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul.
Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage,
cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in paintheir
good servant, and God's first. Amen.
x x x."

03/29/14--11:13: B.M. No. 1755: Rule 139-B of the Rules of

Court governs the investigation of administrative complaints
against lawyers.

See - B.M. No. 1755

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
B.M. No. 1755
June 17, 2008
RE. CLARIFICATION ON RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON BAR
DISCIPLINE.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 17, 2008
B.M. No. 1755 (Re. Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline)
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court governs the investigation of administrative complaints against
lawyers by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Section 12 of said rule prescribes the
procedure before the IBP, thus:
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors
upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The
decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly
state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period
not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of
the Investigator's report.
b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole
record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is
less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a
decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed
terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the
Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme
Court orders otherwise.
d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their
counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
To implement Rule 139-B, the Court, in Bar Matter No. 1755, approved the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP on September 25, 2007. The rules pertinent to
pleadings, notices, and appearances are provided in Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III which read:
RULE III
PLEADINGS, NOTICES AND APPEARANCES
SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and
verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a resolution.

SEC. 2. Prohibited Pleadings. The following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:
a. Motion to dismiss the complaint or petition
b. Motion for a bill of particulars
c. Motion for a new trial
d. Petition for relief from judgment
e. Motion for reconsideration
f. Supplemental pleadings
Upon query of IBP National President Feliciano M. Bautista, the Court issued on February 12, 2008
a Resolution amending Sec. 1, Rule III of the same rules by deleting the phrase "motion for
reconsideration of a resolution," to resolve the conflicting provisions of Secs. 1 and 2 of said Rule III,
thus:
Sec. 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and
verified position papers.
Pursuant to the February 12, 2008 Resolution, a party cannot file a motion for reconsideration of any
order or resolution with the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD hearing the case.
In the Resolution dated July 31, 2006 in A.C. No. 7055 entitled Ramientas v. Reyala, the Court held
that:
IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ABOVE, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is
hereby resolved the accordance with our ruling inHalimao v. Villanueva, pertinent provisions
of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, as contained in
the By-Laws of the IBP, particularly 1 and 2, are hereby deemed amended. Accordingly,
1 of said rules now reads as follows:
SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer,
verified position paper and motion for reconsideration of resolution. x x x
And in 2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the purview of the class of
prohibited pleadings.
Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of disciplinary cases
against lawyers:
1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration of the
IBP resolution containing its findings and recommendations within fifteen (15) days from
notice of receipt by the parties thereon;
2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP must
first resolve the same prior to elevating to this Court the subject resolution together with the
whole record of the case;
3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is
directed to forthwith transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together
with the whole record of the case;
4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IPB may file a petition for review
before this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of said resolution sought to be
reviewed; and
5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist pending motions
for reconsideration filed in due time before the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this
Court the subject resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days
from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable dispatch. 1
In view of the February 12, 2008 Resolution, the fallo of Ramientas amending Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule
III of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD is consequently repealed. At present, a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in CBD proceedings before the Investigating Commissioner.

It has to be clarified further that said CBD rules of procedure apply exclusively to proceedings before
said CBD Commissioner and not proceedings before the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) which are
governed by Sec. 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. As such, the other dispositions
inRamientas relative to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the IPB BOG are still valid
and subsisting. In fact, Ramientas has amplified the rules laid down in Rule 139-B by supplying the
procedure for the filing of motions for reconsiderations before the BOG.
Thus, in answer to the query of Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Ma. Cristina B. Layusa
dated March 17, 2008 on whether the February 12, 2008 Resolution in Bar Matter No. 1755 has
effectively superseded Ramientas, the Court resolved as follows:
1. On the amendment to Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III of the CBD Rules of Procedure,
the fallo in Ramientas is repealed and superseded by the February 12, 2008 Resolution. A party can
no longer file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution of the Investigating
Commissioner, such motion being a prohibited pleading.
2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of the
BOG can be entertained, an aggrieved party can file said motion with the BOG within fifteen (15)
days from notice of receipt thereof by said party.
In case a decision is rendered by the BOG that exonerates the respondent or imposes a sanction
less than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within
the 15-day period from notice. If the motion is denied, said party can file a petition for a review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the resolution
resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the decision shall become final and
executory and a copy of said decision shall be furnished this Court.
If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of law or disbarment, the BOG shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for
reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15) days from notice. The BOG shall
first resolve the incident and shall thereafter elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case
records to this Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any motion for
reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution
with the entire case records for appropriate action.
Let this Resolution be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA (sgd.)
Clerk of Court
Footnote
1

497 SCRA 130, 137-138

03/29/14--11:52: "PROTECTING THE NATIONS MARINE WEALTH

IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA" by Justice A. Carpio delivered
before the Philippine Womens Judges Association on 6 March
2014.

See - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsc/justices/j-carpio/03-06-14-speech.pdf

Click the link above.

Read the full text of:

"PROTECTING THE NATIONS MARINE

WEALTH IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA"
by Justice Antonio T. Carpio

delivered before the Philippine Womens Judges Association

on 6 March 2014.

03/29/14--12:44: A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC.pdf - DECONGESTING

JAILS

Read - A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC.pdf

GUIDELINES FOR DECONGESTING HOLDING JAILS BY ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF

ACCUSED PERSONS TO BAIL AND TO SPEEDY TRIAL.

See -

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=%2FA.M.+No.+12-11-2-SC.pdf

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/A.M.%20No.%2012-11-2-SC.pdf

03/29/14--13:08: "Compensation" in Civil Law (obligations and

contracts) explained - G.R. No. 191555

Read - G.R. No. 191555

"x x x.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld the denial of
Union Banks motion to affirm legal compensation.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. Compensation is defined as a mode of extinguishing obligations
whereby two persons in their capacity as principals are mutual debtors and creditors of each
other with respect to equally liquidated and demandable obligations to which no retention or
controversy has been timely commenced and communicated by third parties. The requisites
therefor are provided under Article 1279 of the Civil Code which reads as follows:
53

Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:

(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and
that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other;

(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things

due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the
same quality if the latter has been stated;
(3) That the two debts be due;
(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;
(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or
controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated
in due time to the debtor.1awp++i1 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)
The rule on legal compensation is stated in Article 1290 of the Civil Code which provides that
"[w]hen all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by
operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the
creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation."
54

In this case, Union Bank filed a motion to seek affirmation that legal compensation had taken
place in order to effectively offset (a) its own obligation to return the funds it previously received
from DBP as directed under the September 6, 2005 Writ of Execution with (b) DBPs assumed
obligations under the Assumption Agreement. However, legal compensation could not have
taken place between these debts for the apparent reason that requisites 3 and 4 under Article
1279 of the Civil Code are not present. Since DBPs assumed obligations to Union Bank for
remittance of the lease payments are in the Courts words in its Decision dated January 13,
2004 in G.R. No. 155838 " contingent on the prior payment thereof by [FW] to DBP," it cannot
be said that both debts are due (requisite 3 of Article 1279 of the Civil Code). Also, in the same
ruling, the Court observed that any deficiency that DBP had to make up (by December 29, 1998
as per the Assumption Agreement) for the full satisfaction of the assumed obligations " cannot
be determined until after the satisfaction of Foodmasters obligation to DBP." In this regard, it
cannot be concluded that the same debt had already been liquidated, and thereby became
demandable (requisite 4 of Article 1279 of the Civil Code).
The aforementioned Court decision had already attained finality on April 30, 2004 and, hence,
pursuant to the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, the facts and issues actually and
directly resolved therein may not be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if
the latter suit may involve a different cause of action. Its pertinent portions are hereunder
quoted for ready reference:
55

56

57

x x x."

03/29/14--13:28: Probable cause: where there is conflict in

findings of trial court and the public prosecution - A.M. No. RTJ14-2367

Read - A.M. No. RTJ-14-2367

Also - http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_rtj-14-2367_2014.html

"x x x.

The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to
independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case; in the exercise of its discretion, it may
agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the resolution of
the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to
determine a prima facie case. We stress that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition of the case (whether it be a dismissal, an acquittal or a conviction of the
accused) rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court; it is the
best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it.
6

In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw the information

filed by the public prosecutor (on his own initiative or pursuant to the
directive of the Secretary of Justice), either for insufficiency of evidence
in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the
trial court should not merely rely on the findings of the public
prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice that no crime had been
committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public
prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the
accused.8 To do so is to surrender a power constitutionally vested in the
Judiciary to the Executive.
In the present case, Judge Cacatian-Beltran does not appear to have arbitrarily denied the joint
motion to withdraw informations. The records show that she evaluated and assessed the
informations, the resolution of the City Prosecutor, the affidavit and reply-affidavit of the
complainants, the counter-affidavit and rejoinder and the appeal memorandum of Junio and Lorica,
and the supporting documents attached to them.
In her January 6, 2012 order, Judge Cacatian-Beltran notably explained the basis for her denial. No
proof whatsoever exists in all these, showing that bad faith, malice or any corrupt purpose attended
the issuance of her order. It is also important to note in this regard that the issue of whether Judge
Cacatian-Beltran correctly denied the joint motion to withdraw informations, despite the finding of
Secretary De Lima of lack of probable cause, is judicial in nature: Junio and Loricas remedy under
the circumstances should have been made with the proper court for the appropriate judicial action,
not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint.

We also find unmeritorious Junio and Loricas argument that Judge Cacatian-Beltran "arrogated unto
herself the role of a prosecutor and a judge" when she insisted that the accused stand trial although
she did not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of Justice Secretary de Lima. When a
court acts, whether its action is consistent or inconsistent with a prosecutors recommendation, it
rules on the prosecutors action and does not thereby assume the role of a prosecutor. The case of
Hipos, Sr. v. Bay best explains why we so rule:
9

10

To clarify, we never stated in Ledesma that a judge is allowed to deny a

Motion to Withdraw Information from the prosecution only when there is
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors moving for
such withdrawal. Neither did we rule therein that where there is no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, the denial of the
Motion to Withdraw Information is void. What we held therein is that a
trial judge commits grave abuse of discretion if he denies a Motion to
Withdraw Information without an independent and complete assessment
of the issues presented in such Motion.
With the independent and thorough assessment and evaluation of the merits of the joint motion to
withdraw information that Judge Cacatian-Beltran undertook before dismissing it, she acted as a
judge should and can in no way be said to have assumed the role of a prosecutor. The parties for
their part are not without any remedy as the Rules of Court amply provide for the remedy against a
judicial action believed to be grossly abusive when the remedy of direct appeal is not available. We
cannot rule on this point in the present case however as this is a matter not before us in this
administrative recourse against Judge Cacatian-Beltran.
x x x."

04/08/14--13:20: To restrain the government...

04/08/14--13:23: On stealing...

04/08/14--13:25: When the law is unjust....

older | 1 | .... | 18 | 19 | 20 | (Page 21) | 22 | 23 | 24 | .... | 40 | newer

HOME

ABOUT US

|
CATALOG

|
CONTACT US

2015 http://www.rssing.com