Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
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.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.
Goitia vs Campos-Rueda
Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda
35 Phil 252
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside
the conjugal home.
HELD:
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created
merely in the act of marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is
obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a
fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option. However,
this option given by law is not absolute. The law will not permit the husband
to evade or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven
away from the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts. In the case at
bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd
designs and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim support
from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal
home.
Facts:
Tracey Thurman was the victim of her husbands, Charles Thurman, repeated harassments and
physical abuse. Such instances were on October 1982 when Charles Thurman attacked Tracey
Thurman at the home of Judy Bentley and Richard St. Hilaire in the city of Torrington. He took by
force their son Charles J. Thurman, Jr. Mr. St.-Hilaire filed a complaint but the police officers of
refused to take a complainteven of trespassing.
The acts of harassment continued. Even when her husband was finally arrested after attacking
her in full view of a policeman and after a judge issued an order prohibiting him to go to his wife's
home, the police continued to ignore Thurman's pleas for help. Her husband violated the order
and came to her house and threatened her. When she asked the police to arrest her husband for
violating his probation and threatening her life, they ignored her. She obtained a restraining order
against her husband, which he violated, but again the police failed to take any action.
This culminated when Charles Thurman appeared at the BentleySt. Hilaire residence in the
early afternoon and demanded to speak to Tracey Thurman. Tracey, remaining indoors, called
the police department asking that Charles be picked up for violation of his probation. After about
15 minutes, Tracey went outside to try to persuade him not to take or hurt Charles Jr. Charles
suddenly stabbed Tracey repeatedly in the chest, neck, and throat.
At the duration of these events, police officers acted ineptly in handling the wife-battering
situation. At the time when Tracy was stabbed, Officers DeAngelo, Nukirk, and Columbia arrived
on the scene but still permitted Charles Thurman to wander about the crowd and continue to
threaten Tracey. Finally, upon approaching Tracey once again, this time while she was lying on a
stretcher, Charles Thurman was arrested and taken into custody.
It was eventually found out that Charles worked as a counterman and short order cook at Skies
Diner. There he served many members of the Torrington Police Department, including some of
the officers in this case. While at work, Charles Thurman boasted to the officers that he intended
to get his wife and that he intended to kill her.
Tracy then filed a complaint in the Federal Court and sued the city for the lack of equal protection
in the application of social services, and that this violated the 14 th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, particularly the inept police response to a husband beating up a wife. The City
brought a motion to dismiss her claims. The Cityargues that the equal protection clause [no
state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws] only prohibits intentional
discrimination that is racially motivated.
Issue: WON the plaintiffs have properly alleged a violation of the equal protection clause of the
fourteenth amendment.
Held:
Yes, the application of the equal protection clause is not limited to racial classifications or racially
motivated discrimination. Classifications on the basis of gender will be held invalid under the
equal protection clause unless they are substantially related to strike down classifications which
are not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Tracey Thurman alleges that the city uses an administrative classification that manifests itself in
discriminatory treatment that violates the equal protection clause. Police protection in the City of
Torrington, they argue, is fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has
no domestic relationship. But the Torrington police have consistently afforded lesser protection,
plaintiffs allege, when the victim is (1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or
boyfriend, or (2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.
Issue. Is defendant correct in his assertion that the marital rape exemption in New Yorks
rape and sodomy statutes renders those statutes violative of the Equal Protection Clause?
Held. Based on Equal Protection analysis, the law must be that any person who engages in
sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with any other person by forcible
compulsion is guilty of either rape or sodomy. The defendants conviction is affirmed.
Under New York law a male is guilty of rape when he engages in sexual intercourse with a
female by forcible compulsion. Female is defined as any female person not married to the
actor. Likewise, deviate sexual conduct in the New York sodomy statute is limited to sexual
conduct between persons not married. Therefore, there is a marital exception for both
forcible rape and forcible sodomy. This marital exemption has certain exemptions, in that a
husband and wife are considered to be not married if at the time of the assault they are living
apart pursuant to a court order or a separation agreement.
Tenchavez vs Escano
TITLE: Tenchavez vs. Escano
CITATION: 15 SCRA 355
FACTS:
27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of
Spanish ancestry got married on Feburary 24, 1948 with Pastor Tenchavez, 32
years old engineer, and ex-army officer before Catholic chaplain Lt. Moises
Lavares. The marriage was a culmination of the love affair of the couple and
was duly registered in the local civil registry. A certain Pacita Noel came to
be their match-maker and go-between who had an amorous relationship with
Tenchavez as written by a San Carlos college student where she and Vicenta
are studying. Vicenta and Pastor are supposed to renew their vows/ marriage
in a church as suggested by Vicentas parents. However after translating the
said letter to Vicentas dad , he disagreed for a new marriage. Vicenta
continued leaving with her parents in Cebu while Pastor went back to work in
Manila.
Vicenta applied for a passport indicating that she was single and when it was
approved she left for the United States and filed a complaint for divorce
against Pastor which was later on approved and issued by the Second Judicial
Court of the State of Nevada. She then sought for the annulment of her
marriage to the Archbishop of Cebu. Vicenta married Russell Leo Moran, an
American, in Nevada and has begotten children. She acquired citizenship on
August 8, 1958. Petitioner filed a complaint against Vicenta and her parents
whom he alleged to have dissuaded Vicenta from joining her husband.
ISSUE: Whether the divorce sought by Vicenta Escano is valid and binding
upon courts of the Philippines.
HELD:
Civil Code of the Philippines does not admit divorce. Philippine courts cannot
give recognition on foreign decrees of absolute divorce between Filipino
citizens because it would be a violation of the Civil Code. Such grant would
arise to discrimination in favor of rich citizens who can afford divorce in
foreign countries. The adulterous relationship of Escano with her American
husband is enough grounds for the legal separation prayed by Tenchavez. In
the eyes of Philippine laws, Tenchavez and Escano are still married. A foreign
divorce between Filipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to recognition
neither is the marriage of the divorcee entitled to validity in the Philippines.
Thus, the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one spouse
entitled the other for damages.
Issue:
W/N the plaintiff-appellant can ask separate maintenance from respondent-appellee after she
left their domicile
Ruling:
Yes. While the Court ruled in Arroyo vs Vasquez de Arroyo that unproved or insufficient
charges of cruelty are not enough to establish a case for separate maintenance, it maintained that
in cases where spouses are found guilty of conjugal infidelity, innocent parties are entitled to
right to relief.
In the case at bar, the Court holds that the law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live
in marital relations with a husband whose incurable propensity towards other women makes
common habitation with him unbearable. The respondent, being a recurrent, gravely offends the
sanctity of the marriage tie and should thus, not be relieved from his duty to support his wife as
provided by law.
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs right to custody of her children will no longer be disturbed and
that she is entitled to P500 monthly allowance, attorneys fees and other expenses.
CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR No. L-28904.
December 29,
1928
PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia
DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago
NATURE OF THE CASE:
The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva
Ecija dismissing the complaint.
FACTS:April 8, 1910- alleged date of marriage between the plaintiff, Cipriana
Garcia and
the defendant, Isabelo Santiago.
conjugal
dwelling due to continued family dissensions.
3. Alejo
-Son
of Isabelo
Santiago
Santiago
(Defendant
(Defendant
No. 2) No. 1)
-allegedly seduced Prisca Aurelio
4. Prisca Aurelio
daughter
of Cipriana Garcia (the Plaintiff
-gave birth to a child that was allegedly Alejo Santiagos child
5. Isabelo
-failed
to see
Santiago
the vindication of the honor of Prisca Aurelio, the plaintiffs
daughter
by requiring his son to marry her.
- refused to get involved with the matter, thus seemingly countenancing the illicit
relations between his son and the plaintiffs daughter
dateplaintiff,
the
ofand
marriage
Cipriana
between
Garcia