DIGESTING How to Effectively and

CASES Efficiently Write Case

Digests
 • It is to aid law students
in the study of law;
• It enhances your
memory and analytical
skills;
• It enhances your
familiarity and
appreciation with
existing jurisprudence;
and
• It creates an
WHAT IS THE opportunity to improve
handwriting.
PURPOSE?
FIVE (5) IMPORTANT
RULES
• Complete
• Concise
• Logical
• Organized
• Original
FORM
• Tickler
• Header
• Doctrine
• Facts
• Issue
• Ruling
What is a Tickler?
• This refers to the topic of the
case or a quick guide to the
doctrine of the case.
• Use phrases only, not
sentences.
HEADER

• Case Title
• Case Number, Date
• G.R. No. stands for
“General Register
Number”
• Ponente
HEADER

Tickler

Header
CASE DOCTRINE
• It is a brief statement of the applicable
law or rule upon which the ruling is
based.
• It is usually found in the Ruling part of
the Case Digest.
• It serves as an immediate reference or
guide.
• The words used should be in the original
form; words used by the Supreme
Court.
• Rephrasing or substituting the same
with one’s own words should be
avoided.
CASE DOCTRINE
 • Begin with a statement of the
“characters” i.e. the parties
involved.
• Names and personal
circumstances – it is
sufficient to state the
“characters” and their
personal circumstances in
the first couple of
sentences of the statement
of facts.
• Please, indicate only those
personal circumstances
relevant to the issue. For
example, residence need
not be stated unless venue
is the issue or some other
FACTS OF THE CASE related issue.
Facts of the Case
• Statement of the case
• What stage in the proceedings
is the case in?
• Is it an original action? Is it
an appeal? Is it a petition
for certiorari? Is it a motion
for reconsideration? Etc.
• Write this in two or three
SHORT sentences ONLY.
 • Statement of the facts
• Write ONLY the facts RELEVANT to the
issue i.e. tending to prove (or
disprove) the matter required to be
proved.
• There is no limit to the number of
sentences for the facts, but if the
statement of the facts exceeds half a
page and there is only one issue to be
addressed, you are probably doing
something wrong.
• Dates and time – write ONLY if
relevant to the issue. For example,
dates can be relevant if the issue is
prescription, or the time if the issue is
if the crime was committed at
nighttime.
• Places/Addresses – same rule. Include
only if relevant.
• State the allegations and defenses of
FACTS OF THE CASE the parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE

Statement of the parties and statement of the

case combined.
This fact was stated only later in the ruling of
the Supreme Court. Rearrange the facts if
necessary.

This fact also appeared only later in the ruling

but it more logically falls under the statement
of facts.
Issue of the Case
• The issue can either be an open-ended or a close-ended
question
• Instead of using “whether or not”, use close-ended
questions. For example, instead of saying “Whether or
not the accused is guilty of murder”, say “Is the accused
guilty of murder?”
• The issue must be clear, complete and concise. Instead of
saying “Is the accused guilty of the crime charged?”, say “Is
the accused guilty of murder?”
• Make sure that the issue is not just an obiter dictum. If it is,
state so. An obiter dictum is an “opinion” of the Supreme
Court. It is not the main issue or is not an issue relevant to
the resolution of the main issue.
• The issue must pertain to a matter contained in the particular
subject you are writing the digest for. If you encounter an
issue not covered by your subject, ignore it.
ISSUE
 Ruling of the
Supreme Court
• Quick answer to the issue/Ruling of the court
• Answer yes or no if the issue is a close-ended
question. If open-ended, address the issue
accordingly. This should ideally only be stated in
not more than two sentences.
• Applicable law/doctrine/rule/principle
• State the law or doctrine first before applying
the facts to the case.
• Cite the provision of law/jurisprudence used by
the court in deciding the case, if applicable.
Ruling of the
Supreme Court

• Use the wordings of the Supreme

Court.
• Never substitute the words of
the Supreme Court by your
own.
• Never rephrase.
Ruling of
the
Supreme
Court

Straightforward answer and the

applicable law/doctrine/rule
combined.

Application of the
law/doctrine/rule to the facts of
the case.

Conclusion.
Practical Exercises
1. What are the Five (5) important
rules when it comes to digesting
cases?
2. How many parts are there in a
case digest and what are those
parts?
3. What do you mean by “G.R.
Number”?
4. What is the difference between a
tickler and a header?
5. What should be stated in the case
doctrine?
G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962

CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
ALFONSO PE, defendant-appellee.

Cecilio L. Pe for and in his own behalf as plaintiff-appellant.

Leodegario L. Mogol for defendant-appellee.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover moral, compensatory, exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of P94,000.00 exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

Defendant, after denying some allegations contained in the complaint, set up as a defense that the facts alleged therein, even if true, do not constitute a valid cause of action.

After trial, the lower court, after finding that defendant had carried on a love affair with one Lolita Pe, an unmarried woman, being a married man himself, declared that defendant cannot be held liable for moral damages it appearing that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant, being aware of
his marital status, deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection. So it rendered decision dismissing the complaint.1äwphï1.ñët

Plaintiffs brought this case on appeal before this Court on the ground that the issues involved are purely of law.

The facts as found by the trial court are: Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. At the time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957, Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. He used to
stay in the town of Gasan, Marinduque, in connection with his aforesaid occupation. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Because of such fact and the similarity in their family
name, defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. Sometime in 1952, defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted
clandestine trysts not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. They exchanged love notes with each other the contents of which reveal not only their infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they had carried their relationship. The
rumors about their love affairs reached the ears of Lolita's parents sometime, in 1955, and since then defendant was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita. The plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. The affair
between defendant and Lolita continued nonetheless.

Sometime in April, 1957, Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B España Extension, Quezon City. On April 14, 1957, Lolita disappeared from said house. After she left, her brothers and sisters checked up her thing and found that Lolita's clothes were gone.
However, plaintiffs found a note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador. Said note, written on a small slip of paper approximately 4" by 3" in size, was in a handwriting recognized to be that of defendant's. In English it reads:
Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of this month and we will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday morning at 10 a.m.

Reply

Love

The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police authorities and the NBI but up to the present there is no news or trace of her whereabouts.

The present action is based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code which provides:

Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner which is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is based on the fact that defendant, being a married man, carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. But in spite of the fact that plaintiffs have
clearly established that in illicit affair was carried on between defendant and Lolita which caused great damage to the name and reputation of plaintiffs who are her parents, brothers and sisters, the trial court considered their complaint not actionable for the reason that they failed to prove that
defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection Thus, the trial court said: "In the absence of proof on this point, the court may not presume that it was the defendant who deliberately induced such relationship. We cannot be unmindful of the uncertainties and sometimes
inexplicable mysteries of the human emotions. It is a possibility that the defendant and Lolita simply fell in love with each other, not only without any desire on their part, but also against their better judgment and in full consciousness of what it will bring to both of them. This is specially so with
respect to Lolita, being an unmarried woman, falling in love with defendant who is a married man."

We disagree with this view. The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. This is shown by the fact that
defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter's family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her family, the two
eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs not only in Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. When the rumors about their illicit affairs reached the knowledge of her parents, defendant was forbidden from going to their house and
even from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. Nevertheless, defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from the parental home. Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than
that defendant not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he
has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. Defendant is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigations. Costs against appellee.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
 BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY; WHEN
ACTIONABLE;
PE, ET. AL. V PE
G.R. NO. L-17396 30 MAY 1962
Tickler and BAUTISTA-ANGELO, J:
Header
* Tickler may include the word “Rosary”
 DOCTRINE: The circumstances under
which defendant tried to win Lolita’s
affection cannot lead to any other
conclusion than that it was he who, thru
an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced
the latter to the extent of making her fall
Case in love with him. Verily, he has
Doctrine committed and injury to Lolita’s family in
a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy as
contemplated in Article 21 of the New
Civil Code.
 Alfonso Pe, a married man, was an adopted son of a
Chinaman named Pe Becco, a collateral relative of Lolita Pe’s father.
Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name, Alfonso
FACTS became close to Lolita’s family who regarded him as a member of
their family. Sometime in 1952, Alfonso frequented the house of
Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the
rosary. The two eventually fell in love with each other ad conducted
clandestine trysts not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac
where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. They exchanged love
notes with each other. The rumors about their love affair reached the
ears of Lolita’s parents sometime in 1955, and since then, Alfonso was
forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita.
The affair continued nonetheless. One day in 1957, Alfonso wrote
Lolita a note asking her to date him. When Lolita went to see him, the
two decided to elope and Lolita never returned home. The parents,
brothers and sisters of Lolita sued Alfonso for damages under Article
21 of the Civil Code.
 Is Alfonso liable for damages for
committing injury to Lolita's family in a
manner contrary to morals, good
ISSUE OF customs and public policy as
THE CASE contemplated in Article 21 of the New
Civil Code?
 Yes, Alfonso is liable for damages.

The circumstances under which defendant

tried to win Lolita’s affection cannot lead to any
RULING OF other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an
ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to
the extent of making her fall in love with him.
THE Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this
chain of events than that defendant not only
SUPREME deliberately, but through a clever strategy,
succeeded in winning the affection and love of
Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with
COURT her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is
indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is
a married man. Verily, he has committed and injury
to Lolita’s family in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy as contemplated in
Article 21 of the New Civil Code.
Thank
You!!!

God Bless!!!
By: Waine Diokno