Oral Arguments on Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos Burial Case

G.R. No. 225973

 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Oral Arguments on Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos Burial Case

G.R. No. 225973

 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Rommel Jacinto vs. Rep. of the Philippines G.R. No. 174689

G.R. No. 174689

Petitioner Rommel Jacinto filed a petition for the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate.  He underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok.  Petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married.  He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely, and his sex from male to female.

Petitioner filed the present petition for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.

HELD:
NO.
A change of name is a privilege, not a right.  The state has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purpose of identification.

Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change.  In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.  In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.

Latin Vocabulary

LIVE: Justice Antonio Carpio on what's next for PH after case vs China

Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo

A.M. No. 7006

This administrative case stemmed from the events of the  Criminal case proceeding originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser.  Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder.  The counsel of the defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of Bail Bond.  Respondent Atty Bagabuyo, then Senior state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject of bail under the Rules of Court.

Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.

Respondent appealed to the CA.  Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in court to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degrade the court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he made the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss.  For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:  WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Held: YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

English Speed Test with Kim JoonHo

Carpio on South China Sea dispute

TAN TEK BENG VS. TIMOTEO A. DAVID

A.C. NO. 1261. December 29, 1983


This case was instituted by Tan Tek Beng against David for allegedly not living up to their agreement that lawyer David will give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.

The business relation between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier.  When Jacinto became ill and the cost of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused.

Issue:
WON the agreement was valid?

Held:
The SC hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court.  Malpractice ordinarily refers to any ,malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer.  Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice".  That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a business.

Recitation daw

Disclaimer: I have seen this in FB and I find it interesting. Credit to the owner.

Spouses ROMEO P. NAZARENO and ELISA A. NAZARENO vs. JUDGE ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

[A.M. No. RTJ-94-1195. February 26, 1997]

In a sworn complaint dated 28 February 1994 for gross misconduct or acts unbecoming a judge filed against Judge Enrique M. Almario, then presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite, the spouses Romeo P. Nazareno and Elisa A. Nazareno:

respondent judge denied all the charges against him.

the Court approved the OCA recommendation and designated Court of Appeals Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales to conduct an investigation and submit a report and recommendation.

 Elisa Nazareno she testified and affirmed the truth of the allegations in the complaint.

She first narrated how respondent Judge Almario, on one occasion, asked her to enter his chamber after which he told Elisa, in the Visayan dialect, how he needed money since he was nearing his retirement age and that she should help him ("tulungan mo ako"). She told the judge that she would see what she could do. Elisa then recounted that she later gave Judge Almario ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) on two (2) separate occasions.

Romeo corroborated the testimony of Elisa that Judge Almario met with them to discuss his decision to replace him as administrator. Romeo added that respondent judge made them believe that he wanted the spouses to offer something to him.

Remedios Antipuesto she testified that she worked as a helper for complainant Mrs. Elisa Nazareno.

She recalled a time when Mrs. Nazareno asked her to help cook some food which respondent judge was asking for. She could not remember the exact date but she recalled that an employee of the court where the judge was assigned, a certain "Joe", picked up the food.

Alcantara also testified having seen the Nazareno spouses at the Seaside Beach Resort on at least one occasion when respondent judge and his sister-in-law were there. Alcantara stated that the Nazareno spouses brought food which they handed over to the sister-in-law ("hipag") of respondent Judge Almario

 Salvadora admitted having picked up some food from the food stall of Mrs. Nazareno for the Christmas party of respondent judge's court staff at the Aroma Beach Resort.

Respondent Judge Enrique M. Almario he denied ever receiving any money from the Nazareno spouses. He maintained that the allegations in the complaint against him are all fabricated and were filed because the Nazarenos had been receiving adverse rulings and orders from him in several cases.

ISSUE: WON judge is guilty of gross dishonesty and misconduct?

Held:

After a close and careful study of the records of the proceedings before investigating Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the Court finds sufficient evidence to find respondent Judge Enrique M. Almario liable for gross dishonesty and misconduct. His conduct undoubtedly is unbecoming a member of the bench.

The time honored rule is that a public official whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, be he a judge of a lower court or tribunal or a justice of the appellate courts, should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest.

It has to be stressed once more to all who are sworn to render decisions in actual controversies that a decision which correctly applies the law and jurisprudence will nevertheless be subject to questions of impropriety when rendered by a magistrate or tribunal believed to be less than impartial and honest. It is thus the duty of members of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary which in recent times has been the object of criticism and controversy.

In the present case, respondent's denial of the charges leveled by complainants that he had asked for and accepted food contributions on at least two (2) occasions from litigants (herein complainants) is contradicted by his own witnesses, Roldan Alcantara and Jose R.. Salvadora, Jr., who are both employees of the court. Nothing in the testimonies of these two (2) court employees shows any motivation other than to tell the truth.

On the charge of having accepted P20,000.00 from the Nazareno spouses and receiving cash in exchange for his salary check which he never gave to Mrs. Nazareno, the Court agrees with the conclusions of Justice Morales that complainant Elisa Nazareno had convincingly proven having given: a) P10,000.00 to respondent judge on two (2) occasions and b) cash for respondent's salary check. As correctly observed by Justice Morales, the testimony of Mrs. Nazareno was undented even when subjected to an extended cross examination by respondent judge

In sum, the Court finds the charges of gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge as having been sufficiently substantiated. Judge Enrique M. Almario deserves no less than the penalty of dismissal from the service.

PICOP VS CIR

Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) is a Philippine Corporation registered with Board of Investment (BOI) as preferred pioneer enterprise with respect to its integrated pulp and paper mill, and as preferred non-pioneer enterprise with respect to its integrated plywood and veneer mills.

PICOP received from CIR two (2) letters of assessment (a) for deficiency transaction tax and for documentary and science stamp tax (b) deficiency income tax for 1977.

PICOP maintains that it is not liable at all to pay any of the assessments or any part thereof.  PICOP questions the imposition by the CA of the deficiency income tax resulting from disallowance of certain claimed financial guarantee expense and claimed year-end adjustment of sales and cost of sales.

ISSUE: Whether PICOP is liable for: (1) the 35% transaction; (2) interest and surcharge on unpaid transaction tax.

HELD:

PICOP is liable for the 35% transaction tax due in respect of interest payments on its money market borrowings.

The transaction tax maybe levied only in respect of the interest earnings of PICOP money market lenders accruing after PD No. 1154 went into effect, and not in respect of all the 1977 interest earning of such lenders.

CIR vs. Itogon Suyoc Mines

Respondent Itogon-Suyoc Mines, a mining corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws fild  its income tax return.

Fiscal year (1956-1960) paid PhP 13, 155.20 as the first installment of the income tax due. Then filed an amended income tax return reporting a net loss of PhP 331,707.33

Fiscal year (1960-1961) setting forth its income tax liability of PhP 97.345 but deducting the amount of PhP 13,155.20 representing alleged tax credit for over-payment of the preceding fiscal year 1959-1960.

Petitioner assessed against the respondent the amount of PhP 1,512.83 as 1% monthly interest.  The basis for such an assessment was the absence of legal right to deduct said amount before the refund or tax credit thereof was approved by petitioner CIR.

ISSUE: WON respondent corporation is liable to pay the sum of PhP1,512.83 as 1% monthly interest for delinquency in the payment of income tax.?

HELD:
NIRC provides that interest upon the amount determined as a deficiency shall be assessed and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the CIR at the specified. If in any preceding year the tax payer was entitled to a refund of any amount due as tax, such amount, if not yet refunded, maybe deducted from the tax to be paid.

Be Somebody