Villanueva,

Glen Carlo P.
1-C
ITL Notes

Qualifications
Art VIII Sec 7 of the 1987 Constitution
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the
Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years
or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

Kilosbayan vs Executive Secretary
Exec Sec Ermita, in representation of the President, announced an appointment in favor
of Gregory S. Ong as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill up the vacancy of
retiring Justice Callejo, Sr.
Appointment was reported, but a day later, was recalled in view of questions relating to
citizenship.
Petitioners contend that the appointment of Ong is unconstitutional, the latter being a
Chinese citizen. His birth certificate states his Chinese citizenship, and the same reveals
that his parents are both Chinese when he was born.
Respondent says that from his ancestral line, he is a Filipino. Moreover, he added that
the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice has classified Ong as a natural-
born citizen.
ISSUE: W/N Ong is a natural-born citizen
HELD: NO. He is a naturalized citizen, proven through records he has submitted when he
applied for the Bar.
RULING: Petition is granted. Respondent Ong cannot accept the post, unless he has
completed all steps to prove his citizenship.

Role and Standards
In Re: Allegations of Mr. Amado Macasaet
Macasaet penned several articles in Malaya newspaper regarding alleged bribery
incidents in the SC. From the series of articles, it was clearly painted that he was
pertaining to Associate Justice Ynarez-Santiago; the she ordered the dismissal of Henry
Gos case upon receiving cash gift of P10M, and that she fired her secretary Cecila Delis
when the latter opened one of the boxes containing the cash.
Despite attempts to correct Macasaets claims, his publications never ceased. The Court
En Banc required Macasaet to explain why no sanction should be imposed on him for
indirect contempt of court. After the findings, the Investigating Committee
recommended to hold him for indirect contempt of the court.
ISSUE: W/N Macasaets allegations were protected under the right to free speech
HELD: NO. While the freedom of speech and expression occupy a high position in the
civil liberties, it is not without limitations. The said rights are not absolute. As in the case
of Macasaet, the allegations have had an adverse effect of the public perception of the
Supreme Court degrading the Judiciary.
Judicial independence is damaged and threatened by political threats that aim to distort
the nature of judicial decisions.

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
RULING: Macasaet is found GUILTY.

Integrity
Office of the Court Administrator vs Judge Floro
Respondent applied for judgeship, then failed his psychological evaluation. Due to his
impressive academic background, however, he was admitted later.
Judge Floro was circulating calling cards bearing his name as the Presiding Judge
of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City, and indicating therein that he is a "bar exams
topnotcher (87.55%)" and with "full second honors" from the Ateneo de Manila
University, A.B. and LL.B.
Moreover, he was a self-proclaimed psychic.
ISSUE: W/N Floro is fit to be a judge.
HELD: NO. He has violated several rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct, which included
violations of seeking personal vainglory and partiality by being pro-accused.
RULING: Judge Floro is SEPARATED from service, due to a medically disabling condition
of the mind that renders him unfit.

Impartiality
People vs CA
In the case at bar, Judge Pedro Espina, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
General, cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an
impartial judge as to fairly assess both the evidence to be adduced by the
prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in Special Civil Action
No. 92-11-219 wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional
State Prosecutor's Office level against herein respondent Jane Go, the principal
accused in the killing of her husband Dominador Go.
ISSUE: W/N there is impartiality regarding the previous decision of Judge Espina
HELD: Judge Espina's decision in favor of respondent Jane Go serves as sufficient and
reasonable basis for the prosecution to seriously doubt his impartiality in handling
the criminal cases.
RULING: Petition is granted; criminal cases are set to be re-raffled.

Propriety
In Re: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee against Associate
Justice Gregory S. Ong
READ ORIGINAL L

Competence and Diligence
Ocampo and Arcaya-Chua
Respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua was charged grave abuse of authority and gross
ignorance of the law by Petitioner Ocampo who alleged that respondent acted
improperly during a special proceeding between Petitioner Ocampo and his wife for

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
custody of their children. Petitioner alleged that respondent judge acted arbitrarily
and unfairly when she ordered a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in favor of
Ocampos wife as well as ordering monthly payments for support in the amount of
P50,000.
ISSUE: W/N Judge Arcaya-Chua is guilty of gross ignorance of the law
HELD: She stated that as a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or
corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary
action even though such acts are erroneous

Civil Liability
Art. 27 and 32 of the Civil Code
Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to
law
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress
of grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced
to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Criminal Liability
RPC Arts. 204-206
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly
render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be
punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Any judge who, by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto mayor and temporary
special disqualification.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. Any judge who shall knowingly render an
unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the
penalty shall be suspension.

Santiago vs. Enriquez
Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against CA Justice Enriquez for charges
of gross ignorance and incompetence in rendering an alleged unjust judgment for a
previous case.
Complainant filed before the RTC a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost/ Destroyed
Original Certificate of Title 56, registered in the petitioners name. RTC granted the
petition, but Republic, through the OSG, appealed to CA. Case was raffled to Justice
Gonzales-Sison (13th division), with one of the divisions members being the
respondent in this case. In the report submitted by the CA, respondent expressed his
dissent and thereafter, became the majority decision of the special division. This

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes

division REVERSED and SET ASIDE the RTC decision.

Petitioner alleged that despite overwhelming evidence, respondent deliberately
twisted the law.
The court ruled, however, that unless the decision is tainted with fraud or malice, an
administrative complaint is not the proper remedy.
The principle of judicial immunity protects officers of the judiciary from being
criminally liable for erroneous decisions.
ISSUE: W/N Justice Enriquez is criminally liable(?)
HELD: NO. Aside from the principle of judicial immunity, the decision was not
rendered by respondent in his individual capacity, but by a special division of five.
The filing of charges against a single member is inappropriate.
RULING: Complaint is DISMISSED.

RA 3019 (1960)
READ ORIGINAL L

Rule 140
READ ORIGINAL L

Art. XI Sec 3 (8)
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the
purpose of this section.

Art. VIII Sec. 11
Section 11. The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall continue in office until they
reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office or are removed for cause.

In Re: Charges of Plagiarism against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo
Petition filed by Vinuya before the SC was dismissed. Atty. Roque, counsel of Vinuya,
accused Justice del Castillo of plagiarism in his ponencia by failing to cite several books
and essays.
Issue: W/N Justice del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism
Held: No, because it was later found out that in the first drafts, there were actually
citations but his researcher omitted such in the final draft of the decision. Moreover, there
is no deliberate intent on the part of the accused.
Additional note: the difference of academic plagiarism vs judicial plagiarism
o In the former, strictly not allowed. In the latter, however, it is allowed due to the
nature of decision-writing, with having to refer to former cases and pleadings.
Mane vs Belen
Petitioner charged respondent of demeaning, humiliating, and berating him during the

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes

hearing.
Respondent-judge claimed that he cannot equate himself to Mane because not all law
students are made equal (Respondent is from UP COL; Petitioner is from MLQU)
Further, the said judge dealt with things other than the merits of the case.
ISSUE: W/N the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing
constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
HELD: YES. Aside from the aforementioned, respondent-judge never denied allegations.
Statements of the judge tend to question capability of the petitioner and is clearly
unwarranted and inexcusable. Judges should always observe civility.
RULING: Respondent is found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge and
REPRIMANDED

Cayetano vs Monsod
Respondent was nominated by Pres. Corazon Aquino to the position of Chairman of
COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination, stating that the respondent does not
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
ISSUE: W/N respondent possesses the qualification of 10-year practice.
HELD: Yes. Since the law covers all situations, it is to be assumed that Mr. Monsod has
practiced law for ten years. We should not lose sight that he is a lawyer and a member of
the Philippine Bar.
RULING: Petition is DISMISSED.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
o Narvasa : There is no adequate showing that the challenged determination was
attended by error so gross as to amount grave abuse of discretion.
o Padilla (D): 10 years has not been met, as practice refers to the ACTUAL
performance: active, habitual, repeated. He didnt do HABITUALLY.
o Cruz (D): In other occupations, he has not proved that in his activities that he has
actually practiced law.
o Gutierrez, Jr. (D): If he has not dedicated his life to the law, I fail to see how he
can claim to have been engaged in the practice of law
Ulep vs Legal Clinic
Respondent was established by Atty. Nograles and offers paralegal services. Respondent
further posted advertisements, which aid in securing divorces in Guam.
Petitioner contends that the respondents make advertisements pertaining to the exercise
of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
ISSUE: W/N respondent offers legal services as defined under the practice of law
HELD: NO. Legal services, as mentioned in the advertisements of respondent, gives the
false impression that respondents are lawyers.
RULING: Petition GRANTED and respondents are ENJOINED from issuing publication
in any form, with the same tenor and purpose.
Art. VIII Sec. 5 (5)
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
In Re: Cunanan
Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 was passed to help post-war students:
o Section 1: Candidates should not obtain any grade lower than 50.
o Section 2: After July 4, 1946, any candidate who obtained 75 in any subject in
any bar should be included in computing the general average in any subsequent
examinations that he may take.
ISSUE: W/N the said Act is unconstitutional
HELD and RULING: PARTLY GRANTED. Section 1 is constitutional, Section 2 is
unconstitutional, because even though the main purpose is to aid post-war candidates,
there would be an incompetency by passing incompetent lawyers.
Form 28, Rules of Court (Lawyers Oath)
READ ORIGINAL L
Sebastian vs Calis
Petitioner charged respondent for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct, as
well as violation of his lawyers oath. I will do no falsehood
Petitioner was referred to the respondent, who promised to process all documents
required for complainants trip to the USA. When petitioner inquired of her passport,
respondent informed her that she would assume the name of Lizette Ferrer, and that there
was nothing to worry about since respondent has been in the business for quite some time
now, and promised her that her money would be refunded is something goes wrong
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, petitioner was apprehended for
carrying false documents. She was deported, days after she was detained at the Changi
Prisons.
Petitioner then asked for the refund of her money, which was paid partially by
respondent. After payment, he changed his address with the intention to evade.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Calis violated his lawyers oath
HELD: Yes. With the aforementioned acts, he has been guilty of gross misconduct of a
lawyer.
RULING: Atty. Calis is DISBARRED.
Cojuangco, Jr vs Palma
Petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment against Palma.
Respondent was hired as a tutor for his daughter Maria Luisa (Lisa). Sometime in 1982,
respondent and Lisa went to Hong Kong and got married.
Petitioner stated in his complaint that respondent is a married man, with three children.

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
ISSUE: W/N petitioners complaint would warrant a disbarment
HELD: Yes. It was found out that when Lisa and Palma went to HK, the latter stated that
he is a bachelor. Bigamous marriage, with the full knowledge of the law, was committed
by respondent.
RULING: Palma is DISBARRED.
Castaneda vs Ago
Petitioner filed a replevin case against respondent.
o Replevin: procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their
owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties
concerned
Petitioners contend that the respondents, together with their counsel, Atty. Luison, have
misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of
the judgment
There was a maneuver for 14 years to resist the execution.
ISSUE: W/N
HELD:
RULING: Decision of the CA is set aside.
In Re: Edillon
IBP recommended for the Court to remove Edillon from the Roll of Attorneys for
stubborn refusal to pay membership dues, stating the provision that there is an obligation
to pay membership dues in the IBP.
Respondent, in his defense, stated that such provision would be an invasion of his
constitutional rights, in the sense that he is being compelled attack and deprivation of
his rights to liberty and property.
SC: The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and regulate
personal liberty, property and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to
restraints and burdens in order to secure the general prosperity and welfare of the State.
ISSUE: W/N Edillon is for disbarment(?)
HELD: YES. Bar integration does not violate the right to associate. He is not compelled
to attend meetings, and the only thing he is compelled to is the membership fees. The
Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this
fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the
lawyers.
RULING: Edillon is DISBARRED, and his name is hereby ordered STRICKEN from the
Roll of Attorneys.
In Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
Attorney-Client Relationship
Burbe vs Magulta
Respondent agreed to legally represent petitioner in a money claim and possible civil
case against parties for breach of contract. Months after payment of the filing fee,

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
respondent kept telling petitioner to be patient. Having grown impatient, petitioner now
decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court himself, thereafter knew that there was
actually no record of the case.
Respondent admitted that he used the filing fee for his own purpose, but that he will
return it using his personal checks.
Further, respondent insisted that lawyer-client relationship was not established, as the
latter never paid him for services rendered.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Magultas misappropriation of funds would merit disbarment or W/N
there existed a lawyer-client relationship
HELD and RULING:
o It would not merit disbarment, but would rather merit a suspension of 1 year.
o There existed a relationship already as soon as lawyers agree to take up the cause
of the client.

Pacana Jr. vs Pascual-Lopez

Administrative complaint against the respondent for acts of conflict of interest.
Petitioner was the Operations Director for Multitel. In 2002, the company was besieged
by demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure of investment
schemes.
Petitioner then sought the advice of respondent. The latter then proposed a Retainer
Agreement, which the petitioner found to be not within his means. Hence, the agreement
remained unsigned.
Petitioner was then surprised to receive a demand letter from respondent (who also
represented Multitels investors), asking for the immediate return of funds. However,
during confrontation, the respondent assured the petitioner that there was nothing to
worry about.
Respondent then impressed upon the petitioner that he has connections with several
agencies of the government, and that such could help petitioner regarding his case.
Respondent then asked for initial money.
Respondent then continued to ask for money, while the petitioner is in the US to avoid
conviction.
When petitioner returned to the country, respondent refused to acknowledge petitioner as
his client.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pascual-Lopez should be disbarred due to conflict of interests
HELD and RULING: Atty. Pascual-Lopez is DISBARRED for representing conflicting
interests.
Regala vs Sandiganbayan
ACCRA Law acted as nominees-stockholders of companies included in a case linked to
PCGGs complaint to Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. for recovery of the alleged coco levy
funds.
PCGG Case 33 included members of the ACCRA Law and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. on
charges of conspiracy.
Petitioner filed for reconsideration to Sandiganbayan, which was denied.
Petitioners argue that they are bound from revealing the identity of their client, as they

Villanueva, Glen Carlo P.

1-C
ITL Notes
are bound under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to uphold at all times
the confidentiality of information.
ISSUE: W/N lawyer-client relationship can be asserted in refusing to disclose name of
the clients
HELD: Yes. A lawyer is more than a mere agent, as he possesses special powers of trust
and confidence. Moreover, it is the duty of an attorney to preserve the secrets of his
client.
RULING: Resolution of Sandiganbayan was SET ASIDE and ANNULED.
Roxas vs Zuzuaregui
Letter dated 10 December 1985: In excess of 17.50 per square meter would be given to
the Atty. Roxas, as attorneys fees.
In the Resolution, the land would be acquired at a cost of 19.50 per sq m. There were
yield on the NHA bonds too.
Respondents filed a complaint, after knowing that Atty. Roxas has turned over money
less than what they should have, since there was a yield on the bonds. The court decided
against Zs party, and ordering them to pay for moral damages. CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: W/N the letter in December 1985 should stand as law between the parties.
HELD: CA decision was SUSTAINED, with MODIFICATION regarding the
computation