You are on page 1of 2

General Rules:

1. Be concise. Examinees do not have the luxury of time. They need to


read and understand the case real quick and thus, we need only to
present the gist of the facts and the ruling.
2. Follow the format. This will make it easier for me to edit, and as I am
the only editor for the 200+ cases, I beg you to be kind and
considerate.
3. GR Number prevails. When searching for the assigned case, please
use the GR Number provided. If the case title and GR number match,
no problem. If it doesnt, the GR number should prevail unless the case
title is so different from what was provided that it could only be an
error, in which case, please contact me.
Instructions
1. State the facts in less than 100 words; the ruling, in less than
150. You can do this by:
a. Focusing on the general facts
b. Discount the dates (unless the dates are material)
c. Include only the ruling which has relevance to the subject
matter. Matters concerning procedure may be discounted,
unless of course, this happens to be the very subject
matter.
2. If possible, please follow this format in your digest:
a. Heading
i. Please follow this format for the heading:
1. Case Title
2. GR No.
3. Date promulgated
4. Ponente
b.
c.
d.
e.

Facts
Main contention of appellee
Issues
Ruling
i. If the case has two or more issues, then please
answer these issues separately in the ruling.
ii. Example:
Issues: (a) Whether a is equivalent to b
(b) Whether 1 + 1 = 4
Ruling: (a) No, a is not equivalent to b.
(b) No. The Court held that 1+1=2.

3. Try to cite the parties using their name, rather than by using
petitioner, appellant, respondent, etc.
Sample Digest
Cheryll Santos Leus v. St. Scholasticas College Westgrove
GR No. 187226
January 28, 2015
J. Reyes
Facts: Santos is a non-teaching personnel of St. Scholasticas College, a
Catholic educational institution. She engaged in pre-marital sex, got
pregnant out of wedlock, married the father of her child and was
dismissed, in that order. St. Scholastica argues that the dismissal was
valid for engaging in pre-marital sex and getting pregnant is
tantamount to serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an
employee of a Catholic school.
Issue: Whether Santos pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid
ground to terminate her employment.
Ruling: No. That petitioner was employed by a Catholic educational
institution
per se does not absolutely determine whether her
pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. There must be a
(a) consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding the
conduct and an (b) assessment of said circumstances against what the
society generally considers moral and respectable.
In considering what is moral and respectable however, it should
be public and secular morality which should determine the prevailing
norms of conduct, not religious morality. Santos pregnancy is not
disgraceful or immoral as she and the father of her child had no
impediment to marry each other.
Furthermore, Santos conduct could not have caused such a
grave scandal to the students as she is only a non-teaching personnel,
her interaction with the students is very limited.