You are on page 1of 1

Cruz v Atty. Cabrera AC No.

5737 October 25, 2004

Facts:
The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for misconduct in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law student, appears in court in his own
behalf as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the respondent as counsel. During a
hearing, the respondent uttered remarks that the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer. The complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who
recommended suspension of respondent in the practice of law for 3 months which was annulled by a
resolution of the IBP Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.

RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not to such a
magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his profession. The court thereby dismissed the case
due to lack of merit.

OPOSA VS FACTORAN

G.R. No. 101083 July 30 1993

FACTS:
Forty-four children, through their parents, sought to make the DENR Secretary stop issuing licenses to
cut timber, invoking their right to a healthful environment (Secs. 16, 15 Article II, 1987 Constitution). The
petitioners further asserted that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." They
further claimed that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements
to cover more areas for logging than what is available.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action to file the case.

RULING:
Yes. the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter: “[it] concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions”. The right is linked to the constitutional right to health, is “fundamental”,
“constitutionalised”, “self-executing” and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.

The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class suit both for others of their generation and for
succeeding generations as “the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.”