Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People V de Luna 102 Phil 968

    Uploaded by

    jibrail dianang
    529 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, who did not pass the bar exam and could not take the lawyer's oath, was guilty of contempt of court. The respondent willfully disobeyed and resisted in an insolent manner a resolution from the Supreme Court directing him. The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the case of contempt committed against a superior court or judge.

    Original Description:

    An appeal, taken by the prosecution, from an order, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, for lack of jurisdiction and, also, upon the ground that the facts alleged in the amended information's, filed in said cases, do not constitute the crime of contempt of court with which said defendants are charged. Respondent did not pass the BAR exam and an impossibility to take his lawyer’s oath

    Original Title

    People v de Luna 102 Phil 968

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, who did not pass the bar exam and could not take the lawyer's oath, was guilty of contempt of court. The respondent willfully disobeyed and resisted in an insolent manner a resolution from the Supreme Court directing him. The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the case of contempt committed against a superior court or judge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    529 views1 page

    People V de Luna 102 Phil 968

    Uploaded by

    jibrail dianang
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, who did not pass the bar exam and could not take the lawyer's oath, was guilty of contempt of court. The respondent willfully disobeyed and resisted in an insolent manner a resolution from the Supreme Court directing him. The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the case of contempt committed against a superior court or judge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    People v De Luna

    102 Phil 968


    Facts:
    An appeal, taken by the prosecution, from an order, of the Court of First Instance
    of Manila, granting a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, for lack of jurisdiction
    and, also, upon the ground that the facts alleged in the amended information's, filed in
    said cases, do not constitute the crime of contempt of court with which said defendants
    are charged. Respondent did not pass the BAR exam and an impossibility to take his
    lawyer’s oath

    Issue:
    Is the respondent guilty of the crime of contempt?
    Held:
    Yes, the respondent is guilty of the crime of contempt.
    The law provides section 4 Rule 64 of the Rules of Court Where the contempt...
    has been committed against a superior court or judge, or against an officer appointed by
    it, the charge may be filed with such superior court...
    In this case the respondent willfully, unlawfully and contemptuously disobeys and
    resist in an insolent and defiant manner the said Resolution of the Supreme Court
    directed to him.

    You might also like