CASE NO.

1
IN RE: JUDGE ESMAEL ESGUERRA and ATTY. CARLO MAGBANWA
DISBARMENT CASE

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Atty. Esmael Esguerra, presiding judge of the RTC Manila, is a friend of Atty.
Carlo Magbanwa. They've been best friends for a long time since college in UP Diliman.
Judge Esguerra was married to Anastasia Gomez on March 14, 2004, that the son,
Edward Esguerra was born. After several months, Atty. Magbanwa also married to
Nathalie De Guzman on July 6, 2004. After a year of their marriage, Arthur Magbanwa
was born. Judge Esguerra and Atty. Magbanwa took their oath before the Supreme
Court as members of the Bar on the 12th day of December, 2002.

One night, August 6, 2006, Anastasia Gomez (the wife of Atty. Esguerra)
accidentally read some of the messages that came from Carlo (Atty. Carlo Magbanwa)
saying how he misses Esmael (Atty. Esmael Esguerra). Anastasia tolerated it, knowing
how her husband and Atty. Magbanwa close to each other. The day after Anatasia read
the message from Atty. Magbanwa, Esmael went home late. But, still she refuses to
doubt the relationship that his husband and Atty. Magbanwa have.

Anastasia noticed that Esmael habitually went home late at night. But, every time
her husband (Judge Esmael Esguerra) told her that he’s with Atty. Carlo Magbanwa, she
will tolerate him and will go back to bed.

September 6, 2006, a month later, Atty. Esmael asked Anastacia (her wife) that
he and Carlo (Atty. Magbanwa) will be going out-of-town to work and meet a client
named Alexander Dela Cruz. Without any further asking, she just let her husband go to
Iloilo with his best friend Carlo.

12th of September, 2006, Anastasia was buying groceries for their daily
consumption with his son Edward Esguerra when a close friend of her saw her. They
greeted each other and talked about their married lives. Her friend brought out the topic
about frequently seeing Atty. Esguerra with Atty. Carlo eating in a restaurant late at night
near Ayala Malls in Makati on several instances and most of the time with gay couples.
Anastasia was confused about what she’d heard.

After two consecutive weeks, Esmael refused to communicate to her, even a call
or text message. As a wife, Anastasia was worried and she called her husband (Atty.
Esguerra). She called him many times; suddenly a familiar voice answered the phone
and then gravely threats her and asked to stop calling Esmael and let them free.
Knowingly, it is Carlos' voice (Atty. Magbanwa) shouting to her at the phone pleading to
leave them alone.

Because of burden, Anastasia visited Nathalie (wife of Atty. Magbanwa) and

asked about their husbands' true relationship. Nathalie told her about the truth
especially the true sexuality of his husband (Atty. Magbanwa) and the forbidden
relationship Carlo and Esmael have.

After what she’d learned and the pain that she acquired from his husband’s secret
immoral affair, Anastasia Gomez, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines an
Administrative complaint against Atty. Esmael Esguerra together with Atty. Carlo
Magbanwa on the ground of grossly immoral conduct on account of them having an affair
with the same sex.

TASKS:
 Prepare the COMPLAINT of Anastasia Gomez and the
COMMENT/OPPOSITION by Atty. Esmael Esguerra and Atty. Carlo
Magbanwa and the MEMORANDUM for both parties. FILE THE SAME
OBSERVING THE DEADLINES.
 Assign the roles of the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
 Prepare an AFFIDAVIT for the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the TRIAL BRIEF. A series of anticipated Q & A of Witnesses.
CASE NO. 2 CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGES
Corazon Dimagiba,
Plaintiff,

-versus-

Arturo Fuente and Ernesto Dimaunahan

Respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A complaint for damages was instituted in Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
by plaintiff Corazon Dimagiba against Arturo Fuente, owner and operator of a delivery
truck bearing the Plate No. AFD-75, and his driver Ernesto Dimaunahan. As alleged
therein, at about 5’o clock in the morning, October 24, 2011, while Ernesto Dimaunahan
was driving a delivery truck along Quirino Highway and because of his reckless driving,
he rammed the Mini Mart owned by the plaintiff.

As a result, the store was severely destructed and the estimated cost of the damage
to the plaintiff is P1 Million. Plaintiff averred that by reason thereof, she became destitute
as she lost her means of livelihood from the store which used to give her a monthly
income of P100, 000-P150, 000.

In the said complaint, the facts are stated below:

“It was raining heavily, around 5’o clock in the morning when one Ernesto
Dimaunahan, a truck driver of Fuente Fruits and Vegetables Dealer from Baguio City
was on his way to deliver the perishable goods to Balintawak Public Market, Quezon
City. As he was approaching the Balintawak Public Market, he lost control of the truck
due to overspeeding. To avoid larger damages, he intentionally rammed the Mini Mart
of one Corazon Dimagiba which is 15 meters away from the residential area. Claiming
damages, Corazon Dimagiba asked for the following award of damages:

Actual damages P 850, 000

Moral damages P 500, 000
Exemplary damages P 250, 000
Attorney’s fee P 150, 000
An investigation was then conducted after the incident.

An answer to the complaint was then filed by defendants Artur o Fuente and
Ernesto Dimaunahan. Defendant Dimagiba explained that in order to avoid more
catastrophic result, he opted to crash the truck to the vicinity where fewer casualties will
be produced. However, the actual damages claimed by the plaintiff are unfounded,
where sufficient evidence regarding the matter is not supplied. Moreover, the Mini Mart
referred herein was found unregistered in the DTI. The said establishment is also in a
declared accident prone area. Establishing a business in such place is already an
admission that at any given time, the establishment can be destroyed in an accident
and the owner must be physically, emotionally and mentally ready to face such, so there
must be no basis to charge the defendant any moral damages.

Follow-up investigation was conducted by the Quezon City Police District on the said
incident. After the investigation led by Chief Police Inspector Salvador Buencamino, a
police report was given and passed stating:

1. That the said delivery truck had a break malfunction.

2. That the said Mini Mart was heavily damaged causing it to stop its operation.
3. That the said Mini Mart doesn’t have any business permit and operating
illegally.
4. That the said truck driver had the complete requirements to drive
5. That no injured person/s was reported.
6. That the said delivery truck driver violated the maximum speed limit.
7. That the area where the establishment operates is in a declared accident
prone area.

TASKS:
 Prepare the COMPLAINT of Corazon Dimagiba and the ANSWER by Arturo
Fuente and Ernesto Dimaunahan and the MEMORANDUM for both parties.
FILE THE SAME OBSERVING THE DEADLINES.
 Assign the roles of the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
 Prepare an AFFIDAVIT for the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the TRIAL BRIEF. A series of anticipated Q & A of Witnesses.
CASE NO. 3
CIVIL CASE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
NICOLE CURTIS-SMITH,
Petitioner,

-versus-

NATHAN A. SMITH
Respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Sometime in 2002, Nicole Curtis, 16 years old met Nathan Smith, 21 years old, in the
Loveboat, a luxury ship while they were both cruising in Italy. It was love at first sight for both of
them. Nicole is a Filipina citizen while Nathan is French. They married each other in France few
days after. Under the law of France, a female can marry at age 16, thus Nathan and Nicole
were successfully married in France. The spouses decided to live in France for 5 years.
However, on October 30, 2007 they decided to live in the Philippines. On their fifth anniversary,
they had a “renewal of vows” thus, for purposes of the second marriage they executed an
Affidavit that they cohabited for a period of five years thus exempt from the marriage license
requirement.

Sometime in 2010, Nathan met another woman named Bianca, he fell in love with the
16year old girl. From then, his relationship with Nicole turned sour. Nathan beat Nicole to death
whenever she would go suspicious of his extra-marital relationship. Further, when Nicole got
pregnant she accused her of infidelity and denied paternity of the child. Nathan refused to give
financial support and even drained their joint savings account to finance his romantic escapades
with Bianca. Finally, Nathan asked Nicole to move out of their family home and cohabited with
Bianca. Later, Nathan on fear of being charged criminally of concubinage offered to live again
with Nicole in a condominium with a condition that he will visit Nicole only once a month just to
have sex with her. In 2012, Nathan abandoned Nicole and went back to France with Bianca.

Nicole wants to seek the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Nathan on the ground
of Psychological Incapacity, thus she consulted a Psychiatrist. The Psychological evaluation
reveals that Nathan has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Hence, the case at bar.

TASKS:
 Prepare the PETITION of Nicole Curtis-Smith and the COMMENT by Nathan
Smith and the MEMORANDUM for both parties. FILE THE SAME
OBSERVING THE DEADLINES.
 Assign the roles of the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
 Prepare an AFFIDAVIT for the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the TRIAL BRIEF. A series of anticipated Q & A of Witnesses.
CASE NO. 4
CRIMINAL CASE (CRIME OF PASSION)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
COCO LEVY MARTIN,
Complainant,

-versus-

JULIA ROBERTS- MARTIN

Respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Julia Martin and Coco martin were legally married and has been living together as
husband and wife for almost 15 years. Despite the age gap, Julia is 35 while Coco is 65, Julia
never failed to show Coco how much she loves him.

On July 29, 2012, Julia came home from work and was surprised to see Coco having
carnal knowledge with another person in their marital bed. Angered by the infidelity of Coco, she
immediately went to her brother who lives next door to get a gun. Holding her brother’s gun, she
stayed in the stairs and decided to kill Coco and the paramour when they finish doing the deed.
Julia listened to every moan and noises that came from their room and has gone crazy when
she heard Coco said “I love you so much, Nathan”. Furious by the fact of her husband’s
infidelity and dismayed that the paramour turned out to be a man, Julia entered the master’s
bedroom and shoot the man on top of the other, who happens to be Nathan.

On investigation, the police identified the victim who died a sudden death to be Mr.
Nathan Montenegro, a male prostitute. Julia was arrested and pleaded guilty to the crime,
however, she maintains that her act is governed by Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.

TASKS:
 Prepare the COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT of Julia Martin, the INFORMATION
filed by the Fiscal, and the COUNTER AFFIDAVIT by Coco Martin and the
MEMORANDUM for both parties. FILE THE SAME OBSERVING THE
DEADLINES.
 Assign the roles of the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
 Prepare an AFFIDAVIT for the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the TRIAL BRIEF. A series of anticipated Q & A of Witnesses.
CASE NO. 5
People of the Philippines and
Francisco Cabugtu aka “Francheska Cabugtu”, Complainant

VS.

US Army, Corporal Charles Williams, Respondent

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Francisco Cabugtu aka “Francheska Cabugtu”, who grew up in Manila, a male

transgender.

The accused, US Army Corporal Charles Williams is a delegate of the Joint US-
Philippine Military exercises being held in Manila.

On August 1, 2011 around 11:00 PM, Francheska was invited to a party at Cowboy
Grill in Malate, Manila by his friends. In the bar the complainant and respondent met at
the dance floor. The complainant together with his friends made acquaintance to the
respondent and his comrades, they all taught that the complainant was a real girl based
on his physical appearance and gestures. When the complainant felt dizzy he ask the
respondent to go out, have rest, and let the time pass by at the nearest hotel.

As the time passed by in the Executive Plaza Hotel in Manila the complainant woke up
and found himself completely naked, his whole body was painful and respondent
sleeping beside him was also naked. The complainant immediately put his clothes on
rushed to the nearest precinct and ask for help, after filling a complaint the police went
to the place of the incident and found the respondent still sleeping and obviously drunk
in the hotel, the police suspected that the respondent was under the influence of drugs
based on his appearance and action, they picked him up for questioning and
investigation.

The complainant Francisco, the next day filed a formal complaint at the Manila Regional
Trial Court under the Republic Act 8353 also known as Anti Rape Law of 1997 against
Corporal Charles Williams of the US Army claiming he was harassed and raped by
sexual assault and carnal knowledge, and he also claims civil indemnity for actual and
moral damages.

The complainant also went to the hospital to have a “medico legal” examination
for evidence against the respondent.

Also some videos, recorded conversations, and other objects of evidence and a
drug test of Corporal Williams were obtained during the preliminary investigation.
 Corporal Williams the respondent, now confined in the US embassy in Manila at
the time of investigation and judicial process, cannot deny the charges against him
claiming he had been abducted and cannot remember what happened and the drug
case issued against him was impossible based on the drug test records he submitted in
the US Military every year. The respondent also used the VFA (Visiting Forces
Agreement) in 1999 as a defense which states that “custody and judicial process for any
delegate of the Visiting Forces, in this case, Corporal Williams shall be with the US
Government until the delegate is convicted of any crime charge and service of sentence
shall be in the United States of America.”

TASKS:
 Prepare the COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT of Francheska Cabugtu, the
INFORMATION finding probable cause by the Public Prosecutor and the
COUNTER-AFFIDAIT by Corporal Williams and the MEMORANDUM for both
parties. FILE THE SAME OBSERVING THE DEADLINES.
 Assign the roles of the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
 Prepare an AFFIDAVIT for the WITNESSES.
 Prepare the TRIAL BRIEF. A series of anticipated Q & A of Witnesses.