Topic: The need for Legal Research

Case: William vs. Enriquez (A.C. No. 6353, 27 February 2006)

Doctrine:
Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez stands charged with “unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of
Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney.”
Facts:
Spouses, Maria Williams bought the lot subject of controversy. A Transfer of
Certificate of Title (TCT) was then issued in her favor, stating that she is “Filipino,
married to David W. Williams, an American citizen. The respondent, Counsel of the
plaintiff, charged her with Falsification of Public documents before the office of the
City Prosecutor of Dumaguite City.
The petitioner cited that the respondents is outdated of his affidavit; she cited in
Article IV, section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that she would not lose
her citizenship when she married an American unless she renounced it in a specific
act.
The Respondent maintained on his part complainant Marissa was no longer a citizen
of the Republic of the Philippines as a result of her marriage to David Williams.
The court agrees that the respondent administratively liable for his actions.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the respondent administratively liable for his action.
Ruling:
As pointed out by the investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of
professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and
jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if
one does not know it constitutes gross of ignorance of the law. As a retired judge,
respondent shout has known that its duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest
ruling of the court on the issues and legal problems confronting to a client. In this
case, the law apparently misconstrued is no less than the constitution, the basic law
of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of
his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and
legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.
Topic: The need for Legal Research
Case: Domingo-Regala vs. Sultan (A.M. No. P-0501940, 28 February 2005)
Doctrine:
Habitual Absenteeism
An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually
absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days
monthly leave credit under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a
semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.
Facts:
Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada requested Judge Regala to comment on
the unauthorized leave of absence for the period 1-29 October 1999, 3-29 November
1999, and 1-3 and 06 December 1999, of Ma. Donna Y. Sultan. Said absences were
the subject of a letter by Ma. Donna Sultan addressed to the office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) complaining the disapproval by Judge Regala of her
applications for leave on above-mentioned dates.
Regala allegedly that Ma. Donna Sultan had always gone on extended leave of
absence without filing application for leave in absence; that, respondent always been
tardy in reporting for work and signs the office logbook with a time earlier than that of
her actual arrival; that, respondent cannot carry out proper legal research; that she
misled his staff that she was at Malvar General Hospital for days.
The Respondent does not deny the allegation except those months mentioned, she
claimed that all absences is authorized and she filed a leave but it was disapproved;
that, Judge Regala give her staff a grace period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to
8:30; that any task assigned to her , carries and tries to fulfill it to the best of her
abilities; that, she told her staff that her daughter will bring to the hospital, and she
will no compromise by going out of the office to talk to lawyers.
The RTC and OCA found the respondent liable for incompetence and habitual
absenteeism.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the contention of the respondent is acceptable.
Ruling:
As enunciated by the Court in several cases, no other office in the government
service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
employee than the judiciary. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with
an office charged tight dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest
clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be accountable to the people at all
times and serve them with the utmost degree of responsibility and efficiency.
Topic: What is practice of Law?
Case: Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100110, 3 September 1991)
Doctrine:
The practice of Law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actors and special
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before the judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general , all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporations
services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating appearance before
a judicial body , the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment,
and in matters of state and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice,
as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the works involves the
determination by trained legal mind of the legal effect.
Facts:
Respondent was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter receive by the Secretariat of the Commission
on Appointments. Petitioner opposed the nomination because he allegedly Monsod
does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of
law at least ten years.
Respondent stated his work experience as a lawyer as follows: (a) Law office of his
father (1963-1970), (b) Operations officer (2 years), (c) Chief Executive officer (1970-
1986), (d) Legal and Economic Consultant (1986-1987), (e) Chairman NAMFREL
The CA grant the appointment of the Respondent and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issue/s:
Whether or not practicing lawyer for at least ten years is an essential requirement in
appointing COMELEC chairman.
Ruling:
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of Law;
particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the
liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past
work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur
of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and
the poor -verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement- that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
An appointment is essentially within the discretionary power whomsoever it is
vested, subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the
qualifications required by law.
Topic: Exercise in Case Briefing
Case: Santos vs Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995)
Doctrine:
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligation of marriage,
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity manifest only after its solemnization.
Facts:
Leouel and Julia vows before Municipal Trial Court, shortly thereafter, by a church
wedding. They live at Julia’s parents and she gave birth Leouel Jr. Because of the
frequent interference by Julia’s parents, occasionally, spouses quarreled of a
number of things. Julia left to work as a nurse, she called up Leouel that she will
returned home after her contract and she never did. Leouel tried to locate or to get in
touch with Julia but his efforts were no avail.
Leuoel filed a complaint for “voiding the marriage Under Article 36 of the Family
Code”.
Julia opposed the complaint and denied its allegations, claiming, in main, that is was
the petitioner who had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court not only because of its non-compliance with
Circular 28-91, which requires a certification of non-shopping, but also for the lack of
merit.
Issue/s:
Whether or not failed to returned and no communication for more than five years is a
Psychologically incapacitated that can be a ground for voiding a marriage.
Ruling:
The phrase “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code has not
been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise
mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity,
and like circumstances. Article 36 cannot construe independently of, but must stand
in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law of marriage. Psychological
incapacity, refer to no less than mental incapacity, includes their mutual obligations
to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
Topic: Exercise in Synthesizing Cases
Case: Chi Ming Choi vs. CA (G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997)
Doctrine:
Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its journey
over trouble waters. Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over the time, much reliance
has been placed in the works of the unseen hand of Him who created all the things.
Facts:
The plaintiff married the defendant, after the celebration the proceed to the house of
the defendant. There was no sexual intercourse in the first night and same thing
happened in second third and fourth. They submitted themselves for medical
examination; the results were that she is healthy and still virgin but her husband
result is confidential.
The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual and that the
defendant married her to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country
and to maintain the appearance of a normal man.
On the other hand, the defendant claim that he loves her so very much; that he has
no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable; since the
relationship is still very young and if there is there is any differences between two of
them, it can be still reconcile between the two of them.
The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals was in favor and declare the marriage
VOID.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the failed to have sexual intercourse can be a basis of psychological
incapacitated.
Ruling:
It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private
respondent. That is -a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be
experienced not only by having sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual
communion, marital union is a two-way process, an expressive interest in each
other’s feelings at the time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening
the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting
adults who view the relationship with love, respect, sacrifice and a continuing
commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.
Topic: Exercise in Synthesis Cases
Case: Republic vs. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997)
Doctrine:
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically of clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological- not physical. Although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such extent that the person could not
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof.
Facts:
The respondent Roridel O. Molina filled a petition a declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Reynaldo Molina for the ground of psychological incapacity, for her basis
that Reynaldo showed sign of “immaturity and irresponsible”.
The respondent claimed that her husband preferred more time with his peers and
spent more money; that he is depended with his parents; and he never honest to
their finances resulting in frequent quarrels between them.
Reynaldo contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels due to (1)
Roridel’s strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her groups friends even after
the marriage; (2) Roridel’s refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as
cooking meals; and (3) Roridel’s failure to run the household and handle their
finances.
The Court of appeals affirmed the decision of RTC in favor to the petitioner.
Issue/s:
Whether or not immaturity and irresponsible is a basis of psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
In the present case, there is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken
of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a “difficulty”, if not outright “refusal”
or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of
“irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as a married person; it is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.
Topic: Exercise in Synthesis Cases
Case: Hernandez vs. CA (G.R. No. 126010, 8 December 1999)
Doctrine:
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically of clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological- not physical. Although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such extent that the person could not
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof.
Facts:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the latter.
She alleged that the private respondent failed to perform his obligation to support the
family, devoting most of his time drinking with his friends, cohabited with another
woman with whom he had illegitimate child, and he has a sexually transmissible
disease.
The trial court dismiss the petition and affirmed by the court of appeals.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the claim of the petitioner is valid ground to annul their marriage.
Ruling:
In the instant case, other than her self-serving declarations, petitioner failed to
established the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was
suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to
assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. It was
not sufficiently proved that private respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his
duties due to some incapacity of a psychological in nature, and not merely physical.
Topic: Exercise in Synthesis Cases
Case: Marcos vs. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000)
Doctrine:
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of marriage, may be
established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however,
that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a
conditio sine qua non for such declaration.
Facts:
The case is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
on the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
The parties married twice: (1) In Municipal of Pasig; and (2) at Presidential Security
Command Chapel in Malacañang. Out of their marriage, five children were born.
Appellant Wilson G. Marcos left the military service and engage into business
ventures that did not prosper. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful
employment, they often quarrel as a consequence, he would hit her and beat her,
and even force his wife to have sex, and also inflict physical harm on their children.
Brenda B. Marcos submitted herself to medical examination where he injuries were
diagnosed as constutions.
The RTC grant the petition, while the CA set aside the findings of the RTC.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the respondent is psychological incapacity to perform marital
obligation.
Ruling:
The supreme court rule in the negative, the Court is sufficiently convinced that
respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to
physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a
conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is no absolute showing that
his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are
incurable.
The behavior of respondent can attribute to the fact that he had lost his job and was
not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period
that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and
even left the family home.