Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

MODULE 3 MEMORY PRIMER  Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Prepared by: Pierre Macalino prolongs the violation to their free speech, so
This primer assumes the reader has read all cases the issue being brought to the SC is justified.
 COMELEC regulated based on content, and
Lopez v Roxas: Judicial Power Defined not on mere regulations. This violates
 Constitutionality of PET freedom of expression.
 S1, A8 – judicial branch of the government  They did not have to go through the hierarchy
not merely some specified or limited judicial of judicial system since if they did, their right
power, but the entirety of all said power, to freedom of expression will be continually
except when the Constitution confers upon violated
some other agency, such as the power to Firestone Ceramics v CA: Supreme Court | En Banc
judge all contests relating to the election, and Division Cases
returns, and qualifications  Concerns 99 hectare land supposedly owned
 Validity of RA 1793 which created PET by RP, which has been adjudicated to private
 Writ of prohibition with preliminary individuals
injunction  En Banc cases according to SC Circular 2-89:
Republic v Sereno: Separation and Blending of (1) constitutionality (2) death penalty (3)
Powers questions of law (4) ambassadors, public
 Supreme Court has jurisdiction because it can ministers and consuls (5) CSC, CE, CA
review the decisions by the JBC by its decisions (6) removal of judiciary members
mandated power by the Constitution. It does (7) reversal of doctrine (8) 3 members (9)
not preclude the Senate from selecting actual membership
appointees. JBC is there because it has been  Third Div. Court voted 4-1 to deny petition to
conferred the power. send the case en banc, but SC ruled 9-5. This
 SC can also try this because a quo warranto is legitimate and valid as residual power of
is judicial in nature, while impeachment is the SC.
political. HoR can still prepare the articles of Fabian v Desierto: Rule-Making Powers
impeachment, and the Senate can still try it.  Relationship gone bad case, Ombudsman
Completely different  Petition for certiorari against the ombudsman
 Petition for quo warranto who exonerated Agustin
Angara v EC: Separation and Blending of Powers  SC has the power to promulgate rules, but
 Angara won, entered NA. But Ynsua they shall not increase, diminish, or modify
protested. Angara filed for WoP. substantive rights. Art.6, S30
 NA’s resolution no 8 does not preclude the  Case transferred to CA. RA 6770 Section 27
EC from exercising its constitutionally given and Section 7 Rule 3 of AO 7 is declared
powers to try electoral protests invalid
 System of checks and balances  NA: EC  Transferred to CA
 Judiciary is the only constitutional organ that Secretary of National Defense v Manalo: Rule-
can determine proper allocation of powers/to Making Powers
check if departments stick by their own  Petition for review seeking to reverse
powers decision of CA
 EC is a constitutional organ that can check  First time SC used its expanded power to
returns/qualifications or electoral protests of promulgate rules: Amparo rule
the NA  Writ of Amparo – enables courts to enforce
Diocese of Bacolod v CE: Doctrine of Hierarchy of the constitution by protecting individual
Courts rights
 Writ of certiorari and prohibition Carpio-Morales v CA: Third Level Courts, CA
 Condonation Doctrine
 CA granted prayer for a TRO that prevents  Foreign court judgements are presumed to be
Ombudsman form issuing preventive valid
suspension  Art. 8, Sec. 14
 CA has jurisdiction since RA 6770 is De Castro v JBC: The Judicial and Bar Council
unconstitutional  Special civil action. Certiorari, prohibition,
 Sec.9 (1) of Bldg.129 (reorganizing act) mandamus
which give CA og jurisdiction to issue writs  Art. 8, Sec 4, 8, 9
of mandamus, prohi, cert, habeas, and quo  JBC has the principal function of
warranto recommending appointees to the Judiciary
Duncano v Sandiganbayan: Third Level Courts,  JBC must send a short list within 90 days
Sandiganbayan  President cannot appoint 2 months before the
 Petition for certiorari to reverse end of her term
sandiganbayan decision Jardaleza v Sereno: The Judicial and Bar Council
 Motion to dismiss -> reconsider -> cert  Art. 8, Sec 8
 BIR director fails to give true SALN  Jardeleza replacing a retired Assoc. Justice
 Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction since  Sereno invoked sec 2, rule 10 of JBC-009
below Salary Grade 27  Unanimity rule is unconstitutional because it
Batas Pambansa Blg.129: Second Level Courts, RTC violates due process
 Intermediate appellate courts; 10 divisions Marbury v Madison: Origins of Judicial Review
 OG jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,  Petition for writ of mandamus – denied,
prohi, cert, habeas, and quo warranto unconstitutional
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final  Marbury claims he has the right to
judgements of RTC EXCEPT those falling commission to justice of peace
within appellate jurisdiction of SC  Established doctrine of Judicial Review
 13 RTC’s Francisco v HoR: Origins of Judicial Review
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980: First Level  Instant petition to review the second
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit impeachment complaint of CJ Davide
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities  SC has jurisdiction to review cases where
 RA 7691 GADALEJ apparent, or in cases where the
 Except for cases that fall within RTC and constitution may be violated
Sandig jurisdiction, they shall have  Unconstitutional sections 16 & 17 due to Art
jurisdiction over all violations of city and 11 Sec 3,
municipal ordinances, and some offenses Tanada v Cuenco: Political Question
 Sec 32(1-2) of Blg.129  Petition for WPI
Echegaray v Secretary of Justice: Jurisdiction  Political question – those outside judicial
 Motion for reconsideration power. Validity of an act =/ performance of
 Court doesn’t lose jurisdiction even with an act (regards to SET)
final judgement. They can’t change the  Unconstitutional appointments to SET.
decision, but they can change how it’s Assails appointments of Cuenco and Delgado
executed because there are already 3 members of their
 Senate said they have no plans to amend, so party
execution proceeded Film Development Council of the Philippines v Colon
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v CA: Basis of Heritage Realty Corporation: Effects of a Declaration
Decisions of Unconstitutionality
 Petition for review on certiorari  Petition for review on certiorari
 Contract with Indian corporation violated,  Doctrine of operative fact
Indian Court ruled in favor of them. SC has
to adopt the decision
 FDCP gets the funds instead of LGC’s of People of the Philippines v CA: Impartiality
Cebu City. LGU’s are the right taxing  Due process – there must be an impartial
authority. court or tribunal clothed with judicial power
 Unconstitutional sec 13 and 14 of RA 9167  Prayer to inhibit judge espina from trying
Ocampo v Enriquez: Grave Abuse of Discretion criminal case (reyes and jane)
 Concurring in the Decision are Velasco,  Espina is unfit because he enjoined the
Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del preliminary investigation on Jane Go’s
Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, and Perlas- husband
Bernabe, JJ. Dissenting from the Decision In Re: Allegations made under oath at Senate Blue:
are Sereno, CJ., Carpio, SAJ, Leonen, Propriety (Judges)
Jardeleza and Caguioa, JJ. Separate - (a)  Gregory Ong is implicated in pork-barrel
Concurring: Brion, Perez, and Mendoza, JJ.; scam. He is seen with photos with Napoles
(b) Dissenting: Sereno, CJ, Carpio, SAJ, and Jinggoy Estrada
Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ  Violated Propriety code when he kept
 No clear legal basis to hold there was connected to Napoles despite the Kevlar
GALADEJ helmet issue
 Art. 7, Sec 17  P3,864,044 to purchase 500 kevlar helmets
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v People of the Philippines Ocampo v Arcaya-Chua: Competence and Diligence
and the Sandiganbayan Grave Abuse of Discretion (Judges)
 See opinions  4 consolidated cases (Ocampo, Chang Tan,
 Sandigabayan failed to establish conspiracy Audit, Santos); Administrative
b/w GMA, Aguas, Uriate, and others  Ocampo: wife got custody, Ocampo denied
 Wrongfully set GMA as mastermind, leading flight rights with children, motion to dismiss,
to GADALEJ TPO, motion for inhibition (dismissed)
Kilosbayan v Executive Secretary: Qualifications  Chang Tan/RCBC (gross misconduct):
(Judges) Albert Tan granted custody of his son.
 To be a member of Judicial branch one has to “Break Open” Order. Issuance of WPI is too
be natural-born fast
 Petition for certiorari. Gragory Ong has the  Judicial Audit (gross misconduct): For not
burden of proving his ancestral tree making people pay for marriage certificates
 Birth Certificate is prima facie evidence  Santos (violated New Code of Judicial
In Re: Allegations of Mr. Amado Macasaet: Conduct): Aunt of Arcaya-Chua paid 100k
Independence (Judges) for speedy judgement in her favor
 Malaya newspaper. Amado being cited for An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the
indirect contempt Philippines, RA 386 Art. 27 & 32: Civil Liability
 Justice Carpio doesn’t think he should have (Liabilities of Judge)
been  anyone suffering due to negligence of public
 Clear and present danger and dangerous servant can sue for damages
tendency should have been used, not just  Refer to code
falsity and negligence. “chilling effect” Santiago III v Enriquez: Criminal Liability
OCA v Judge Floro: Integrity (Judges) (Liabilities of Judge)
 Administrative  Motion for inhibition to Enriquez due to
 Judge Floro was filed with 13 charges alleged twisting of law
 In terms of integrity, he was found to be  Dissenting opinion became majority opinion
stating his partiality to the accused. A judge  Judicial Immunity – insulates judges and
is a representative of the law, thus his actions justices of superior courts from being held to
have higher standards account criminally, civilly, or
 His mental condition caused him to be unfit administratively for an erroneous decision
rendered in good faith. Purpose is to preserve lawyer only practices law, but this isn’t the
the integrity and independence of judiciary case with modern lawyers
Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140:  Cayetano challenges Monsod’s ’10 years’ of
Administrative Liability practice in law, saying it his years as not a
 Proceedings for discipline of judges and ‘pure practioner’ doesn’t count
justice of CA and Sandiganbayan may be  Cayetano was a lawyer-economist, manager,
instituted motu proprio (no complaint entrepreneur, negotiator, and legislator
needed) Ulep v Legal Clinic: Nature and Scope of the Legal
 Needs to be sufficient in form and substance Profession (Lawyer CPR)
 OCA  retired SC member if CA/Sandig  Legal clinic advertised sketchy legal aides
Judge | OCA  retired CA justice if (P50 for valid marriage, also showed how to
RTC/below judge bypass PH rules on divorce – go to Guam)
OCA vs Judge Eliza B. Yu: Disciple of Members of  Since they are still giving legal assistance,
the Bench they are practicing law. No such thing as
 Motion for reconsideration paralegals in the Philippines. Also, name
 The image of the judiciary must remain ‘Legal Clinic’ makes its services fall within
unsullied by the conduct of its bench. Eliza the realm of practice
Yu’s inappropriate emails are apprehensible  Public policy requires that the practice of law
 5 cases (Non-compliance with night shift, not may be limited to those individuals who are
honoring court appointments, refusing to sign qualified in education and character
leave of absence disrespect towards  Manifestations by IBP, Philippine Bar
judges/SC, inappropriate messages) Association, Philippine Lawyers
In Re: Charges of plagiarism against A.J. Mariano C. Association, U.P. Women Lawyer’s Circle,
del Castillo: Misconduct (Liabilities of Judge) Women Lawyer’s Association of the
 Motion for reconsideration by losing party in Philippines, Federacion Internacional de
Vinuya v Romulo Abogadas
 Justice Castillo accused of lifting from three In Re: Cunanan: Admission to the Practice of Law
articles (Criddle, Ellis, Tams) without citing (Lawyer CPR)
to the decision in Vinuya v Romulo  Bar Flunkers Act or RA 972 “An act to Fix
 SC said that the lack of attribution in the the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations
judiciary has not been regarded as plagiarism from 1946 to 1955)
for the past 100 years  RA 972 held unconstitutional
Atty. Melvin Mane v Judge Medel Belen: Misconduct Form 28, Rules of Court: Nature of a Lawyers Oath
(Liabilities of Judge) (Lawyer CPR)
 Berated Melvin Mane for being a graduate of  See Module 3 notes
MLQU (because Mane implied that Belen Sebastian v Calis: Nature of a Lawyer’s Oath
may have been bribed). He also used (Lawyer CPR)
language unbecoming of a judge. Ad  Complaint for disbarment, Administrative
hominem  Calis promised Sebastian that he can get her
 Mane withdrew his complaint, but OCA to the USA for 150k. Sebastian got
pursued. Only a light charge. reprimanded at Singapore and got sent back.
Cayetano v Monsod: Nature and Scope of the Legal She asked for her money back, but Calis only
Profession (Lawyers CPR) returned 26k.
 Petition to review the decision of the  The lawyer’s oath is not a mere facile of
Commission on Appointments words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
 Chairman of CE has to have practiced 10 must be upheld and keep inviolable. The
years in law. The traditional notion is that a nature of the office of an attorney requires
that he should be a person of good moral  Freedom is not freedom from responsibility,
character. but freedom with responsibility. The use of
Cojuanco, Jr. v Palma: Qualifications (Lawyer CPR) unnecessary language jeopardizes high
 Palma married the 22-year-old daughter of esteem in courts and creates distrust
his client (Cojuanco), but Palma is already  Many dissented and said that the protection
married of freedom of speech is important and that it
 Palma made a mockery of the law of marriage if taken as a whole, the statement of UP isn’t
by misrepresenting himself as a bachelor. His against this court
actions are also immoral as he took advantage Burbe v Magulta: Attorney-Client Relationship
of a 22-year-old (Lawyer and the Client)
Castaneda v Ago: The Lawyer and Society (Lawyer  Burbe hired Magulta. Magulta asked for 25k
CPR) for legal filing fees, but after months of
 Castaneda recovered machineries from Ago, waiting Burbe found no progress. Magulta
which was then sold by the Sheriff. Ago admitted that he spent the money for personal
appealed to the SC, then filed for motion for reasons. Magulta offered to reimburse, but
stay of execution, then filed another Burba filed for disbarment
complaint to Court of First instance, then  Magulta argues that there was not a lawyer-
filed WoC and WoP. He went back to the CA, client relationship. But that was established
then SC, then back to CA. the moment Burbe asked for legal advice
 The lawyer of Pastor Ago misused legal  Practice of law a profession, not a business
remedies and prostituted judicial process Pacana Jr. v Pascual-Lopez: Conflict of Interest
 Duty of the Lawyer to Society – a counsel has (Lawyer and the Client)
the duty of advising his client on the merit or  Conflict of interest case, Pascual-Lopez
lack thereof of his case. A lawyer’s oath to represented two parties at conflict
uphold justice is superior to his duty to his  Pascual-Lopez represented the company of
client. Pacana while simultaneously representing
In Re: Edillon: The Lawyer and the Legal investors suing same company
Profession (Lawyer CPR)  Rule 15.03 – lawyer learns all the facts
 Edillon refused to pay his membership dues connected with the client’s case, weak and
to the IBP. IBP kept summoning him and strong points. No opportunity must be given
asking him to pay, but he never did. Thus, to take advantage of his client, for if the
reprimanded then disbarred confidence is abused the profession will
 All lawyers must be members of IBP, thus suffer by the loss thereof.
they are also subject to the rules of IBP Regalaa v Sandiganbayan: Attorney-Client Privilege
 Practice of law is not a vested right, but a (Lawyer and the Client)
privilege clothed with public interest because  Petition for certiorari assailing the decision of
a lawyer owes substantial dues not only to his CA. They want equal protection clause, since
client but also to his brethren in the Raul Roco was given the opportunity to
profession, courts, nation, and takes part in exclude his clients
the function of State as an officer of the court.  ACCRA Law Firm refused to give out the
In Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled names of their clients involved in the “Coco
“Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the Levy Fund Scam” due to Attorney-Client
University of the Philippines College of Law on the privilege
allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the  Information relating to the identity of a client
Supreme Court: The Lawyer and the Courts falls in this privilege when the name is
 UP regarded the Vinuya case of Justice significant in itself, such that disclosure of
Castillo. Court gave Show Cause resolution which would reveal client confidences.
to faculty Roxas v de Zuzuarregui: Attorney’s Fees
 Petition for review on certiorari of CA
 Atty. Roxas and Pastor were the lawyers of
Zuzurregui in expropriating the land, which
awarded 54 million. Roxas and Pastor
received 44%, which the SC ruled too high,
so they were asked to return the 17 million.
 A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees. He shall be guided by the
following factors (a) time spent and extent of
services rendered (b) novelty and difficulty
of question involved (c) importance of
subject matter (d) skill demanded (e) the
probability of losing other employment as a
result of acceptance of the proffered case (f)
the customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the UBP chapter
to which he belongs (g) the amount involved
in the controversy and the benefits resulting
to the client from the service (h) the
contingency or certainty of compensation (i)
the character of the employment, whether
occasional or established (j) the professional
standing of the lawyer