J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0066: TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., COMPLAINANT -VERSUS – ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, RESPONDENTS. (A.C. NO. 9090, 31 AUG 2016, PEREZ, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRUZ VS. ATTY. REYES ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated 22 August 2012 is hereby modified in that respondent Atty. John G. Reyes is REPRIMANDED for his failure to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of the legal profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be said that respondent has no liability at all under the circumstances. His folly, though, consists in his negligence in accepting the subject cases without first being fully apprised of and evaluating the circumstances surrounding them. We, nevertheless, agree with respondent that such negligence is not of contumacious proportions as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension. This Court finds the penalty of suspension for one ( 1) year earlier imposed on respondent too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed. “The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.”42 The penalty to be meted out on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion taking into consideration the facts surrounding each case.43

In this connection, the following circumstances should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate respondent’s responsibility: first respondent exhibited enough candor to admit that he was negligent and remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the request of another lawyer to handle a case without being first apprised of the details and acquainted with the circumstances relative thereto; and second, since this is his first offense, respondent “is entitled to some measure of forbearance. “44

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0066-atty-john-g-reyes

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0065: JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO – VERSUS – LUIS G. ANSON  (G.R. NO. 204494, 27 JULY 2016, REYES, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: SALGADO VS ANSON)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 6, 2012 and the Resolution dated November 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92989 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 69611 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

All things considered, the Court holds that although a certification of no record of marriage license or certification of “due search and inability to find” a record or entry issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the license,93 such certification is not the only proof that could validate the absence of a marriage license.

In this case, the categorical statement on Luis and Severina’s marriage contract that no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer, coupled with a contrived averment therein that the marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code, are circumstances which cannot be disregarded.

Incidentally, it may be well to note that Luis’ failure to assert his marriage to Severina during the latter’s lifetime is suspect. Luis left for the USA in 1981, and until Severina’ s death in 2002, he never saw, much less reconciled with her.94 All those years, he never presented himself to be the husband of Severina. Not even their daughter, Maria Luisa, knew of the marriage. During trial, he never presented any other witness to the marriage. He contends that his marriage to Severina was valid and subsisting, yet he knowingly contracted a subsequent marriage abroad. Verily, Luis failed to prove the validity of their marriage based on the evidence he himself had presented.

“The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for a valid marriage. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. “95

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0065-salgado

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0064: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,  V.  N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION, INC., (G.R. 208181, 31 AUGUST 2016, , PEREZ J.) (SUBJECT/S: HOW TO COUNT THE 60 DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI) (BRIEF TITLE: MERALCO VS. N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER FILED ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEYOND 60 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF DENIAL OF THEIR FIRST MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT WITHIN THE 60 DAYS FROM DENIAL OF THEIR SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. WAS SUCH PETITION FILED ON TIME?

NO.

THE RULE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE 60 DAY PERIOD SHALL BE FROM NOTICE OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF ONE WAS FILED.

PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RAISED NEW MATTERS. THEREFORE THE 60 DAY PERIOD MUST RUN FROM NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. IT THIS CORRECT?

NO. OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE NO END IN THE LITIGATION.

THE FINALITY OF A DECISION IS A JURISDICTIONAL EVENT WHICH CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND ON THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES.24 TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD COMPLETELY NEGATE THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON COMPLETENESS OF SERVICE, WHICH IS TO PLACE THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENT AND PROCESSES BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PARTY TO DETERMINE AT HIS PLEASURE.25

IS THE 60 DAY PERIOD EXTENDIBLE?

NO.

THE 60-DAY PERIOD IS INEXTENDIBLE TO AVOID ANY UNREASONABLE DELAY THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASE.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0064-meralco

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.