CASE 2019-0041: RE: NEWS REPORT OF MR. JOMAR CANLAS IN THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF 8 MARCH 2016 (A.M. NO. 16-03-10-SC. OCTOBER 15, 2019, CARPIO, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

IN BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF MEDIA AND AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY WHAT ARE THE RULES?

THERE ARE TWO RULES: THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE AND THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE.

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE MEANS THAT THE EVIL CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMMENT MUST BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE SUCH COMMENT BE PUNISHED.

XXXXXXXX

THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE STATES THAT IF THE WORDS UTTERED CREATED A DANGEROUS TENDENCY WHICH THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT THEN SUCH UTTERANCE IS PUNISHABLE. THE EFFECT OF SUCH UTTERANCE IS TO BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED.

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

SCD-2019-0041-Re – News report of Mr. Jomar Canlas in the Manila Times issue of 8 March 2016

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

CASE 2019-0000: ANGEL A. ARDE VS. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA (A.C. NO. 7607. OCTOBER 15, 2019, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISBARMENT; SUSPENSION) (BRIEF TITLE: ARDE VS ATTY. DE SILVA)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ATTY. DE SILVA WAS SUSPENDED IN LAW PRACTICE BUT STILL CONTINUED PRACTICING LAW.  SHE MISAPPROPRIATED CLIENT’S MONEY.  THE COMPLETE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHAT PENALTY WAS METED TO ATTY. DE SILVA?

DISBARMENT.

SAID THE COURT:

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

SCD-2019-0040-Angel A. Arde Vs. Atty. Evangeline De Silva

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

CASE 2019-0039: MOISES G. CORO VS. MONTANO B. NASAYAO (G.R. NO. 235361. OCTOBER 16, 2019, INTING, J.) (SUBJECT/S: FORGERY, MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES) (BRIEF TITLE: CORO VS NASAYAO)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT THE DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT PURCHASING PETITIONER’S LOT WAS FORGED. BUT PETITIONER’S PROOF CONSISTS ONLY OF HIS AVERMENTS.

MERE AVERMENTS ARE NOT ENOUGH. PETITIONER MUST PROVE FORGERY BY CLEAR, POSITIVE AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

HOW DO YOU PROVE FORGERY?

ARE MORAL DAMAGES PUNITIVE?

NO, THEY ARE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING OR MENTAL ANGUISH RESULTING FROM A WRONG.

HOW TO PROVE MORAL DAMAGES?

NOT BY MERE ALLEGATIONS. THERE MUST BE PROOF OF PHYSICIAL SUFFERING, MENTAL ANGUISH, FRIGHT, SERIOUS ANXIETY, BESMICHED REPUTATION, WOUNDED FEELINGS, MORAL SHOCK, SOCIAL HUMILIATION OR SIMILAR INJURY.

WHAT ARE EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND WHAT ARE THEIR REQUISITES?

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

SCD-2019-0039-Moises G. Coro Vs. Montano B. Nasayao

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