Alvarez vs. Ramirez,  473 SCRA 72 FACTS Susan Ramirez filed a criminal case for arson against her brother-in-law Maximo Alvarez. The prosecution called to the witness stand its first witness Esperanza Alvarez, sister of Susan and wife of Maximo. Esperanza testified but when she showed uncontrolled emotions, the trial judge to suspended the proceedings. Subsequently, Maximo, through counsel, filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification. The trial court issued the questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza, prompting Susan to file a petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA nullified the order of the RTC. Can Esperanza testify against her husband in the arson case? RULING YES. The Supreme Court elucidated the doctrine that the marital disqualification rule has its exceptions, particularly in cases where an offense directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal relation. It u...

Ordono vs. Daquigan,  62 SCRA 270 FACTS In 1970, Avelino Ordoño was charged with having raped his daughter, Leonora. The Fiscal presented the wife, Catalina Ordoño as the second prosecution witness. After she had stated her personal circumstances, the defense counsel objected to her competency, invoking the marital disqualification rule found in Rule 130. Counsel claimed that Avelino had not consented expressly or impliedly to his wife's testifying against him. The trial court overruled the objection. Avelino's MR was denied; hence, he filed the instant action for certiorari and prohibition. Whether the rape committed by the husband against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife within the meaning of the exception found in the marital disqualification rule.   RULING Yes the wife may testify because the crime committed by the husband against his daughter is a crime againsnt his wife. When an offense directly attack or directly and vitally impairs,...

In the matter of the petition to approve the will of Rupert Palaganas,  G.R. No. 169144,January 26, 2011 FACTS Ruperta, a Filipino who became a naturalized U.S. citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her brother, Sergio, as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. Private respondent Ernesto filed with the RTC a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for the former’s appointment as special administrator of her estate. Petitioners, nephews of Ruperta (the nephews), opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it. The RTC allowed the will to be probated in the Philippines. This was affirmed by CA.  Hence petitioners files this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to this Court. Whether or not a will executed by a fore...

V.Doroteo vs. CA,  G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999 FACTS The case commenced following the death of Alejandro Dorotheo, whose estate remained unsettled after his spouse, Aniceta Reyes, died in 1969. In 1977, Lourdes L. Dorotheo, alleging to have cared for Alejandro before his death, filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament. The will was admitted to probate in 1981 without an appeal from Alejandro’s legitimate children, Nilda D. Quintana, Vicente Dorotheo, and Jose Dorotheo (private respondents). However, in 1983, they moved to declare the will intrinsically void, which the trial court granted in 1986. Lourdes'[petitioner’s] subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to submit her brief on time. This dismissal was final and executory by 1989. Despite an executory order stating the intrinsic voidness of the will and the distribution of the estate according to intestate laws, Lourdes opposed the motions filed by pri...

Ilusorio vs Ilusorio-Bildner,  G.R. 139789,May 12, 2000 FACTS Petitioner Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio and respondent Potenciano Ilusorio were married in 1942 and had six children. They separated in 1972 and lived separately, with Potenciano staying in Makati and Baguio while Erlinda resided in Antipolo. In 1997, Potenciano stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo for five months after returning from the U.S. However, his children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that he was given an overdose of Zoloft, which affected his health. In 1998, Erlinda filed for guardianship over Potenciano, citing his age and frail condition. In 1999, Erlinda filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that her children prevented her from seeing her husband and bringing him back to Antipolo. The Court of Appeals denied the habeas corpus petition but granted Erlinda visitation rights. Can a wife compel her husband to live with her through a writ of habeas corpus? RULING NO because marital rights, including cohab...

Nuguid vs. Nuguid,  G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966 FACTS Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid. On May 18, 1963, petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her. On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter alia , is that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as ...

Soliman M. Santos, Jr. vs. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas (379 Phil. 569) A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000 FACTS Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a fellow attorney, filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court on Feb 8, 1997, against Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. Santos noted repeated use of the receipt number “IBP Rizal 259060” by Llamas from 1995 to 1997 without proper indication of required PTR and IBP OR numbers. Sample pleadings from various years and courts were provided to substantiate the allegations. On March 18, 1997, the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Atty. Ida R. Macalinao-Javier certified that Llamas’s last payment of dues was in 1991. On July 7, 1997, the Court demanded a response from Llamas and later referred the case to the IBP for further investigation. In his memorandum dated June 3, 1998, Llamas argued he mistakenly believed his limited practice and senior citizenship exempted him from paying...

Bonifacio vs. Era and Bragas AC No. 11754, October 3, 2017 FACTS This case originates from an administrative complaint filed by Joaquin G. Bonifacio against Attys. Edgardo O. Era and Diane Karen B. Bragas for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The dispute stemmed from an illegal dismissal case lodged against Bonifacio and his company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Corporation, which was won by the complainants (Abucejo Group) represented by Era and Associates Law Office. Upon losing in the Supreme Court and a Writ of Execution being issued to enforce the judgment, two alias writs were subsequently issued directing collection of the judgment award plus interest and attorney’s fees. In 2013, the Supreme Court found Atty. Era guilty of violating Code of Professional Responsibility rules and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. Despite this suspension, Atty. Era actively participated in executing the alias writ, attended the public auction as the represe...

Ciocon vs Judge Lumbao, AM No. OCA IPI No. 09-3210, 2021 FACTS Ciocon-Reer and others filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lubao, accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, inefficiency, and various violations including dishonesty and misconduct. Defendants did not submit their memorandum by the expected deadline of November 6, 2008. Plaintiffs submitted their memorandum on November 10, 2008. Without receiving the registry return card, Judge Lubao sought confirmation of receipt from the Post Office in December 2008, but received no reply. On May 20, 2009, Judge Lubao gave defendants one last chance to submit their memorandum within 30 days and directed plaintiffs to assist in delivery, but the plaintiffs failed, leading to another registered mail delivery on June 17, 2009. The OCA was able to establish the pattern in Karaans unauthorized practice of law. He would require the parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to join ...

MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993 FACTS Petitioner prays this Court “to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes ‘A’ and ‘B’ (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.”  It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements [above] reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted. In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of la...

Re: Elmo Abad Bar Matter No. 139, March 28, 1983 FACTS The case emerged when Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., representing the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., accused Mr. Elmo S. Abad of practicing law without the official admission to the Philippine Bar. On July 23, 1979, Elmo S. Abad, having passed the 1978 Bar Exam, proceeded to fulfill certain prerequisites believed to be leading to his official induction into the Philippine Bar. This included paying the Bar Admission Fee, Certification Fee, and Membership Dues for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Abad was scheduled for his oath-taking on July 26, 1979. However, this was unexpectedly suspended when Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando required his response to an unrelated complaint, delaying his formal admission. Between 1979 and 1981, under the impression of being a bar member in good standing despite not having taken the official oath nor signed the Roll of Attorneys, Abad participated in legal practice. He cont...

Jovito Olazo v. Justice Tinga,  A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010 FACTS This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02 In the complaint, the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainant’s sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land. The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03 The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffre...