Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Case Digest
FACTS:
During the World War 2, the Japanese Army systematically destroyed villages and raped Filipina women, our
mothers and sisters, seizing them, holding them captive in their prisons where they were repeatedly ravished and
abused. Since 1998 Petitioner Isabelita Vinuya, along with all the members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, who
were the victims of untold sorrows, have been approaching the Executive Department, requesting assistance in
filing claims in the ICJ against the ruthless Japanese officers who established comfort women stations, asking for an
official apology, and other forms of reparations. However the Department, despite the actual inhuman and barbaric
event, REFUSES to help their own mothers and sisters, SAYING that the petitioners claims has already been fully
satisfied under the PEACE TREATY between Philippines and Japan.
Aggrieved, they seek the intervention of the court in the search for justice.
The Court however, DISMISSED their
3 Foreign Articles:
action on the grounds that (1) The
a. Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by
Executive alone has the prerogative as to
Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale
whether to espouse the petitioners claim;
Journal of International Law (2009);
b.
Breaking the Silence: Rape as an
(2) the Philippines is not under any
International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case
obligation to espouse their claims.
Western
Reserve
Journal
of
The petitioners filed for Reconsideration
International
Law
(2006);
and
Accusing Justice Del Castillo of manifest
c.
Enforcing
Erga
Omnes
intellectual theft and outright PLAGIARISM
Obligations by Christian J. Tams,
when he wrote the decision; and for TWISTING
Cambridge University Press (2005).
the true intents of the Plagiarized sources.
They claim that the INTEGRITY of the COURT has been put into question because of
Justice Del Castillos FRAUD.
When the authors learned of the alleged plagiarism: their concern was the Courts Conclusion that
prohibitions against sexual slavery are not JUS COGENS (international binding norms that treaty cannot
diminish). Dr. Ellis wrote the Court expressing his concern that the Court may have misread the argument
he made. He said that he wrote that article to argue for APPROPRIATE LEGAL REMEDIES for VICTIMS
of WAR CRIMES. The DEAN of U.P. Law publicized a statement claiming that the VINUYA DECISION
was AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT of INJUSTICE xxx BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND
ISSUE
1. WON Justice Castillo was guilty of PLAGIARISM
2. WON he twisted the works in order to support the Courts position in
the VINUYA decision
HELD:
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
4
GACAD vs. JUDGE CLAPIS, Jr.
FACTS:
Criselda Gacads brother, Gregorio Cardenas, was gunned down. She filed criminal
charges against the suspects. The provincial prosecutor suggested that they see
Respondent Judge and prepare an amount of 50k for the latter, so that he would deny
the motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused. In the Golden Palace Hotel, the
prosecutor along with his wife and the petitioner met with the respondent judge
where the judge uttered the most inglorious battle quote sige, kay dot, ako bahala,
gamuson nato ni sila (okay leave it to me we will crush them AWWOOOOOO!)
the next day petitioner entrusted his driver BAYLOSIS the 50k and sent him to the
judge, with the prosecutors nephew. After denying the motion for reinvestigation, a
week after the prosecutor told the petitioner that the judge was borrowing another
50k from her, for his mothers hospitalization, but the petitioner refused. From that
moment, the two stupid dogs (judge and prosecutor) began to prejudice their case.
Judge Clapis set hearing on February, however the notices were mailed on fucking
march. How the fuck do you expect the petitioner to be there. Judge Clapis granted
BAIL Petitioner filed for INHIBITION. To PROVE how corrupt the
motherfuckers are, in a CASE against her BROTHER, the prosecutor asked her to
pay 80k so that the case would be dismissed, and it did got dismissed despite the
strong evidence against her brother.
ISSUE:
1. WON respondent is liable for extortion?
2. WON he is liable for gross misconduct?
HELD:
1. No it was not SUBSTANTIALY PROVEN. In Administrative cases: charges
based on suspicions/speculations cannot be given credence.The Petitioner has
the onus probandi of proving her allegations based on substantial evidence. In
this case, there was no evidence that the Judge did receive the 50k. However,
the judge only offered a flat denial, without presenting the prosecutor to
deny/refute the petitioners claims.
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
2. YES. Even if its not Substantially Proven, he can be held liable for GROSS
MISCONDUCT (Kaw vs. Osario) He act in PATENT Disregard of well know
rules. The Investigating Justice found her Narration as CREDIBLE. Moreover
the judge only denied her allegation in the hearing, but not on his comment,
and without presenting evidence to support his denial.
His act of telling her WE WILL CRUSH THEM constitutes GROSS
misconduct. He tolerated unreasonable postponements.
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
FACTS:
Petitioner is the counsel of record in several cases pending before Judge Salonga. He
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against said judge on the ground of
Serious Misconduct, Ignorance of the law, inefficiency in office, and partiality.
Pending the administrative case, petitioner moved the court to have the respondent
judge disqualified from sitting in those cases, but the judge merely rejected this
motion, since according to him, the administrative complaint against him is not a
ground for his disqualification under the Rules of Court. And that the said Civil
cases are now in their final disposition, and to transfer them to another sala would
only make the parties suffer further efforts and expenses.
ISSUE:
- Is a judge disqualified from acting in litigations in which counsel of
record for one of the parties is his adversary in an administrative case
said counsel lodged against him?
Rules of Court,, Rule 137, Section 1
Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consaguinity
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the
civil law, or in which be has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered
upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from
sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
Efforts to attain fair, just and impartial trial and decision, have a natural and alluring
appeal. But, we are not licensed to indulge in unjustified assumptions, or make a
speculative approach to this ideal. It ill behooves this Court to tar and feather a judge
as biased or prejudiced, simply because counsel for a party litigant happens to
complain against him. As applied here, respondent judge has not as yet crossed the
line that divides partiality and impartiality. He has not thus far stepped to one side of
the fulcrum. No act or conduct of his would show arbitrariness or prejudice.
Therefore, we are not to assume what respondent judge, not otherwise legally
disqualified, will do in a case before him
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D
R-5
Case Digest
ISSUE:
WON judge should be dismissed due to Gross
immorality and Gross MISCONDUCT
HELD:
YES. putang ina siya. However he already
RESIGNED. He can no longer be dismissed. He is ordered to pay a
EVERYTHING.
The Court cannot countenance any act or omission, on the part of the officials at
every level in the administration of justice, which erodes rather than enhances the
publics faith and trust in the judiciary. Respondents disgraceful conduct surely
merits sanctions even if he has already retired as of November 1, 1998. For the
serious misconduct of respondent, the penalty provided for in Rule 140, Section 10,
of the Rules of Court, by way of fine in the maximum amount should be imposed
We are not in accord with the OCAs recommendation, however, as regards forfeiture of all retirement benefits
due respondent. We note that implementation of this penalty, while directed at respondent, might adversely affect
innocent members of his family, who are dependent on him and his retirement gratuity. It is our considered view that,
given the circumstances of this case, the maximum fine of P40,000.00 would be sufficient penalty.
Ethics
f.t.w.
P.O.D