RSS

Look, I Am Ready (L.I.A.R.)

Look, you are ready for the Bar Examinations:

Not because you finished all your target readings, audio notes, and coachings;

Not because you have sufficiently read all those law books, cases, and review materials;

Not because you understood all the principles and doctrines in jurisprudence;

Not because you were able to memorize the provisions of the laws;

But simply because you chose to be ready.

Readiness is a status that starts and ends the time you made a choice.

If you are thinking that readiness is a state of being well-prepared in the sense that you have mastered all the subjects and can confidently say that you can answer every question of law with precision and accuracy; or if you are convinced that you completed all those academic, physical and psychological preparations; then you are missing the point. One is ready if you can manage your innermost fear of being unready. If your concept of readiness is any or all those enumerated above, then you are ready – not because of the fact of preparedness, but because you made a choice, and told yourself that you are ready. That choice placed your fear in a small isolated box, far from your reach.

“What if I really never made sufficient readings?” or “What if I never really understood all those principles of law?” But you see, the lying may be on the other side around. “What If you are simply denying yourself the confidence that you need to be admitted in the Bar?” or “What if you are lying to yourself that you are fit to be in the legal profession?”

LOOK, YOU ARE READY!

Just imagine those sleepy days because you are awake all nights;

Imagine how you were able to finish all those subjects, sometimes after several attempts;

Imagine how you were able to survive four, five, or even more years before you graduated;

Imagine all the milestones, events, and gatherings you have turned down;

Imagine the business or work opportunities lost because of law school;

Imagine all those uncalled pressure you experienced in recitations and exams;

Now, think of those bright days ahead:

Think of how you can sleep all day after this Bar Examinations;

Think of all the time you can spend after this month of November;

Think of those better professional opportunities after you hurdle these;

Think of how you can enjoy doing things you are accustomed of and also help other people;

Think of realizing this dream or calling to be one in the legal profession;

Think of the years ahead with your family and friends;

As to your family and friends: Aren’t they the reason why YOU ARE NOW READY?

Recall how they stood beside you all those years;

Recall how they supported you to all the way, financially and emotionally;

Recall how happy and proud they were on the day of your graduation;

Recall your promises you have partially fulfilled by taking the bar Examinations;

Recall that this November’s undertaking is not for you but for them;

Recall their faces and their smiles as you close your eyes;

 

Now, take a deep breath, then open your eyes and tell me if you are still not ready.

Of course you are. You already made a choice.

NOW, LET’S DO THIS!

#Bar2017

 

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 31, 2017 in Personal

 

Tags: , , ,

Laude v. Judge Ginez-Jabalde, et al. G.R. No. 217456, 24 November 2015.

[LEONEN, J.]

FACTS: This involves the celebrated case of Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude (Jennifer) killed at the Celzone Lodge on Ramon Magsaysay Drive in Olongapo City allegedly by 19-year-old US Marine L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton). A Complaint for murder was filed by Jennifer’s sibling, Marilou S. Laude, against Pemberton before the Office of the City Prosecutor which Information was later filed with the RTC in Olongapo City.

On 19 December 2014, Pemberton surrendered personally to the RTC Judge and was later arraigned. On the same day of Arraignment petitioner Laude filed an Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender the Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail and a Motion to Allow Media Coverage. The motion was scheduled on 22 December 2014, 2PM. According to petitioners, they were only able to serve the Motion on Pemberton’s counsel through registered mail. In any case, they claim to have also “furnished a copy of the [M]otion personally … at the hearing of the [M]otion.  On 23 December 2014, the Urgent Motion was denied, as well as its motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Are the averments of the petitioner, that the 3-day notice rule should be should be liberally applied due to the timing of the arrest and arraignment, tenable?

HELD: NO. Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly makes it a mandatory rule that the adverse party be given notice of hearing on the motion at least three days prior. Failure to comply with this notice requirement renders the motion defective consistent with protecting the adverse party’s right to procedural due process.

While the general rule is that a motion that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 15 is a mere scrap of paper, an exception may be made and the motion may still be acted upon by the court, provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her due process rights. The adverse party must be given time to study the motion in order to enable him or her to prepare properly and engage the arguments of the movant. In this case, the general rule must apply because Pemberton was not given sufficient time to study petitioners’ Motion, thereby depriving him of his right to procedural due process.

Petitioners admit that they personally furnished Pemberton a copy of the Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail only during the hearing. They attempt to elude the consequences of this belated notice by arguing that they also served a copy of the Motion by registered mail on Pemberton’s counsel. They also attempt to underscore the urgency of the Motion by making a reference to the Christmas season and the “series of legal holidays” where courts would be closed. To compound their obfuscation, petitioners claim that the hearing held on December 22, 2014, attended by Pemberton’s counsel sufficiently satisfied the rationale of the three-day notice rule. These circumstances taken together do not cure the Motion’s deficiencies. Even granting that Pemberton’s counsel was able to comment on the motion orally during the hearing, which incidentally was set for another incident, it cannot be said that Pemberton was able to study and prepare for his counterarguments to the issues raised in the Motion. Judge Ginez-J abalde was correct to deny the Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail based on noncompliance of procedural rules. To rule otherwise would be to prejudice Pemberton’s rights as an accused.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 9, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Procedure, Remedial Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Gabucan v. Judge Manta, G.R. No. L-51546, January 28, 1980.

[AQUINO, J.]

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Camiguin in its “decision” for the probate of the will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan, dismissed the proceeding because the requisite documentary stamp was not affixed to the notarial acknowledgment in the will and, hence, according to respondent Judge, it was not admissible in evidence, citing section 238 of the Tax Code, now section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the probate of a notarial will should be denied on the ground that it does not bear a thirty-centavo documentary stamp.

 

RULING

NO. What the probate court should have done was to require the petitioner or proponent to affix the requisite thirty-centavo documentary stamp to the notarial acknowledgment of the will which is the taxable portion of that document. That procedure may be implied from the provision of section 238 that the non-admissibility of the document, which does not bear the requisite documentary stamp, subsists only “until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled.” Thus, it was held that the documentary stamp may be affixed at the time the taxable document is presented in evidence. That the lack of the documentary stamp on a document does not invalidate such document.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Law, Succession

 

Tags: , ,

Cruz v. Judge Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973.

[ESGUERRA, J.]

FACTS

The probate of the last will and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz was opposed by petitioner Agapita on the ground of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence, and that it was not executed in accordance with law. Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the probate of a will is valid if one of the three instrumental witnessed is the notary public to whom the will was acknowledged.

 

RULING

NO. To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be, as has been said, that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In the circumstances, the law would not be duly in observed.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Law, Succession

 

Tags: , , ,

Icasiano v. Icasiano, G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964.

[REYES, J.B.L., J.]

FACTS

Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three (3) of the original, admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the same, but affirmed that page three (3) was signed in his presence.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not a will can be probated if one of the witness inadvertently failed to sign one of the pages thereof.

 

RULING

YES. The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Law, Succession

 

Tags: , , ,

Lopez v. Lopez, G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012.

[PERLAS-BERNABE, J.]

FACTS

The RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with the required statement in the attestation clause as to the number of pages used upon which the will is written. While the acknowledgment portion stated that the will consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written, the RTC observed that it has 8 pages including the acknowledgment portion. As such, it disallowed the will for not having been executed and attested in accordance with law.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the discrepancy between the number of pages in the attestation clause and the actual number of pages in the will that would warrant its disallowance.

 

RULING

YES. The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills, particularly, Articles 805 and 809 of the Civil Code provide that the attestation must state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages. Here, the will actually consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence aliunde.

 

 
 

Tags: , ,

Echavez v. Dozen Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 192916, October 11, 2010.

[BRION, J.]

FACTS

Vicente Echavez (Vicente) was the absolute owner of the subject lots donated to petitioner Manuel Echavez (Manuel) through a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa, sans attestation clause, acknowledged before a notary public. Manuel accepted the donation. Vicente sold the same lots in favor of Dozen Construction and Development Corporation (Dozen Corporation). Manuel filed a petition to approve Vicente’s donation mortis causa in his favor and an action to annul the contracts of sale Vicente executed in favor of Dozen Corporation.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the donation mortis causa is valid despite the non-conformity with the formalities of a will.

 

RULING

NO. A donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities prescribed by law for the validity of wills, “otherwise, the donation is void and would produce no effect.” Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code should have been applied. Although the witnesses in the present case acknowledged the execution of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa before the notary public, this is not the avowal the law requires from the instrumental witnesses to the execution of a decedent’s will.  Hence, the donation is void, while the sale to Dozen Construction is valid.

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Law, Succession

 

Tags: , , ,