Ebook for You!

CONFESSIONS and LUST: The Secret Stories

PRICE: $19.99

 
This book is a collection of sexual confessions by women all around the world. Stories of lust, seduction, and
adventure.

Want to read more? Go ahead and download the book for your convenience.

https://calvinslibrary.blogspot.com/2018/08/confessions-and-lust-secret-stories.html 
Showing posts with label Legal Profession. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2018

RESULTS: November 2017 Philippine Bar Exam List of

Passers
As the Supreme Court announced on the first week, the result was released today. 1,724 out of
6,750 (25.55%) examinees passed the 2017 Bar Examinations.

Please check below for the full list of passers.

Click link to download full list November 2017 Philippine Bar Exam List of Passers

List
 1. ABAD, Avalavenia M.
2. ABANGAN, Joan Risel B.
3. ABAPO, Yvonne Aussie I.
4. ABASTA, III, Sancho G.
5. ABDULCADER, Gada M.
6. ABDULJALEEL, Sittie Nayilah D.
7. ABDULLAH, Somayyah S.
8. ABE, Roenet Mark D.
9. ABELLANA, Lourde Liz L.
10. ABELLANOSA, Joanna Mae T.
Click Read More Below to continue to full list
Read more »
Posted by Dagitab at 6:12 AM No comments: 
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Bar Exams, Legal Profession, Passing Law
Wednesday, August 17, 2016

10 Cases in the Philippines that Shaped the System

10 Landmark Cases in the Philippines
These are one of the cases that are so memorable that its decisions became a set of standards and
precedents over time. This is a list of the top ten cases that have become landmarks in Philippine
jurisprudence.  Here is a list of the top ten landmark cases in the Philippines.
 Source:  http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Top_10_Landmark_Cases_Decided_by_the_Philippine_Supreme_Court

(Note: You can check the Digested form of this cases also in this blog. You can click this page
or just use the search bar above)

10.  In Re Mallare, A.M. No. 533 September 12, 1974

This 1974 case, still cited today, said that in cases where a person needed to elect Filipino citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority, the acts of registering to vote and exercising the right of suffrage were enough
to show that he elected Filipino citizenship, without need for any formal declaration.

9. Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987

In 1980, someone challenged an Executive Order issued by President Marcos because it imposed a

penalty without giving the violator a right to be heard. He succeeded in having the law declared
unconstitutional and was commended by the Supreme Court "for his spirit" in asserting his rights.

8. United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910

The events in this case happened in 1908, during the American regime, yet it is still quoted today as the
textbook example of a "mistake of fact". The accused was absolved of stabbing and killing the person trying
to enter his room. He thought it was a robber, but it was only his roommate.

7. Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919

In 1918, the mayor of Manila had 170 "women of ill repute" forcibly rounded up, put on a ship, and sent
to Davao as laborers. A writ of habeas corpus was filed against him. The Supreme Court said that the
women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change
their place of residence.
6. Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

This 1991 case is often cited for its definition of what constitutes the practice of law.

5. Primicias vs. Fugoso, G.R. No. L-1800 January 27, 1948

In 1947, the mayor of Manila refused to grant a permit to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda. The Supreme Court
said that the mayor's fear that trouble may arise during the rally was not enough reason to suppress the
fundamental right of the people to free speech and peaceful assembly to petition the government for
redress of grievances.

4. People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004

This case, stemming from a wife's killing of her husband in 1995, is the first to use "battered woman
syndrome" as a defense.

3. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)

This 1940 case is known primarily for Justice Jose P. Laurel's definition of social justice.

2. Chua-Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No. L-49549 August 30, 1990

In 1976, 20 years before America's Mary Kay Letourneau made headlines, a teacher married her student
and got fired. The Supreme Court, quoting "The heart has reasons of its own which reason itself does not
know," took her side!
1. Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

In 1990, 44 children, through their parents, sought to make the DENR Secretary stop issuing licenses to cut
timber, invoking their right to a healthful environment. They brought the case in the name of all the children
in the Philippines and in the name of the generations yet unborn!

Source: 
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Top_10_Landmark_Cases_Decided_by_the_Philippine_Supre
me_Court

Posted by Dagitab at 1:17 AM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Constitution, Constitutional Law, Digested Cases, High Profile Cases, Issues, Labor Law, Landmark Cases, Legal
Profession, Political Law
Saturday, February 22, 2014

LEGAL PROFESSION: Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210

September 1991
Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

September 1991

The Practice of Law

Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not
posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The
1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Issue: 

Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

Held: 

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to
the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.