Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TEODORICO MATIAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-14-1839 2015-07-22	ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN CARPIO, ACTING CJ.
Indeed, respondent judge demonstrated grave abuse of authority, which has been defined as "a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority."[34] To repeat, respondent judge strictly, albeit unreasonably, applied the provisions of Bar Matter No. 1922 in expunging the Compliance and Manifestation. Respondent judge equated the expunged explanation to non-filing of a satisfactory explanation when in fact complainant filed a sufficient explanation for her non-appearance.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1839 2015-07-22	ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN CARPIO, ACTING CJ.
However, we modify the penalty imposed by the OCA. Instead of fine, we find the penalty of reprimand appropriate under the circumstances in this case.[35] As stated, respondent judge invoked and applied, though strictly, Bar Matter No. 1922 in expunging complainant's Compliance and Manifestation, which ultimately resulted in the contempt order.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1839 2015-07-22	ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN CARPIO, ACTING CJ.
In the interest of substantial justice, respondent judge should have relaxed the application of Bar Matter No. 1922;[28] accepted complainant's Compliance and Manifestation; and should not have expunged the same from the records. Besides, complainant was not without reason for not indicating the MCLE information, that is, her honest belief of her exemption from such requirement. At any rate, complainant applied for a Certificate of Exemption[29] and completed the units for her third MCLE Compliance period. Yet, her application for exemption remained pending when the contempt order was issued.[30] As noted by the OCA, the delay in the issuance of the Certificate of Exemption should not be taken against her.
	AC. No. 10628 2015-07-01	MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court agrees with the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance in the complaint for damages he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his violation shall only be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the expunction thereof from the records.[30]
	GR No. 208740 2014-11-19	CORPORATE STRATEGIES DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NORMAN A. AGOJO MENDOZA, J.
In his Comment,[14] respondent asks that the pleadings filed by petitioners be expunged from the records on account of the failure of their counsels to indicate observance with the MCLE requirements for the fourth compliance period.[15] It is his submission that the instant petition should be treated as if not signed and a mere scrap of paper following Bar Matter No. 1922,[16] in relation to Bar Matter No. 850,[17] which mandates all practicing lawyers to indicate in all pleadings the MCLE Compliance Certificate Number.
	AM No. MTJ-10-1772 2012-12-05	DR. JANOS B. VIZCAYNO v. JUDGE JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
Executive Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap (Judge Lagura-Yap), in her Partial Report[6] dated 5 July 2011, indicated that the investigation is already completed and ready for her resolution, findings, and recommendation. She asked for another 60 days to submit her complete report. In her Final Report[7] dated 22 September 2011, Judge Lagura-Yap stated that Judge Dacanay failed to show that his act of inspecting the property subject of Civil Case No. 650-R was proper. Although there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Judge Dacanay acted with bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, there is still no doubt that the inspection of the property was done in the absence of Dr. Vizcayno and his counsels. Hence, Judge Dacanay's lack of prudence merited liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and not for gross ignorance of the law. Moreover, Judge Lagura-Yap found that Judge Dacanay did not incur delay in the resolution of the Motion for Inhibition dated 13 April 2009 because the motion did not comply with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 1922.[8] Judge Dacanay's Order dated 30 September 2009 was issued within the required 90-day period for resolution because the 13 April 2009 Motion for Inhibition was submitted for resolution only on 19 August 2009. Judge Dacanay inhibited from Civil Case No. 650-R on 10 March 2010.
	GR No. 191837 2012-09-19	MARIA CONSOLACION RIVERA-PASCUAL v. SPS. MARILYN LIM REYES, J.
On July 1, 2009, the CA resolved to require Consolacion's counsel to submit within five (5) days from notice his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance or Exemption and an amended Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum-Shopping.[18] Apparently, Consolacion's counsel failed to indicate in the petition his MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption Number as required under Bar Matter No. 1922. Also, the jurat of Consolacion's verification and certification against non-forum-shopping failed to indicate any competent evidence of Consolacion's identity apart from her community tax certificate.
	GR No. 167181 2008-12-23	SPS. CARLOS MUNSALUD AND WINNIE MUNSALUD v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY REYES, R.T., J.
The Roll of Attorney's Number; The Current Professional Tax Receipt Number; and The IBP Official Receipt No. or IBP Lifetime Membership Number.[18] MCLE Compliance or Exemption Certificate Number and Date of Issue (effective January 1, 2009).[19]
	GR No. 80796 2001-10-11	PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Pursuant to the directive in the dispositive portion of the 1989 SC Decision, the Province of Camarines Norte, through its Governor, Roy A. Padilla, Jr., asked the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to undertake the survey of the boundary line between the two provinces based on the description[5] in the 1922 EB decision. Acting favorably on the request, then Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. issued Special Order No. 1179[6] creating a technical working group specifically tasked to make the delineation of the boundary separating the two provinces.