Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PABLO C. VILLABER v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. NO. 6707 2006-03-24	GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ PER CURIAM
In a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct,[20] as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."[21]
	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
Thus, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude.[20]
	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
Moral turpitude "includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."[24] It involves "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."[25]
	AC. No. 4585 2004-11-12	MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
Moral turpitude "includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."[23] It involves "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."[24]
	AC. No. 6052 2003-12-11	IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA v. ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA TINGA, J.
In Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines[46] cited in Villaber v. Commission on Elections,[47] the Court defines moral turpitude as "an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals."[48] The determination of whether an act involves moral turpitude is a factual issue and frequently depends on the circumstances attending the violation of the statute.[49]