Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The foundation of our entire legal system is the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land;[284] thus, the unbending rule is that every statute should be read in light of the Constitution.[285] Likewise, the Constitution is a framework of a workable government; hence, its interpretation must take into account the complexities, realities, and politics attendant to the operation of the political branches of government.[286]
	GR No. 211833 2015-04-07	FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL REYES, J.
In compliance with the Court's Resolution[6] dated April 22, 2014, the JBC[7] and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)[8] separately submitted their Comments. Summing up the arguments of the JBC and the OSG, they essentially stated that the petition is procedurally infirm and that the assailed policy does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses. They posited that: (1) the writ of certiorari and prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its principal function under the Constitution to recommend appointees to the Judiciary because the JBC is not a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function; (2) the remedy of mandamus and declaratory relief will not lie because the petitioner has no clear legal right that needs to be protected; (3) the equal protection clause is not violated because the classification of lower court judges who have served at least five years and those who have served less than five years is valid as it is performance and experience based; and (4) there is no violation of due process as the policy is merely internal in nature.
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
The other one was filed by Atty. Reynaldo A. Cortes, purportedly a former President of the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter and former Governor of the IBP-Northern Luzon. It was coupled with a complaint for disbarment against Jardeleza primarily for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.[15]
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
Verily, disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal, if not an essential form of, interaction among members of the legal community. A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him[28] provided that he lives up to his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and that he exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his client within the bounds of the law. Consonantly, a lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he represents. An infallible grasp of legal principles and technique by a lawyer is a utopian ideal. Stripped of a clear showing of gross neglect, iniquity, or immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal mind remains a legal tactic acceptable to some and deplorable to others. It has no direct bearing on his moral choices.
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
It is a canon in statutory construction that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning. As held in the recent case of Chavez v. Judicial Bar Council:[144]
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency.[44] It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute,[45] "this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law."[46] The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.[47] We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA[48] that, "[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads in part as follows: SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: