Primicias vs. Fugoso [L-18000. Jan 27, 1948]

Doctrine: Clear and Present Danger Test, Freedom of Assembly and Expression

FACTS: This case is an action of mandamus instituted by petitioner Cipriano Primicias, manager of the Coalesced Minority Parties, against respondent Manila City Mayor, Valeriano Fugoso, to compel the latter to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at the Plaza Miranda on Nov 16, 1947. The petitioner requested for a permit to hold a “peaceful public meeting”. However, the respondent refused to issue such permit because he found “that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly peace and a disruption of public order.” Respondent based his refusal to the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Mayor has the right to refuse to issue permit hence violating freedom of assembly.

HELD: The answer is negative. Supreme Court states that the freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the constitution. However, these rights are not absolute. They can be regulated under the state’s police power – that they should not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor to the rights of the community or society.
The Court holds that there can be 2 interpretations of Sec. 1119: 1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; and 2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder.
The court favored the second construction since the first construction is tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency. It is to be noted that the permit to be issued is for the use of public places and not for the assembly itself.
The Court holds that the assembly is lawful and thus cannot be struck down. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.

PETITION IS GRANTED.

Tips: Essay

Suggested Essay Format:

1)Yes/No

2)Major premise - cite the rule applicable. Some professors would like to see article numbers but if you want to be 100% safe, just use: Under the law, According to RPC, NCC, etc.

3)Minor Premise - Relate the facts. In the case at bar; In the case under consideration, etc.

4) Conclusion - apply the rule with the facts.

Sample Question:

X killed Y. Is X criminally liable?

Sample Answer:

Yes, X is criminally liable.

Under the law, criminal liability is incurred by a person who commits a felony.

In the case at bar, X, having killed Y committed a felony.

Therefore, X is criminally liable.

Tip: Professors have different styles. Some likes logic. Some would like you to go straight to the point. The important thing is to know what your professor wants to see. Samplex would be very helpful .

Law Resources

Here are some useful resources:

1. Lawphil.net -http://www.lawphil.net/

- laws and cases

2. ChanRobles - http://www.chanrobles.com/

- laws and cases

3. Supreme Court - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/

- laws, cases, orders, etc.

4. Lexoterica - http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/

- updates and summaries on jurisprudence

5. phBar.org - http://phbar.org/forum/index.php?sid=72f15485c102f8676ca797b478cc9860

- forum for law students

Will be updated.

Saa vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Legal Ethics

Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 12

SAA vs. IBP

G.R. No. 132826

FACTS:

Atty. Freddie Venida, herein private respondent, filed criminal and administrative cases against petitioner Saa containing the same facts and allegations – violation of Sec 3, RA 3019. Saa filed a disbarment complaint against Venida in the Supreme Court on Dec 27, 1991 stating that Venida’s act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice.

In a Resolution dated February 17, 1992, Venida was required to comment on the complaint within 10 days. However, Venida did not comply and just submitted a partial comment January 26, 1993. Supreme Court issued another Resolution on June 14, 1995 requiring Venida to show costs why he should not be dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the February 17, 1992 resolution. It was not until September 4, 1995, almost 3 years late, when Venida filed his full comment which is just a reiteration of his partial comment.

Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP. In a report dated August 17, 1997 which the IBP Board adopted, Commisioner Briones the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit since it found no evidence of unethical practice and that it was not oppressive. Saa filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE: Is Atty. Venida guilty of violation the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

Supreme Court upholds the decision of the IBP that there was no grave abuse of discretion in this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida. Without convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions, the findings of the IBP stand.

However, the Supreme Court strongly disapproves Atty. Venida’s refusal to comply with the directives of the court. As a lawyer, he has the responsibility to follow all legal orders and processes. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June 14, 1995 or a little over three years after due date. In both instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the case, a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But tried to exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy workload (for his partial comment). He even had the temerity to blame a strong typhoon for the loss of all his files, the complaint included (for his full comment). His excuses tax the imagination. Nevertheless, his apologies notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly unacceptable for a member of the legal profession. He must not be allowed to evade accountability for his omissions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Petition is granted in part. The charge of oppressive or unethical behavior against respondent is dismissed. However, for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyer’s oath, Atty. Freddie A. Venida is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He is further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/132826.htm

Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.

Legal Ethics
Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 12

Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.

A.C. No. 8481

FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision

FULL TEXT: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/ac_8481_2010.html

Birth of A Separate Opinion

My first year in law school made a little easier -- thanks to online digests, notes, cases, and etc.

As a way of attempting balance, I am returning the favor.

All posts here are 100% mine, unless otherwise provided.

Enjoy and hope you get something out of this blog.