A case digest of In re: Peralta, 101 Phil. 313: Case Title: In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality, vs. HILARION M. PERALTA Key Facts: Marriage History:  Hilarion M. Peralta was married to Rizalina E. Valdez in 1939. He subsequently began a relationship with Lilian F. Villasanta in 1951. Fake Marriage:  Peralta convinced Villasanta to sign a blank marriage contract, which he then had falsely notarized by authorities, making it appear like a real marriage had taken place. Bigamous Relationship:  Peralta and Villasanta lived together as husband and wife while Peralta's first marriage remained valid. Religious Ceremony:  The couple later had a religious wedding ceremony performed, even though their union was not legally recognized. Discovery and Criminal Charges:  Villasanta discovered Peralta's prior marriage and filed criminal charges against him under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code (which relates to bigamy). Peralta was found guilty at tria...

 A  case digest of In re: Dalmacio Delos Angeles (106 Phil. 1), presented in a manner suitable as a reference for law students: Case Name: In re: Dalmacio Delos Angeles Citation: 106 Phil. 1 (1959) Key Areas of Law: Legal Ethics Disbarment Moral Turpitude Facts: Atty. Dalmacio Delos Angeles was convicted by the Court of Appeals of the crime of attempted bribery. He was sentenced to two years, four months, and one day of  destierro  (banishment) and a fine. The Supreme Court required him to show cause as to why he should not be disbarred from practicing law. Issues: Whether an attorney convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude should be disbarred. Holding: Yes. The Supreme Court held that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Reasoning: Moral Turpitude:  The Court defined moral turpitude as "anything that is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals". Bribery inherently involves moral turpitude. Mainta...

 A case digest of Medina vs. Bautista, 12 SCRA 1, formatted to aid a law student's understanding: Case Name: Marcos Medina vs. Loreto U. Bautista Citation: 12 SCRA 1 (1964) Facts: Atty. Loreto U. Bautista was the legal counsel for Marcos Medina. Medina filed a complaint alleging that Bautista engaged in acts constituting malpractice and conduct unbecoming a lawyer, including: Preparing fictitious deeds of sale to facilitate the transfer of land to his own name. Deceiving Medina by pretending to arrange an amicable settlement in a separate case, leading Medina to drop the case. Misappropriating funds entrusted to him by Medina. Involvement in a case of  estafa  (swindling) Issue: Whether or not Atty. Bautista's actions amounted to malpractice and conduct meriting disbarment. Ruling: The Supreme Court found Atty. Bautista guilty of malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. The Court ruled the following: Breach of Fiduciary Duty:  Bautista violated his ...

 A case digest of In re: Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182, including important points for legal reference: Case Name: In re: Eduardo A. Abesamis Citation: 102 Phil. 1182 (1958) Background: Eduardo Abesamis, a Justice of the Peace in Isabela, Philippines, was accused of directly accepting a bribe. He allegedly demanded and received money from a woman to dismiss a criminal case against her relative. Legal Issue: Did the act of Abesamis constitute direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Was the information (formal accusation) filed against Abesamis legally sufficient and specific enough to sustain a conviction? Ruling of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court ruled that the information was defective. While it may have been possible to charge Abesamis under Article 210, the specific language of the information didn't clearly indicate whether he was being charged with: Agreeing to perform an act in exchange for a bribe, where the act was done. Agreeing to perform an act bu...

 A case digest of People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692, including a case digest suitable for law students: Case Name: People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Fe T. Tuanda Citation: A.M. No. 3360, January 30, 1990 (181 SCRA 692) Facts: Atty. Fe T. Tuanda received jewelry from Herminia Marquez to sell on commission. She was to return any unsold items and the proceeds of those sold. Instead of returning the items, Tuanda issued three postdated checks to Marquez. All three checks bounced due to insufficient funds. Tuanda failed to make any arrangements to honor the checks. Marquez filed four criminal cases against Tuanda: one for estafa, and three for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 ("Bouncing Checks Law"). The trial court acquitted Tuanda of estafa but found her guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Issues: Did Atty. Tuanda's conviction for violating B.P. Blg. 22 involve moral turpitude, thus warranting disciplinary action against her as an attorney? Was the penalty of suspension ...

 A case digest of Geeslin vs. Navarro, 185 SCRA 230, focusing on points relevant to law students: Case Name: Geeslin vs. Navarro Citation: 185 SCRA 230 (1990) Facts: The Geeslins, American citizens, entrusted Atty. Felipe C. Navarro to handle several legal matters in the Philippines, including property purchase and estate proceedings. Navarro allegedly engaged in multiple deceitful and fraudulent actions: Forging signatures on deeds of sale Misrepresenting property ownership status Claiming property as his own through falsified documents Creating fake corporations to facilitate fraudulent transactions Issues: Did Atty. Navarro commit malpractice and gross misconduct in violation of his professional duties and the Lawyer's Oath? To what extent was Atty. Navarro culpable for the fraudulent activities? Ruling: The Supreme Court found Atty. Navarro guilty of gross misconduct and malpractice. Among the violations included: Gross negligence in handling the Geeslins' affairs Deceit...

 A case digest of Reyes vs. Gaa, 246 SCRA 64, formatted for easy reference by law students: Case Name: Reyes vs. Gaa Citation: A.M. No. 1048. July 31, 1995 (246 SCRA 64) Facts: Wellington Reyes filed a disbarment case against his former lawyer, Atty. Salvador M. Gaa, a then-Assistant City Fiscal of Manila. Reyes accused Atty. Gaa of extorting a total of P500.00 from him. Reyes was involved in an estafa case where Atty. Gaa was the investigating prosecutor. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) set up an entrapment operation. Reyes gave Atty. Gaa marked money (P150.00), and Gaa was subsequently arrested. Traces of fluorescent powder from the marked bills were found on his hands. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Gaa's actions constitute gross misconduct and violation of his oath as an attorney, warranting disbarment. Ruling: The Supreme Court found Atty. Gaa guilty and ordered his disbarment. The Court ruled that: The evidence overwhelmingly proved Atty. Gaa's guilt in the ext...