pale digest 1st set

8/13/2019 Pale Digest 1st Set

1/21

Problem Area in Legal EthicsDean Ulan Sarmiento SY 2011-2012

A. Requisites for Admissions to the Bar Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission as a member of the barmust be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of a e, of ood moral character, and a resident of thePhilippines! and must produce before the Supreme "ourt satisfactory evidence of ood moral character, and that nochar es a ainst him, involvin moral turpitude, have been filed or are pendin in any court in the Philippines.#Rule $%&,

RR"'

B. Lawyers Oath Importance of the Lawyers Oath(, do solemnly swear that ( will maintain alle iance to the Republic of the Philippines, ( will support the "onstitution andobey the laws as well as the le al orders of the duly constituted authorities therein! ( will do no falsehood, nor consent tothe doin of any in court! ( will not wittin ly or willin ly promote or sue any roundless, false or unlawful suit, or ive aidnor consent to the same! ( will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer accordin to thebest of my )nowled e and discretion, with all ood fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients! and ( impose upon myselfthese voluntary obli ations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me *od.

1. In Re: Al C. Ar osino!acts:Petitioner +l "aparros +r osino passed the bar e aminations held in $ %. he "ourt however deferred his oath-ta)in due to his previous conviction for Rec)less (mprudence Resultin (n /omicide. he criminal case whichresulted in petitioner0s conviction arose from the death of a neophyte durin fraternity initiation rites sometime inSeptember $ $.

+fter applyin for probation, havin it approved, and bein dischar ed from it upon the Probation 1fficer srecommendation, petitioner filed before the Supreme "ourt a petition to be allowed to ta)e the lawyer0s oath. he"ourt throu h then Senior +ssociate 3ustice 4lorentino P. 4eliciano issued a resolution requirin petitioner +l ".

+r osino to submit to the "ourt evidence that he may now be re arded as complyin with the requirement of oodmoral character imposed upon those see)in admission to the bar.(n compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen #$5' certifications6letters e ecuted byamon others two #2' senators, five #5' trial court 7ud es, and si #8' members of reli ious orders. Petitioner li)ewisesubmitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul "amali an, the hazin victim,

throu h 7oint efforts of the latter0s family and the ei ht #&' accused in the criminal case. he "ourt also required +tty.*ilbert "amali an, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner0s prayer to be allowed to ta)e the lawyer0s oath. (n hiscomment, he stated that he has for iven petitioner but left the "ourt to decide on whether petitioner is now morally fitfor admission to the bar.Issue: 9hether +l +r osino should be allowed to ta)e the lawyer s oath and practice law."eld::ES. he "ourt is persuaded that ;r. +r osino has e erted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul "amali an. he"ourt stresses to ;r. +r osino that the lawyer0s oath is


2/21


+tty. @ictor @. Aeciembre was iven five blan) chec)s by Spouses 1lbes for security of a loan. +fter the loan was paidand a receipt issued, +tty. Aeciembre filled up four of the five chec)s for P5B, BBB with different maturity date. +llchec)s were dishonored. hus, +tty. Aeciembre fled a case for estafa a ainst the spouses 1lbes. his prompted thespouses 1lbes to file a disbarment case a ainst +tty. Aeciembre with the 1ffice of the Car "onfidant of this "ourt. (nthe report, "ommissioner Aulay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two yearsfor violatin Rule $.B$ of the "ode of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: 9hether or not the suspension of +tty. Aeciembre was in accord with his fault.

"eld: ;embership in the le al profession is a special privile e burdened with conditions. (t is bestowed upon individualswho are not only learned in the law, but also )nown to possess ood moral character. >+ lawyer is an oath-boundservant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by infle ible norms of law and ethics, and whose primaryduty is the advancement of the quest for truth and 7ustice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.? Cy ta)inthe lawyer0s oath, an attorney becomes a uardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in thefair and impartial administration of 7ustice. =awyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and inte rity in amanner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public0s faith in the le al profession. (t is also larin ly clear that the

"ode of Professional Responsibility was seriously trans ressed by his malevolent act of fillin up the blan) chec)s byindicatin amounts that had not been a reed upon at all and despite respondent0s full )nowled e that the loansupposed to be secured by the chec)s had already been paid. /is was a brazen act of falsification of a commercialdocument, resorted to for his material ain.Aeception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are dis raceful and dishonorable! theyreveal a basic moral flaw. he standards of the le al profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables oneto escape the penalties of criminal laws. "onsiderin the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we findthe penalty recommended by the (CP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. /ispropensity for employin deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. /is misuse of the filled-up chec)s that led tothe detention of one petitioner is loathsome. hus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of laweffective immediately.

). &e u/man %. &e &iosAdm. Case 0o. 2 ). 3anuary #*, #--14AR&O, 3.:

!acts:1n $ 5 she hired by Ae *uzman as counsel to form a Suzu)i Ceach /otel, (nc.#SC/(' in 1lon apo. (t was re isteredwith SE" and paid Ae Aios a monthly retainer fee of P5,BBB1n Aecember $5,$ D, the corporation required Ae *uzman to pay unpaid subscribed share of stoc) ofP2,2%5,BBB.BB on or before Aec. %B, $ D. =ater on 3anuary 2 , $ &, Ae *uzman received a notice of auction saleof her delinquent shares and a copy of board resolution authorizin the sale. She later learned that Ael Rosario, oneof the incorporators of SC/( will acquire her shares. Such sale ousted her from the corporation while Ae Aios rose to

be the president and Ae *uzman lost all her life savin s"omplainant alle ed she relied on the advice of Ae Aios and believed that he would help her with mana ement of thecorporation. Respondent appeared as her counsel and si ned pleadin s. 9hile respondent contend that she onlyappeared because the property belon ed to SC/( and further said that complainant misunderstood the role ofrespondent as le al counsel of SC/(. hat only her appearance was to protect the ri ht of SC/(

he said land of SC/( was owned by 3apanese incorporators and not the complainant and her relationship towardsthe investors turned sour because she misappropriated the funds and property of the corporation. o save fromban)ruptcy, respondent advised all concerned stoc)holders to call for payment of unpaid subscriptions and sale ofdelinquent shares.


3/21


Ael Rosario transferred $BB shares to respondent in payment of le al services evidence by Aeed of 9aiver andtransfer of corporate shares of stoc)1n 1ct. 22, $ , (CP issued a resolution that the acts of respondent were not motivated by ill will as she acted in thebest interest of her client.

Issue: 96< there is conflict of interest

"eld::es.

here is attorney-client relationship between the complainant and respondent since she was retained to form acorporation and appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant.

here was evidence of collusion between the board and respondent. he respondent was now president of the SC/(which shows a clear case of conflict of interest.=awyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealin with their clients and the public with honesty andinte rity in a manner beyond reproach. Respondent violated the prohibition a ainst conflictin of interests anden a in in unlawful, dishonest and immoral deceitful conduct.

he lawyer0s oath is a source of obli ations and violation thereof is a round for suspension, disbarment, or other

disciplinary action. he acts of respondent +tty. de Aios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this"ourt will not tolerate.

AecisionF Suspension of 8 months with warnin .

C. Code of 4rofessional Responsi$ility 54romul ated 3une #1, 12667"/+P ER (. /E =+9:ER +complainant?' stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafathru falsification of a public document a ainst Auane 1. Stier, Emelyn +. ;a ay and respondent, as the notary publicwho notarized the 1ccupancy + reement.

Sometime in September $ 5, ;r. StierIa G.S. citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his nameIa reedthat the property be transferred in the name of ;r. Aonton, a 4ilipino.

;r. Stier, in the presence of ;r. Aonton, requested +tty. ansin co to prepare several documents that would uaranteereco nition of him bein the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the name of ;r. Aonton.

+tty. ansin co e ecuted the 1""GP+


4/21


"omplainant averred that respondent0s act of preparin the 1ccupancy + reement, despite )nowled e that Stier, bein aforei n national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberateviolation of the "ode. "omplainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for advisin Stier to do somethin in violation oflaw and assistin Stier in carryin out a dishonest scheme.

he (CP Coard of *overnors recommended respondent0s suspension from the practice of law for si months.

1n 2& 3uly 2BBH, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the (CP. Respondent stated that he was already D8years old and would already retire by 2BB5 after the termination of his pendin cases. /e also said that his practice of lawis his only means of support for his family and his si minor children.

I99 ;: 9hether or not +tty. ansin co should be suspended or disbarred.

R LI0 :he "ourt finds respondent liable for violation of "anon $ and Rule $.B2 of the "ode. /e is suspended from the practice

of law for S(J ;1< /S effective upon finality of this Aecision.

+ lawyer should not render any service or ive advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he isbound to uphold and obey. + lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violatin the lawcommits an act which 7ustifies disciplinary action a ainst the lawyer. Respondent had sworn to uphold the "onstitution.

hus, he violated his oath and the "ode when he prepared and notarized the 1ccupancy + reement to evade the lawa ainst forei n ownership of lands. Respondent used his )nowled e of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an actamounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.

#. &ayan 9ta. Ana Christian 0ei h$orhood Association, Inc. %s. ;spiritu

!AC89: 1fficers and members of the Aayan Sta. +na "hristian


5/21


for a specific purpose, such as for filin fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the clienton demand.? (ndeed, a lawyer has no ri ht to unilaterally appropriate his or her client0s money.

). Ro$erto 9oriano %s Atty.


6/21


91< the respondent lawyer committed a violation of the "ode of Professional Responsibility and the


7/21


L(CP "ommissioner @illadolid found that respondent violated the provisions of the "ode of Professional Responsibility and thespirit and intent of the notarial law when she notarized the affidavit )nowin that +lfonso was not the sole compulsory heir ofthe spouses @illanueva (CP "ommissioner @illadolid held that respondent Men a ed in conduct that lessened confidence inthe le al system.M +lthou h he found no evidence of fraudulent intent on respondent0s part,he recommended suspension ofrespondent0s notarial commission for one year. /e also recommended that respondent be reprimanded or suspended fromthe practice of law for up to si months.

Issue: whether or not the recommendation of ibp is correct in suspendin beradio

"eld:L+ notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the ac)nowled ment andaffirmation of a document or instrument. (n the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of thesi nificance of the notarial seal as affi ed on a document. he notarial seal converts the document from private to public, afterwhich it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its enuineness and due e ecution. 5 hus, notarizationshould not be treated as an empty, meanin less, or routinary act. hey must uard a ainst any ille al or immoralarran ements. L9here admittedly the notary public has personal )nowled e of a false statement or information contained in the instrument tobe notarized, yet proceeds to affi his or her notarial seal on it, the "ourt must not hesitate to discipline the notary publicaccordin ly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. 1therwise, the inte rity and sanctity of the notarization processmay be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents diminished.

Lrespondent0s conduct amounted to a breach of "anon $ of the "ode of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers toobey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and le al processes. Respondent also violated Rule $.B$ of the"ode which proscribes lawyers from en a in in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. L he court revo)ed the commission of respondent +tty. Salud P. Ceradio as


8/21


ulled from the records, @aldez entered into a retainer a reement with respondent. +s payment for his services, he was allowedo occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to their retainer a reement. Respondent filed (.S. @alencia v. Samala? for estafa and rave coercion, respectively, to protect his client0si hts a ainst complainant who filed (.S.


9/21


(n this case, respondent0s averment that his relationship with +lba has lon been severed by the act of the latter of not turninover the proceeds collected in connivance with the complainant, is unavailin . +lba may not be his ori inal client but the factthat he filed a case entitled >@aldez and +lba v. Custamante and her husband,? is a clear indication that respondent isprotectin the interests of both @aldez and +lba in the said case. Respondent cannot 7ust claim that the lawyer-clientrelationship between him and +lba has lon been severed without observin Section 28, Rule $%& of the Rules of "ourtwherein the written consent of his client is required.

(n another case, *onzales v. "abucana, 3r., citin the case of Ouiambao v. Camba, it was held thatF

> he proscription a ainst representation of conflictin interests applies to a situation where the opposinparties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. (t is of no moment that the lawyerwould not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, orthat there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvanta e ofthe other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. (t is enou h that the opposin parties in one case, one ofwhom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer0s respective retainerswith each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.?

Respondent is bound to comply with "anon 2$ of the "ode of Professional Responsibility which states that >a lawyer shallpreserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.? Reason for theprohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the hi hest de ree. +lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client0s case. /e learns from his client the wea) points of theaction as well as the stron ones. Such )nowled e must be considered sacred and uarded with care.

(t was clear at the case at hand that respondent0s representation of @aldez and +lba a ainst Custamante and her husband, inone case, and @aldez a ainst +lba, in another case, is a case of conflict of interests which merits a correspondin sanctionfrom this "ourt. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in "ivil "ase


10/21


11/21


I99 ;: 91< +tty. Aela "ruz must be disbarred

";L&:he "ourt has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, vis- -vis, rossly immoral conduct.

(mmoral conduct is Mthat conduct which is willful, fla rant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion

of the ood and respectable members of the communityM and what is M rossly immoral,M that is, it must be so corrupt and falseas to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a hi h de ree.M Gndoubtedly, respondent0s actconstitutes immoral conduct. But it is 0O8 so ross as to warrant his dis$arment. /owever, measured a ainst thedefinition, the court is not prepared to consider respondent0s act as rossly immoral.

+s to the char e of misconduct for havin notarized several documents durin the years $ &&-$ D after his commission asnotary public had e pired, respondent humbly admitted havin notarized certain documents despite his )nowled e that he nolon er had authority to do so. /e, however, alle ed that he received no payment in notarizin said documents, but therequirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality.1ther char es constitutin respondent0s misconduct filed before the Prosecutor0s 1ffice of Ca uio "ity, the (nvesti atinCoard created by S=G and the pendin labor case before the


12/21



13/21


/ence, this administrative complaint.I99 ;: 96< respondent is uilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct.";L&::es, respondent is uilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct. S" a reed with the findin s of (nte rated Car of the Philippines#(CP' (nvesti atin "ommissioner ;ila ros @. San 3uan, to whom the instant disciplinary case was assi ned for investi ation,report and recommendation, found respondent uilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule $.B$, "anon $of the "ode of Professional Responsibility. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for aperiod of three #%' years.

+s provided by Rule $.B$, "anon $ of the "ode of Professional Responsibility provides that >+ lawyer shall not en a e inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.? >"onduct,? as used in this rule, does not refer e clusively to theperformance of a lawyer0s professional duties. his "ourt has made clear in a lon line of casesD that a lawyer may bedisbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wantin inmoral character, honesty, probity and ood demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

4urthermore, Gnder Section 2D, Rule $%& of the Revised Rules of "ourt, a member of the Car may be disbarred or suspendedon any of the followin roundsF #$' deceit! #2' malpractice or other ross misconduct in office! #%' rossly immoral conduct!

#H' conviction of a crime involvin moral turpitude! #5' violation of the lawyer0s oath! #8' willful disobedience of any lawful orderof a superior court! and #D' willfully appearin as an attorney for a party without authority.

(n the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant ;arilirepresentin to have the ri hts to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. 9hen he failed in his underta)in ,respondent fell short of his duty under Rule $.B$, "anon $ of the "ode of Professional Responsibility. (t cannot be ainsaidthat it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no le al ri ht of ownership. Respondent wasli)ewise uilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lac) of ri ht from complainants. /e did not informthe complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of the sub7ect townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no ri htto sell, transfer or assi n said property at the time of the e ecution of the Aeed of +ssi nment. /is acceptance of the bul) ofthe purchase price amountin to


14/21


Respondent +tty. /omobono . "ezar is SGSPE


15/21


1#. &i/on %s. Lam$ino A.C. 0o. *2*6. Au ust 2, #--*.

!acts:wo students of GP were suspects for the )illin of Aennis @enturina. he GP "hancellor see) the assistance of

the


16/21


Respondent averred that the PDB,BBB.BB he received from complainant was payment for le al services for the recovery of thedeposit with Planters Aevelopment Can) and did not include the case pendin before the Re ional rial "ourt of CiKan,=a una. /e admitted that he divided the le al fees with two other people as a referral fee.

I99 ;:91< +tty. errado uilty of violatin Rules $.B$ and .B2 of the "ode of Professional Responsibility.

";L&: +tty. Ro elio P. errado is found *G(= : of violatin Rules $.B$, .B2, $&.B2 and 2B.B$ of the "ode of ProfessionalResponsibility. /e is SGSPE*rant of +uthority to 1perate Cin o *ames.? (n the course of its operations,Cin o Royale incurred arrears amountin to P8,B8H,&%%.$H as of "losed +ccount.?Aespite demands, respondent failed to paythe amount of the chec)s. his prompted P+*"1R to file a case a ainst respondent for violation of C.P. 22.P+*"1R contends that in issuin those bouncin chec)s, respondent is liable for serious misconduct, violation of the

+ttorney0s 1ath and violation of the "ode of Professional Responsibility! and prays that his name be stric)en from the Roll of +ttorneys. (n his >1pposition? to the complaint, respondent averred that he is not liable for issuin bouncin chec)s becausethey were drawn by Cin o Royale. /is act of doin so >is not related to the office of a lawyer.?1n


17/21


> ross? has been held to mean >fla rant! shameful? #9ebster'. his "ourt once held that the word misconduct implies awron ful intention and not a mere error of 7ud ment.?Respondent li)ewise violated the +ttorney0s 1ath that he will, amon others, obey the laws! and the "ode of ProfessionalResponsibility, specifically the followin provisionsF"anon $I+ lawyer shall uphold the "onstitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and le alprocesses.Rule $.B$I+ lawyer shall not en a e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."anon DI+ lawyer shall at all times uphold the inte rity and di nity of the le al profession and support the activities of the(nte rated Car.Rule D.B%I+ lawyer shall not en a e in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether inpublic or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the le al profession.

1(. R;: R;4OR8 O0 8"; !I0A0CIAL A &I8 CO0& C8;& O0 8"; BOO 9 O! ACCO 089 O!A88?. RA ;L . "O, CL;R O! CO R8 I=, R8C, ORA9, ;A98;R0 9A


18/21


+tty. Nho0s conduct was not only far from e emplary, it was unlawful as well. /owever, his candid and repentant admission ofhis error, his lac) of intent to ain and the fact that this is his first offense should temper his culpability considerably. Gnder thecircumstances, a fine of P5,BBB should suffice.

1*. ue%arra %. ;ala A.C. 0o. +1)* Au ust 1, #--+

!acts:L 1n ;arch H, 2BB2 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the (nte rated Car of the Philippines "ommittee on CarAiscipline a ainst +tty. 3ose Emmanuel ;. Eala a.).a. +nyhusband who shall )eep a mistress in a con7u al dwellin , or, shall have se ual intercourse, under scandalous circumstancewith a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in itsminimum and medium period. Section 2 of +R . J@ states that >;arria e, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundationof the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent0s rossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and thelaws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. /ence the court declared +tty. 3ose Emmanul ;. Eala A(SC+RREA for rosslyimmoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon $, Rule $.B$ and "anon D, Rule D.B% of the "ode of

Professional Responsibility .

A. "anon 2"+


19/21


Rule 2.B2 - (n such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render le al advice to theperson concerned if only to the e tent necessary to safe uard the latter s ri hts.Rule 2.B% - + lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act desi ned primarily to solicit le al business.Rule 2.BH - + lawyer shall not char e rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

E. "anon 5"+


20/21


)now it or to act as if one does not )now it constitutes ross i norance of the law. $$ +s a retired 7ud e, respondentshould have )nown that it is his duty to )eep himself well-informed of the latest rulin s of the "ourt on the issuesand le al problems confrontin a client. $2 (n this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the"onstitution ,$% the most basic law of the land. $H (mplicit in a lawyer0s mandate to protect a client0s interest to thebest of his6her ability and with utmost dili ence is the duty to )eep abreast of the law and le al developments, andparticipate in continuin le al education pro rams. $5 hus, in championin the interest of clients and defendin

cases, a lawyer must not only be uided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer0s oath, but should li)ewiseespouse le ally sound ar uments for clients, lest the latter0s cause be dismissed on a technical round.( norance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws. $Dlavvph!1.net

9e find too harsh the recommended penalty of the (nvesti atin "ommissioner. (t must be stressed that thepower to disbar or suspend must be e ercised with reat caution. 1nly in a clear case of misconduct thatseriously affects the standin and character of a lawyer as an officer of the "ourt and member of the bar willdisbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty. $& Pursuant to the (CP "ommission on Car Aiscipline0s*uidelines for (mposin =awyer Sanctions, $ and considerin further that this is respondent0s first infraction, wefind that the penalty of reprimand as recommended by the (CP "ommission on Car Aiscipline, will suffice.

#. &ulalia %. Cru/

3uan &ulalia, 3r., %s Atty. 4a$lo C. Cru/5A.C. 0o, *6( , April #(, #--+ D!ormerly CB& Case 0o. - '1)6-E7!acts:

+tty. Pablo ". "ruz, ;unicipal =e al 1fficer of ;eycauayan, Culacan #respondent', is char ed by 3uan Aulalia, 3r. #complainant' of violationof the "ode of Professional Responsibility. "omplainants wife Susan Soriano Aulalia filed an application for buildin permit for theconstruction of a warehouse. Aespite compliance with all the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributin thesame to the opposition of respondents who wrote a September $%, 2BBH letter to "arlos 3. +bacan, ;unicipal En ineer and concurrentCuildin 1fficial of ;eycauayan sayin that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects particularly theimminent dan er and dama e to their properties, health and safety of the nei hbors ad7oinin the site. Cy complainants claim, respondentopposed the application for buildin permit because of a personal rud e a ainst his wife Susan who ob7ected to respondents marryin herfirst cousin (melda Soriano on September $D, $ & while respondents marria e with "arolina + aton which was solemnized on Aecember$D, $ 8D, is still subsistin . Respondent married (melda Soriano on September $D, $ & at the "lar) "ounty,


21/21

pale digest 1st set

Documents