original more general and less computational description
Wills caseFull description
Perez vs SB digest, constilaw, malcolm hall, UPlaw, sandiganbayanFull description
Perez v. CA digestFull description
Cosmopolitan Philippines March 2015
Case Digest Campos v. Estebal
Photoshop Magazine
Snake Eyes Issue 17 March 2015 digital gaming magazine from Garage Gamers Group by Gamers for Gamers promoting the hobby that is Wargaming, including, clubs, manufacturers, sellers, tourname…Full description
tattoo revista
LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTFull description
Digests in Criminal Law 2Full description
Legal Medicine Case
Full description
para trabajar la madera
DR. PEREZ V ATTY CATINDIG AC 5816 MARCH 10, 2015
FACTS:
Dr Perez and Atty Catindig had a relationship while Atty. Catindig’s marriage with Lily Gomez still subsists. Both have been friends during the mid 1960s, lost contact and after 23 years, they meet again. It was all the while known to Dr. Perez that Atty. Catindig is still married however, Atty Catindig claims that he only married Gomez because he got her pregnant and he don’t want her to make any scandal about the pregnancy. Atty. Catindig and Gomez agreed to have their divorce and it took place at Dominican Republic. Thereafter, after securing the Divorce Decree and confirming with Dr. Perez that it was lawful, they exchanged their vows in the US and they begot 1 child. Years passed and Dr. Perez learned that the status of her marriage with Atty Catindig remains invalid because Philippine Law does not recognize the divorce decree obtained from Dominican Republic. Atty Catindig made promises with Dr Perez that he will legalize their unions but eventually there were sudden change of events. Their relationship turned sour and Dr. Perez found out that Atty Catindig is having an affair with a certain Atty. Baydo who was also employed in his law firm. Soon after, Atty Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and made promise to Atty Baydo that he will marry her. Atty Baydo on the other hand, denied their steaming affair. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. The IBP investigating commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR. The IBP-BOG adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner. Atty. Catindig, claiming that the Investigating Commissioner relied only on Dr. Perez allegations and not substantiated with factual pieces of evidence. Moreover, he claims that he never concealed his marriage to anyone and he had been transparent to Gomez and Dr. Perez. The IBP-BOG denied the motion. ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Catindig committed gross immorality that would warrant disbarment? RULING:
Yes. The court affirmed the recommendations of the IBP. The rule provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and that at all times a lawyer shall uphold his integrity and dignity. The act must not only be immoral but it must be gross to warrant disbarment. In the case at bar, Atty. Catindig’s marriage with Dr. Perez while his marriage with Gomez still subsists manifest a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and marital vows, which is protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Therefore, warrants the penalt y of disbarment.
