November 2011 Bar Examination

The list of the 2011 Bar Candidates may now be viewed in the Supreme Court Website. The file is in Portable Document Format. Download the file here.

If you can't download the official file from the Supreme Court, the same is reproduced below:

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Office of the Bar Confidant

LIST OF ADMITTED CANDIDATES IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS

   1. ABAD, Cernick S.

   2. ABAD, Milagros Iluminada Emiliana P.

   3. ABAD, Nathalie Jane S.

   4. ABAD, Rino E.

   5. ABAD, II, Elmer H.

   6. ABAGAT, Hazel V.

   7. ABALOS, Dowelson M.

   8. ABALOS, JR., Oscar B.

   9. ABAM, Jolina Y.

  10. ABAN, Marylyn A.

  11. ABAN, Richard D.

  12. ABAN, Richard Bobot F.

  13. ABANTE, Marifi M.

  14. ABAPO, Lovely S.

  15. ABAQUITA, JR., Gideon Florante A.

  16. ABAR, Valire Jess D.

  17. ABARCA, Rodvick J.

  18. ABARIENTOS, Bernabe T.

  19. ABARINTOS, Rei Andrew C.

  20. ABARQUEZ, Anna Melissa F.

Lawyer's Oath

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Family Home

What is a family home?

Is family home exempt from execution?

Is a judicial or extra-judicial constitution mandatory in order for a home to be considered as family home?

Sometimes, a judgment debtor is complacent that his family home would not be executed in favor of his creditors, relying upon the provisions of the Family Code that a family home is exempted from execution. However, not all people know that while a family home is generally exempt from execution, this rule admits of exceptions.

The leading case of Kelly Jr. vs Planters Products Inc. has laid down the rule on the execution of a family home:

No doubt, a family home is generally exempt from execution provided it was duly constituted as such.  There must be proof that the alleged family home was constituted jointly by the husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family. It must be the house where they and their family actually reside and the lot on which it is situated. The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter’s consent, or on the property of the unmarried head of the family. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount of P300,000 in urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas. Under the Family Code, there is no need to constitute the family home judicially or extrajudicially. All family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988) are constituted as such by operation of law. All existing family residences as of August 3, 1988 are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code. The exemption is effective from the time of the constitution of the family home as such and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. Moreover, the debts for which the family home is made answerable must have been incurred after August 3, 1988. Otherwise (that is, if it was incurred prior to August 3, 1988), the alleged family home must be shown to have been constituted either judicially or extrajudicially pursuant to the Civil Code.

A family home, if constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code, may only be constituted as a family home by filing a Petition in court. The person claiming exemption must not only allege but must also set-up and prove that the subject property is actually a family home.

For further reference, read the case of Juanita Trinidad Ramos vs Danilo Pangilinan (GR No. 185920).

Grave Misconduct

What constitutes grave misconduct?

Grave Misconduct has not been defined by our law. Luckily, our jurisprudence is pregnant of cases which could guide us into determining what constitutes grave misconduct.

The leading case goes as far back as March 20, 1922, In Re: Impeachment of Honorable Antonio Horrilleno, quoted as follows:

The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2) inefficiency. The latter grounds is not involved in these proceedings. As to the first, the law provides that "sufficient cause" must exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court involving "serious misconduct." The adjective is "serious;" that is, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The noun is "misconduct;" that is, a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. The word "misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error or judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Lawlor vs. People [1874], 74 Ill., 228; Citizens' Insurance Co. vs. Marsh [1861], 41 Pa., 386; Miller vs. Roby [1880], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs. Cutler [1833], 10 Wend. [N.Y.], 590; U.S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16643; In re Tighe [1904], 89 N.Y. Suprr., 719.)

The above-mentioned case has been cited in numerous subsequent administrative cases.