HOW TO WRITE A CASE DIGEST

1. Read the requirements of the instructor and the syllabus.

2. Read the full text of the case. And when I say read, dont just breeze through it. Try to
understand it the first time. This will save you time because if you understood it on the first reading,
you wont have to keep going back just to read it all over again. Highlighting important texts of the
case which are related to the topic youre on will help you have a coherent grasp of the case.
3. Now after reading the case in full, youre now ready to write your case digest. In a formal case
digest, there are five parts which are:
Caption This is just the title of the case. It can be as plain as People vs Juan de la Cruz or
detailed to include the SCRA number, GR number, ponente and the date.
Facts This portion is supposed to answer the Who, What, When, How, Why stuff of the case.
Issues This is the legal conflict or the legal controversy sought to be resolved by the Supreme
Court.
Ruling This is the decision or jurisprudence laid down by the court.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions These are not always present in all cases and normally they do
not place any significance to the current ruling being discussed (but they may serve a significant
role in future Supreme Court decisions especially when doctrines are reversed or totally
abandoned). These opinions may also be an additional explanation as to how certain justices voted,
the wisdom behind their votes, and as to how the decision is reached. Be very wary because some
professors would also ask questions pertaining to these opinions especially when such opinions
are adopted as the general rule in some future cases.
(Ill discuss this part in more detail in an upcoming article).
4. Other things you may want to consider may include: how your professor conducts recitation, is
your professor more of a facts guy or a court ruling guy; either way, you can custom make your
digests in a way that will make you remember the facts and the jurisprudence of the case. Some
students prefer replacing the characters with letters like X and Y but that may not sit well with
other professors especially if they are meticulous with the facts of the case. Click this for a sample
case digest.

SAMPLE CASE DIGEST

166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language Duty of a Lawyer
Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating

the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987
Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against
Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against
Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against
Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on
the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich
and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an
ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that
he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court,
to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes,
that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on
Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for
the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply
that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the
grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in
the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware
of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and
that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no
antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who
owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment
and therepository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of
Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In
the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme
Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.