Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COLLEGE OF LAW
LEGAL RESEARCH
ANGELI NESS P. CASADOR
Instructor, 1st Sem., S.Y. 2016-2017
I. CASE DIGEST/SYNTHESIS
1. Know the parts of a Judicial Decision.
2. Read the case in its entirety before reading the case again to digest..
3. A case digest is only a summary of the full text of the case. There is no substitute
to reading the full text.
Parts of a Case Digest/Synthesis
FACTS
State only the legally relevant facts only. In identifying the relevant facts, only
state the facts that will have a bearing on the legal concept under consideration.
Make sure that the facts illustrate the conflict in the case. There is no case if
there is no conflict or dispute. In illustrating the dispute, state the respective
contentions of the parties in the case (e.g. A contended that On the other hand,
B contended that or A contended that but the lower court did not agree with
his contention by ruling that). The parties involved in the case may be (1) a
private entity vs. a private entity; (2) the State (Republic) vs. a private entity; (3)
the People of the Philippines vs. the accused; (4) a private entity vs. a judge, or a
tribunal.
Make sure that the facts are arranged chronologically and logically.
Research literatures provide for the TARP Rule. It is a useful technique in factual
analysis. It is a method to analyze your facts according to the following factors:
T Thing or subject matter
A Cause of action or defense
R Relief sought
P- Persons or parties involved
ISSUE/s
State the issue in your own words. The test if you have truly understood the case
is if you are able to properly state the issue in your own words. However stated,
what is important is they capture the crux of the controversy in the case.
It must be able to directly answer the issue. If the issue asks for a Yes/No answer,
then begin by stating Yes or The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative,
or No or The Supreme Court answered in the negative.
6. Repealing clause
EXPRESS REPEAL
IMPLIED REPEAL
2 categories of Repeal by Implication
G.R. No. 215847, January 12, 2016, GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, CORNELIO P. ALDON, AND RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO
G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992, ANTONIO A. MECANO
vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
7. Effectivity clause
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
EFFECT OF THE REPEAL OR NULLITY OF THE REPEALING LAW
JG Summit Holdings vs CA, GR 124293, September 24, 2003
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, JESUS C. GARCIA, vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T.
DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE
JAYPE-GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH
EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA,.
III. EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES
1. PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES
DAVID VS. ARROYO, G.R. NO. 171396, MAY 3, 2006
Executive orders- refers to the acts of the President in providing rules which are
permanent in character in implementation of the constitutional or statutory powers.
Administrative orders- refer to acts of the President in which relates to governmental
operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head.
Proclamation- acts of the President declaring a status or condition of public matter or
interest upon which the operation of law is made to depend.
Memorandum orders-acts of the President upon which it concerns only an
administrative detail of a particular office or officer.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. CRUZ, ET AL., GR NO. 80593, DECEMBER 18, 2989
RULE: WHENEVER TWO STATUTES OF CONTRARY TENOR ARE OF EQUAL
THEORETICAL APPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATUTES OF LATER
DATE MUST PREVAIL BEING A LATER EXPRESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE WILL.
STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
RULE: IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY OR CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BASIC LAW AND
THE EXECUTIVE ISSUANCE TO IMPLEMENT IT, THE STATUTE PREVAILS OVER
THE LATTER.
STATUTES AND LOCAL ORDINANCE
RULE: ORDINANCE SHOULD NOT CONTRAVENE A STATUTE. IN CASE OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN AN ORDINANCE AND A STATUTE, THE LATTER WILL
PREVAIL.
MAYOR MAGTAJAS AND THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES
CORP., IN.C AND PAGCOR, GR NO. 111097, JULY 20, 1994
V. LEGAL CITATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal
or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
3 things porhibited:
1. Knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting
a) Contents of a paper;
b) Language or argument of opposing counsel; and
c) Text of a decision or authority.
2. Knowingly citing as law, a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment; and
3. Asserting as a fact that which has not been proved.