PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

The rise of AI has presented numerous opportunities, offering the convenience of language models to perform various tasks. However, recent events have highlighted potential pitfalls. In a notable case, a lawyer from New York utilized Chat GPT, a popular chatbot, to generate a document for a client. Concerns arose when it was discovered that several of the cases submitted by the lawyer were fictitious, with fabricated quotes and citations. The authenticity of these cases were questioned emphasizing the importance of accurate and credible legal sources. What should we learn from this as students or practitioners of the law?  It's that while AI can be a useful tool, it is crucial to recognize its limitations. Language models operate based on past data, making them prone to repeating information and occasionally generating false information. Law students and lawyers must remember that their profession relies heavily on facts and accurate information. While AI can assist, it should n

The 2021 Bar Exams produced a record-high passing rate of 72.8%. This is one of the highest passing rates in history, and it has sparked a lot of discussion in the legal community. Some people are celebrating the high passing rate, while others are concerned that it is too high. Whatever the reasons for the high passing rate, it is important to remember that the bar exams are still a very difficult test. Only the best and brightest law students are able to pass. The fact that so many students passed the 2021 Bar Exams is a testament to their hard work and dedication. Those who are concerned about the high passing rate argue that it could lead to a decline in the quality of the legal profession. They argue that if the bar exams are too easy, then it will be easier for unqualified people to become lawyers. This could lead to a decrease in the quality of legal representation, and it could also lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits. Those who are celebrating the high passing rat

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 250846. January 05, 2022 ] SPS. RONICO LOPEZ *  AND MARCELINA LOPEZ, AND SPS. GLORIA LOPEZ ADORZA AND NICOMEDES ADORZA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ADOLFO AND SUSANA POTOY, SPS. VICTOR AND BERLINA LUMAPAT, SPS. JUANITO AND LUZ POTOY, SPS. TEOFISTO AND SOTERA POTOY, SPS. ALLAN AND CARMELITA POTOY, SPS. HERBERTO **  AND ROSARIO POTOY, SPS. SONNY AND ELENITA POTOY, SPS. MANITO AND SHIRLEY PALLER, SPS. REYNALDO AND MARILOU DOLLOSO, SPS. RICARDO AND ISIDRA SIBAYAN, AND SPS. VICTOR AND LOLITA BONJOC, RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N INTING, J.: Before the Court is a Petition [1]  for Review on  Certiorari  under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision [2]  dated January 24, 2019 and the Resolution [3]  dated November 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04771. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision [4]  dated July 20, 2012 of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City

In the landmark case of Calalang v. Williams, a private citizen challenged a rule that prohibited horse-drawn carriages from Manila streets during specific afternoon hours. This sparked a significant discussion on social justice, leading to a memorable response by Justice Jose P. Laurel, which has since become a cherished saying among judges and law students. Justice Laurel's words emphasized that social justice is not merely about sympathizing with a particular group, but rather about humanizing laws and equalizing social and economic forces through state intervention. It is a concept that aims to ensure fairness and equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. Contrary to misconceptions, social justice does not advocate for preferential treatment or handouts for the disadvantaged. Instead, it seeks to establish a society where every person has a fair chance to succeed and thrive. It calls for the government to adopt measures that promo

Fencing is defined under Section 2 of PD 1612 as "as the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."[1] The following are the essential elements of the crime of fencing: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or a

First off, an affidavit is a sworn statement of an affiant who subscribes and swears to the truth of matters stated in a narration of facts. On the other hand, detention is a condition of a person under custody of law, especially when such person is held or deprived of liberty by authorities such as when under police arrest. An affidavit of detention can mean three (3) things. First, it may mean that the person currently deprived of liberty states under oath that he is deprived of liberty or is under detention. Second, it may mean that a police officer attests under oath that another person is deprived of liberty or is under detention. Or, third, it may mean that a third person states under oath that another person is deprived of liberty or is under detention. Normally, an affidavit of detention is required to establish the fact of detention, which is essential in certain petitions like a petition for habeas corpus or an application/petit

The quantum of evidence required in the conviction of criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is defined in Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, to wit: In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind . (2a) [Emphasis ours] The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the fact that "(i)n a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of command with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as public officers, and therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of

In Uy v. Del Castillo,[1] the Court explained the doctrine of immutability of judgment as follows: Time and again, the Court has repeatedly held that "a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. This principle, known as the doctrine of immutability of judgment, has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Verily, it fosters the judicious perception that the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time . As such, it is not regarded as a mere technicali

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 244629. July 28, 2020 ] MARBY FOOD VENTURES CORPORATION, MARIO VALDERRAMA, AND EMELITA VALDERRAMA, PETITIONERS, VS. ROLAND DELA CRUZ, GABRIEL DELA CRUZ, JOSE PAULO ANZURES, EFREN TADEO, BONGBONG SANTOS, MARLON DE RAFAEL, CRIS C. SANTIAGO, ELMER MARANO, ARMANDO RIVERA, AND LOUIE BALMES, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N REYES, J. JR., J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on  Certiorari [1]  under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the review of the Decision [2]  dated October 19, 2018 and Resolution [3]  dated January 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 151531 & 151557 wherein the CA affirmed the Decision [4]  of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which in turn partially reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA). Factual Antecedents Marby Food Ventures Corporation (Marby) is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing unde

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 204272. January 18, 2021 ] MARYLOU R. ANCHETA, IN HER AND ON BEHALF OF HER MISSING FORMER COMMON-LAW HUSBAND RICARDO DIONILA, PETITIONER, VS. MARY CAMBAY,** RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N HERNANDO, J.:  This Petition for Review on  Certiorari [1] assails the March 16, 2012 Decision[2] and the October 18, 2012 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102517 which denied the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by herein petitioner Marylou R. Ancheta (Ancheta). The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA were rendered in connection with the August 31, 2005 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Lagawe, Ifugao in a case filed by herein respondent Mary Cambay (Cambay) entitled  "Mary Cambay v. Vivian Ancheta and Spouses Ricardo Dionila and Marilou Ancheta"  and docketed as SPL Civil Action No. 64 ordering petitioner and her co-defendants therein to pay Cambay P50,000.00 plus interest at the rate of 24% pe