Want To Acquire A Real Estate License
On the rewarding side is the client that has been underserved by other brokers and in some way comes to you for assist. The Court stated that whereas it could appear that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social responsibility to a member of the affiliation which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter sent to a member, however, a studying of the subject letter-reply addressed to respondent doesn’t present any rationalization regarding the standing of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as against the claim of respondent’s shopper. In utilizing phrases comparable to “lousy”, “inutile”, “carabao English”, “stupidity”, and “satan”, the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and popularity of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The phrases as written had solely the effect of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as authorized officer within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for therefore a few years until his retirement and thầu xây dựng afterwards as advisor of the identical company and also a notary public. Needless so that you can cite particular provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the present case. This công ty xây dựng!
Applying by analogy the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular 13-2001 which modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which laid down a rule of desire in the appliance of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations lined by Article 353 is defamatory; and, beneath the final rule laid down in Article 354, “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown”. The Court held that since the letter shouldn’t be a privileged communication, “malice is presumed” under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code supplies “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown”, besides in the next cases: “(1) a personal communication made by any particular person to another in the performance of any legal, ethical, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good faith, without any feedback or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or different official proceedings which aren’t of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act carried out by public officers in the train of their functions”. version!
The Court said that with a view to show that an announcement falls throughout the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a authorized, moral, or social obligation to make the communication, or at least, had an curiosity to guard, which interest might both be his personal or of the one to whom it’s made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some curiosity or duty within the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements within the communication are made in good faith and without malice. May we remind you that any try on your half to proceed harassing the particular person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious approach than what is important in answering a demand letter which exposed respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s part. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He never knew respondent previous to the demand letter despatched by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a personal communication made in the performance of his “moral and social duty as the attorney-in-fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate” where Mrs. Quingco is a acknowledged tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the nature of a privileged communication and not libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned exams, the phrases used within the letter dated August 18, 1995 despatched by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. On that very same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.