Want To Acquire A Real Estate License
On the rewarding side is the consumer that has been underserved by other brokers and one way or the other comes to you for assist. The Court acknowledged that whereas it would appear that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty to a member of the association which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter despatched to a member, nevertheless, a studying of the topic letter-reply addressed to respondent doesn’t present any rationalization regarding the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as in opposition to the declare of respondent’s shopper. In utilizing phrases akin to “lousy”, “inutile”, “carabao English”, “stupidity”, and “satan”, the letter, as it was written, casts aspersion on the character, công ty thiết kế xây dựng integrity and fame of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered him to ridicule. The words as written had solely the effect of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as authorized officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for therefore a few years until his retirement and afterwards as marketing consultant of the same agency and in addition a notary public. Needless for you to cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the identical 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 choice in the applying of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, under the final rule laid down in Article 354, “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown”. The Court held that since the letter is just not a privileged communication, “malice is presumed” underneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code offers “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown”, except in the next instances: “(1) a personal communication made by any person to a different in the efficiency of any authorized, ethical, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or different official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in mentioned proceedings, or of some other act carried out by public officers within the exercise of their functions”. version!
The Court stated that with the intention to show that an announcement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication underneath Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites should concur: (1) the one who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social obligation to make the communication, or a minimum of, had an interest to guard, which interest could either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or responsibility within the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good religion and with out malice. May we remind you that any attempt on your half to proceed harassing the person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious method than what is necessary in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good religion and exhibiting malicious intent on petitioner’s part. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He by no means 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 private communication made within the efficiency of his “moral and social responsibility because the legal professional-in-fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate” the place Mrs. Quingco is a acknowledged tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the character of a privileged communication and never libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned assessments, the words used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 despatched by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer of the libelous letter was identifiable as the topic letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the identical was copy furnished to all involved. On that same day, Atty. Not personally understanding who the sender was, Atty.