Want To Obtain A Real Estate License
On the rewarding aspect is the consumer that has been underserved by other brokers and somehow comes to you for assist. The Court stated that whereas it could seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social obligation to a member of the affiliation 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 subject letter-reply addressed to respondent does not show any clarification regarding the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as towards the declare of respondent’s consumer. In using phrases corresponding to “lousy”, “inutile”, “carabao English”, “stupidity”, and “satan”, the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and repute of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The words as written had only the impact of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for therefore a few years until his retirement and afterwards as advisor of the same company and likewise a notary public. Needless so that you can cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the identical is irrelevant to the present case.
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 applying of the penalties offered for in B.P. Any of the imputations lined by Article 353 is defamatory; and, beneath the overall rule laid down in Article 354, “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown”. The Court held that for the reason that letter is not a privileged communication, “malice is presumed” under 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 it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown”, besides in the following circumstances: “(1) a private communication made by any particular person to a different within the efficiency of any legal, ethical, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good faith, with none 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 every other act carried out by public officers within the train of their functions”.
This content was generated by Công ty xây dựng.
The Court stated that in order to show that an announcement falls throughout the purview of a professional privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites should concur: (1) the one who made the communication had a legal, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or at the very least, had an curiosity to protect, 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 interest or responsibility within the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements within the communication are made in good religion and with out malice. May we remind you that any try in your half to continue 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 exposed respondent to public ridicule thus negating good religion and exhibiting malicious intent on petitioner’s part.
He never knew respondent prior to the demand công ty xây dựng hương thủy 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 duty as 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 nature of a privileged communication and not libelous. Gauging from the above-talked about tests, the phrases used within the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent 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 topic letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. On that same day, Atty. Not personally realizing who the sender was, Atty.