Want To Acquire A Real Estate License
On the rewarding facet is the client that has been underserved by different agents and in some way comes to you for assist. The Court stated that while it will seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social responsibility to a member of the association which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter sent to a member, nonetheless, a studying of the subject letter-reply addressed to respondent does not show any rationalization regarding the standing of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as in opposition to the declare of respondent’s consumer. In using phrases similar to “lousy”, “inutile”, “carabao English”, “stupidity”, and “satan”, the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and reputation of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered 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 in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for thus a few years until his retirement and afterwards as advisor of the same company 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 current 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 appliance of the penalties offered for in B.P. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, below the general 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’s shown”. The Court held that since the letter just isn’t a privileged communication, “malice is presumed” underneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code supplies “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown”, except in the next circumstances: “(1) a non-public communication made by any particular person to another in the performance of any legal, ethical, or social responsibility; 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 aren’t of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in stated proceedings, or of some other act performed by public officers in the train of their functions”. version!
The Court stated that with a purpose to show that a press release falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the one that made the communication had a legal, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or not less than, had an curiosity to guard, which curiosity may either be his own 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 obligation in the matter, and who has the facility to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and with out malice. May we remind you that any try in your part to continue harassing the person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious approach than what is necessary in answering a demand letter which exposed respondent to public ridicule thus negating good religion and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s half. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He never knew respondent prior to the demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his help thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a non-public communication made in the efficiency of his “moral and social obligation as the legal professional-in-truth of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate” the place Mrs. Quingco is a recognized tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, nhân công xây dựng thus in the character 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 topic letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. On that same day, Atty. Not personally understanding who the sender was, Atty.