Want To Obtain A Real Estate License

From ScenarioThinking
Jump to navigation Jump to search

On the rewarding side is the consumer that has been underserved by different agents and by some means comes to you for assist. The Court said that while it would seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty 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, nhân công xây dựng nonetheless, a reading 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 against the declare of respondent’s client. In utilizing words corresponding to "lousy", "inutile", "carabao English", "stupidity", and "satan", the letter, as it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and reputation of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The words as written had only 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 many years till his retirement and afterwards as 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 same is irrelevant to the current 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 preference in the applying of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations lined by Article 353 is defamatory; and, below the final rule laid down in Article 354, "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". 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 supplies "every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown", besides in the following instances: "(1) a private communication made by any person to another in the efficiency of any authorized, moral, or social obligation; and (2) a fair and true report, made in good religion, with none feedback or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or different official proceedings which aren't of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in mentioned proceedings, or of another act performed by public officers within the exercise of their functions".

This content was generated by Công ty xây dựng.

The Court stated that with the intention to prove that a statement falls throughout the purview of a certified privileged communication below Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or at least, had an curiosity to guard, which curiosity may 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 curiosity or responsibility within the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements within the communication are made in good religion and without malice. May we remind you that any attempt on 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 critical in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and displaying malicious intent on petitioner’s half.

He never knew respondent prior to the demand letter sent 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 non-public communication made within the performance of his "moral and social obligation as the attorney-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 assessments, the phrases used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent 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 identical was copy furnished to all concerned. On that same day, Atty. Not personally understanding who the sender was, Atty.