TIPS ON DIGESTING CASES: [i]You can never escape digesting cases in the College of Law.

The
objective in digesting cases is to discover how the law was applied. Your professor is less interested in
the brilliancy of the lawyer or the parties involved or how they won or lost their case. What matters is
how the Supreme Court resolved the issues.[i]

1. DO NOT DIGEST UNLESS YOU KNOW THE CODAL PROVISION. It's a total waste of time. On the
contrary, if you know what the law requires, it is easy to determine if the parties obeyed or disobeyed
the law. The Court always sides with the party who obeyed the law.
2. DO NOT DIGEST CASES SINGLY. [i]Groups of cases must be digested together because they all
apply the same law - sometimes in contrasting manner. Spend the most time thoroughly digesting the
first in a batch of cases. Succeeding cases will simply re-apply the same principle. However, look out
for reversals of rulings.[i]
3. LOOK AT THE DATES. PRIORITIZE DIGESTING LATER CASES. Chances are, the latest case will
contain a recitation of earlier cases - already digested by the ponente (the justice who actually writes
the text of the decision). Not only that - usually, the ponente will compare and contrast related cases,
saving you a lot of time in case you cannot read the full text of the original decision. But set apart a
time to read the original cases anyway.
4. USE BLOCK DIAGRAMS TO REPRESENT THE PARTIES. Reduce the long list of parties into "F filed an
action against C" etc. regardless of how long the full name of F or C is. Make a mental chart of who
filed the original case and then trace it from there - who won in the original jurisdiction, it is always
the loser who appeals if the case was resolved normally. But 80% of cases reaching the Supreme
Court are pre-emptive; filed by one of the parties before a final decision is reached below. But just the
same, the party that goes to the Supreme Court is either the losing party of the party about to lose.
Jump to the dispositive portion and see if the petitioning party was successful or not. Then reconstruct
the arguments in between, using the syllabus of the case (the first portion of every SCRA (text) as
aid.
5. AT THE VERY LEAST, DIGEST AT LEAST ONE CASE FROM EVERY SECTION OF THE COURSE
OUTLINE. It is not the number of cases you digested that matters but the coverage. You must digest
at least one case for every pertinent provision of law. Two, if you have the time. Three, if you
anticipate a graded recitation.
6. SEEK AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY WHAT YOU LEARNED. If you are called for a recitation on a
case you did not digest, offer to recite on another cases (most professors will allow that, so long as
you offer to recite on the same subject matter.) The point is, let the professor know that you
attempted to understand the principle at work. If embarrassed, do not sulk. Listen to the person
reciting - their digest may be correct and if it is, it will definitely come out in the exams.
7. DO NOT DEVOUR ALL FACTS. YOU DO NOT NEED THEM. You can try applying the reverse analysis
approach. Look at the ruling and then find out how the Court arrived at the ruling. The Supreme Court
throws out may irrelevant facts because it is not a trier of facts. Do not try to smell out every fact if it
did not even concern the Justices.
8. REMEMBER THE "ANGLE OF CONCERN". If you are digesting for a Constitutional Law subject, ignore
the issues that do not concern you. Read the case with particular interest on how the Constitution was
applied. Ditto for other subjects.
9. KEEP YOUR DIGEST. YOU WILL DEFINITELY ENCOUNTER THE SAME CASES IN YOUR HIGHER
YEARS. [i]Most cases involve various aspects of the law. So the cases you digested in Persons are
most likely the same ones you will read in Wills and Succession. Your "angle of concern" will be
different of course, but you will save a lot of time if you are familiar with the facts already.[i]

WAG KANG AAYAW HA! Talagang ganyan ang buhay nating mga ambisyoso.

166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language Duty of a Lawyer

Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating
the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987
Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against
Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against
Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against
Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on
the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich
and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an
ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that
he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court,
to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes,
that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on
Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for
the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply that
the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the
grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in
the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware
of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and
that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no
antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who
owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and
the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez
to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In
the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme
Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.

Digesting cases is a must in the college of law, this is actually regardless if it is being required by
your professor or not. Once cases are assigned, a law student must observe due diligence and read
these cases.
For freshmen law students, you may be wondering how to make case digests or case briefs. Well,
there are a few things to remember and they are:
1. Be aware of the specifics of the case or the syllabus concerned. In one case alone, there
could be multiple topics i.e. Political Law, Remedial Law, Civil Law and there could be as many sub-
topics i.e. for Political Law there could be Police Power and Eminent Domain. Knowing these can
properly guide you with the theme of your digests. But usually, you will not have a hard time with
this because once cases are assigned; your professor would have specified these in his handouts.
2. Read the full text of the case. And when I say read, dont just breeze through it. Try to
understand it the first time. This will save you time because if you understood it on the first reading,
you wont have to keep going back just to read it all over again. Highlighting important texts of the
case which are related to the topic youre on will help you have a coherent grasp of the case.
3. Now after reading the case in full, youre now ready to write your case digest. In a formal case
digest, there are five parts which are:
Caption This is just the title of the case. It can be as plain as People vs Juan de la Cruz or detailed
to include the SCRA number, GR number, ponente and the date.
Facts This portion is supposed to answer the Who, What, When, How, Why stuff of the case.
Issues This is the legal conflict or the legal controversy sought to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Ruling This is the decision or jurisprudence laid down by the court.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions These are not always present in all cases and normally they do not
place any significance to the current ruling being discussed (but they may serve a significant role in
future Supreme Court decisions especially when doctrines are reversed or totally abandoned). These
opinions may also be an additional explanation as to how certain justices voted, the wisdom behind
their votes, and as to how the decision is reached. Be very wary because some professors would also
ask questions pertaining to these opinions especially when such opinions are adopted as the
general rule in some future cases.
(Ill discuss this part in more detail in an upcoming article).
4. Other things you may want to consider may include: how your professor conducts recitation, is
your professor more of a facts guy or a court ruling guy; either way, you can custom make your
digests in a way that will make you remember the facts and the jurisprudence of the case. Some
students prefer replacing the characters with letters like X and Y but that may not sit well with
other professors especially if they are meticulous with the facts of the case.