Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

1
JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

2
Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

3
JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

4
Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

Bautista, Jonathan, A.

JD 4B

I. Why is law a profession and not a trade or business?

5
 In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and
age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or
business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta,
AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is
a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In
the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was
held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because
lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634,
June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession
and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of
Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that
the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not
a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10,
2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a
trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs
Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the
practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day
and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or
business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta,
AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is
a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In
the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was
held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because

6
lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634,
June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession
and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of
Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that
the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not
a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10,
2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a
trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs
Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the
practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day
and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or
business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta,
AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is
a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In
the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was
held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because
lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634,
June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession
and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of
Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that
the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not
a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10,

7
2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a
trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs
Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the
practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day
and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or
business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta,
AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is
a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In
the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was
held that the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because
lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634,
June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession
and not a trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of
Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that
the practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not
a capital that In the case of Burbe vs Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10,
2002day and age, it was held that the practice of law is a profession and not a
trade or business because lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that In the case of Burbe vs
Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002day and age, it was held that the
practice of law is a profession and not a trade or business because lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that gfsadasdfgsadfgasgnecessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration.Duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration

8
of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a
byproduct, and the highest eminence may be attained without making much
money.

2. Why is an attorney/a lawyer considered an office of the court?

A lawyer is an officer of the court because under Rule 11.05, he occupies

a quasi-judicial office with a tripartite obligation to the courts, to the public and
to his clients.

3. Is there a distinction between “practicing lawyer” and “trial lawyer”?

Yes, there is a distinction. A practicing lawyer is one that has passed the
bar and is practicing in the legal profession including those who do not litigate
in court such as corporate lawyers and legal staff. A trial lawyer on the other
hand is one that litigates in court.

4. Enumerate the instances when a law student may appear in court as counsel
for a litigant.

1. Law Student Practice Rule - Under Rule 138 A a law student who has
successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed
law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial
court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by
the legal clinic of the law school
2. In cases before the MTC - A non lawyer may appear in court if he is a
party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent or friend or
appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
3. In criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed
member of the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer
who is a resident of the province, of good repute for probity and ability
to aid the accused in his defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC).

9
 4. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter, if they represent themselves, or if they represent their
organization or members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as amended).
5. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before
the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).

5. Draft an Affidavit of Desistance in a criminal case for Acts of Lasciousness.

6. Prepare a Criminal Information

7. Prepare a complaint for Civil Action and a complaint for criminal action

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

I, Marie Bartolome, of legal age, single, and a resident of # 12 Moon St.,

Manila, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and
state that:

1. I am the complaining witness for Acts of Lasciviousness against Jonathan

Bautista in the case entitled “People of the Philippines versus Jonathan Bautista”,
Criminal Case No. 53214, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch No. 15, City of
Manila.

2. After my sober and soul searching assessment and analysis of the incident, I
have realized that because I was not wearing my eyeglasses and it was dark, I
cannot point out, without a doubt the accused or any other person/s who
inflicted harm against me.

10
3. Since I could not state with certainty and without doubt the liability of
Jonathan Bautista, in fairness to him, I am permanently withdrawing my
complaint against him. I clear him of whatever responsibility or liability to me.

4. I hereby inform the City Prosecutor of Manila that I am withdrawing my

complaint for Serious Physical Injuries in Criminal Case No. 53214
entitled“People of the Philippines versus Jonathan Bautista”, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Branch No. 11, City of Manila.

5. I likewise request the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch No. 15, City of Manila
to dismiss with prejudice the said criminal case.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hand this __ day of May 20__ at

the City of Manila.

Marie Bartolome

Complaining Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of May 20__ at the
City of Manila, Philippines.

Jonathan Alcoriza

Public Prosecutor

11
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

BRANCH 81, MANILA

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and

JOHNNY ESCOLAR

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO.

FOR: ROBBERY with

HOMICIDE

-versus-

EDGAR BASTONERO alias “Bugoy”

and CARLOS TIRADOR alias “Pogi”,

(AT LARGE) ,

Accused.

x----------------------------------------x

12
 INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses EDGAR BASTONERO alias “Bugoy” and

CARLOS TIRADOR alias “Pogi”, a resident of Sampaloc Manila, Philippines,
for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under

Article 294 paragraph 1 Robbery with Homicide of the Revised Penal Code;

That at around 6:00 o’clock in the evening of September 13, 2009, at the
corner of Dapitan and Dos Castillas Sts.,Sampaloc Manila, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the two (2) accused, conspiring and
confederating with each other, and helping one another, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, to wit: by accosting one Johnny Escolar at the corner
of Dapitan and Dos Castillas Sts.,Sampaloc Manila, and unlawfully take, steal
and carry away his cellular phone and wrist watch, and thereafter when he
resisted, then Bastonero stabbed him with a knife for several times on the
chest, thereby inflicting upon the deceased mortal wounds on the chest which
were the direct cause of his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. Manila City, Philippines, October 01, 2009

JONATHAN BAUTISTA
Asst. City Prosecutor

Witnesses:

(1.) William Tan

(2.) Henry Uy

13
 (3.) Dr. Henry Lee
(4.) And others

NO BAIL RECOMMENDED

WARRANT OF ARREST NEEDED. Address of Accused: Sampaloc st.,

Manila Philippines

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing Information is filed pursuant to

Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedures; that I have
personally examined the evidence for complainant and that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the crime of robbery with homicide has been committed
and that the two (2) accused is probably guilty thereof; that the two (2) accused
was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against; and that
two (2) accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October 01, 2009,

at Manila , Philippines.

JONATHAN BAUTISTA
Asst. City Prosecutor

14
 City of Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

Branch 6

Baguio City

CIVIL CASE No. A002-4345

DARLY LON V. IGLESIA,

Plaintiff,

FOR: Damages for Breach of

Contract
-versus-

15
LAST FRONTIER CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

WITH UTMOST DEFERENCE TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully

alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff is of legal age, married, and a resident of Rm. 03 3rd Floor

Ina Mansions, Kisad Road, Baguio City;

2. Defendant, Last Frontier Construction Corp., is a corporation

duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws, having its
principal office at Rm. 2A Antipolo Building, Session Road,
Baguio City;

3. That the plaintiff herein desired to build a house, as a present to

his then fiancé and for the purpose of moving in with his future
wife after their wedding on June 12, 2014, thus he availed of the
services of the defendant. He and the company president, Mr.
Noel Sison, discussed the needs and specifications for the project.
He was assured by Mr. Sison that the house will be finished
before the wedding;

4. On February 14, 2013, Mr. Iglesia and Last Frontier Construction

Corp. entered into a written agreement for the construction of a 2
storey house located in 21 Bokawkan Road, Baguio City. Pursuant
thereto, Mr. Iglesia agreed to pay the sum of P 1,000,000.00 for
the project. He made a down payment of P500,000.00 on the
same day, with the balance to be due upon completion of the

16
 house. Herein defendant agreed to build the house in accordance
of plaintiff design and instructions for the aforesaid price and to
complete the work on or before June 12, 2013;

5. That on April 04, 2013, while the construction of the house was
half finished, Mr. Noel Sison, the company president requested to
the plaintiff a break from the construction of the house for his
employees to have break for the holy week which Mr. Iglesia
permitted but with the assurance from Mr. Sison’s that the
construction will resume after the holidays;

6. Defendant failed to resume the construction of the house after

the holy week as it had promised. Mr. Iglesia made numerous
calls, sent several letters and even personally visited the
defendant’s office to remind them of the contract but the
defendant did not respond and wantonly abandoned the half
finished project thus on June 12, 2013 herein defendant failed to
finish the project as agreed upon;

7. A demand letter was sent on July 12, 2013 and another on August
15, 2013 for the defendant to complete the house construction or
to reimburse the down payment but all effort served futile;

8. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above, defendant

has breached the contract;

9. Due to the abandonment of the project by Last Frontier

Construction Corp., Mr. Iglesias has suffered mental anguish,
serious anxiety, and strain relationship with his wife;

10. Unable to move in to the new house, petitioner had to pay rental
fees for the total of P45,000 from June until September of 2014,
which would not have been incurred had Last Frontier
Construction Corp. fulfill its obligation;

11. As a result of the breach of contract, Petitioner had to hire

another construction company with an excess cost of P500,000
just to finish the house;

12. That the contract includes stipulations for liquidated damages for
failure to complete work, wherein the Contractor is to pay the
Owner liquidated damages equivalent to the One-Tenth of One
Percent (1/10 of 1%) of the Contract Price per calendar day of
delay until completion, delivery and acceptance of the said Works
by the OWNER to a maximum amount not to exceed 10%;

17
 13. Considering the urgency of his changing status, the Plaintiff
would have not obtained the services of the Defendant, if the
Defendant had not assured him of timely completion of the
house;

14. Defendant’s wanton abandonment and inducement of unreliable

on-time and fast completion of the construction project has
caused harm its client, which should be curtailed and prevented in
the future;

15. Consequently, Plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of

counsel to whom it obligated itself to pay as Attorney's Fees the
amount equivalent to TWENTY FIVEPERCENT (25%) of the
total amount to be adjudged in favor of plaintiffs, and the costs of
this suit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court after hearing on the merits, that:

a. Defendant be ordered to pay for moral damages for the amount

of FIFTY THOUSAND PESO (P50,000);
b. Defendant be ordered to pay actual damages for the amount of
FIVE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE THOUSAND (P545,000)
c. Defendant be ordered to pay liquidated damages for the amount
of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000)
d. Defendant be ordered to pay exemplary damages for the amount
of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000)
e. Defendant be ordered to pay attorney’s fees in an amount
equivalent to TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (25%) of the total
amount to be adjudged in favor of plaintiffs;
f. Defendant be ordered to pay the costs of this suit.

18
 Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January 2015, done in the City of
Baguio, Philippines.

Frechie Lacmaan

Counsel for Plaintiff

Rm. 105 Patria de Baguio Bldg,

Upper Session Rd., Baguio City
PTR No. 024/Baguio City/12-31-15

Roll of Atty. No. 74570

IBP Lifetime Membership No. 832

MCLE Compliance No. 0826

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }

DONE: IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO } S.S.

X ========================= X

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING

I, DARLY LON V. IGLESIA, after having been duly sworn to in

accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

19
 1. That I am a resident Rm. 03 3rd Floor Ina Mansions, Kisad Road,
Baguio City;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Complaint;
3. That I have read the contents thereof and that the allegations therein
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and or based on
true and authentic records and documents;
4. That I hereby certify that I have not filed the same or similar action
or proceeding against the herein Defendants before any court or
tribunal in the Philippines or abroad. If I should learn that a similar
action or proceeding against the herein Defendants has been filed or
is pending before any other court or tribunal, I shall notify the court
within five (5) days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this verification

this 12th day of January 2015.

DARLY LON V. IGLESIA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in the City of Baguio this

12 day of January 2015 by DARLY LON V. IGLESIA, who has
th

satisfactorily proven her identity to me through her Professional Driver’s

License No. A01-45789valid until November 28, 2017, that she is the same
person who personally signed the foregoing affidavit before me and
acknowledged that she executed the same.

20
 Melanie Ayodoc
Notary Public

Until December 31, 2015

Unit 3A, 3rd Floor, Porta Vaga
Building, Session Road, Baguio City

(074) 422-3287/ 09276435749

PTR No. 108083; 1-9-12/Baguio City

Roll of Attorney No. 101114; 1-9-12/

Baguio City
Doc. No. 73; IBP Lifetime Membership No.
0821057;

Page No.15; Baguio-Benguet

Book No. 1; MCLE No. III-0001178, 07-27-11

Series of 2015. Commission Serial No. 75-NC-11 (R)
TIN: 922-596-319

INFORMATION
(Arson)

INFORMATION

The undersigned, William Bautista, accuses Jonathan Bautista of the crime of

ARSON, committed as follows, to wit:

That on or about February 1, 2019, at about 1:00 A.M., in the Municipality of

Bocaue, Province of Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, and feloniously set on fire
the building belonging to Marie Bartolome, knowing it to be occupied by at
that time by one or more persons, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Marie Bartolome in the amount of P1,000,000.

Contrary to law.

21
Malolos, Philippines, January 1, 2019.

PROSECUTOR

Witnesses:

22