1

CASE DIGEST
EGE 311 – Gender and Society

Submitted to:
Reca Mae S. Cabatbat

University of Southeastern Philippines

College of Engineering
Obrero Campus

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering

By

Moriones, Eric Louis D.

Pepito, Jianne D Saguirel,
Rama, Alec Jim A.

December
2024
 2

I. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN CASE

Case Digest: A.C. No. 13132. January 31, 2023 - TEODORA ALTOBANO-RUIZ,

COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. WILFREDO A. RUIZ, CHERRY ANNE DELA CRUZ, AND

FRANCISCO S. BENEDICTO, III, RESPONDENTS.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jan2023/ac_13132_2023.html
A.C. No. 13132. January 31, 2023

TEODORA ALTOBANO-RUIZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. WILFREDO A. RUIZ, CHERRY

ANNE DELA CRUZ, AND FRANCISCO S. BENEDICTO, III, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Teodora Altobano-Ruiz filed a complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty.

Wilfredo A. Ruiz, and two other lawyers, Atty. Cherry Anne Dela Cruz and Atty. Francisco

S. Benedicto III. The complaint was against them for violations of the Code of Professional

Responsibility through several acts of misconduct. Teodora had secured a Permanent

Protection Order (PPO) from the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City against Atty. Ruiz after

suffering from physical, emotional, and economic abuse. But Atty. Ruiz violated the PPO

when he refused to pay child support despite the issuance of a writ of execution.

To escape his responsibilities, Atty. Ruiz executed a Memorandum of Agreement

with Radelia C. Sy, wherein they conspired to transfer his properties to Sy's son as a dowry

for a future marriage. Teodora also charged Atty. This accused De La Cruz, her former

counsel, of conspiring with Atty. Ruiz by refusing to enforce the PPO, while Atty. Benedicto,

a partner in Ruiz's law firm, was implicated for assisting in a nullity case against her. Atty.

Ruiz further provided false addresses and concealed assets to frustrate the writ's execution.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)

recommended the disbarment of Atty. Ruiz and the dismissal of the complaints against Attys.
 3

Dela Cruz and Benedicto for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially

adopted the recommendation but thereafter modified it, lessening the penalty to a one-year

suspension considering evidence that would have shown Ruiz had started assisting. The

case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Wilfredo A. Ruiz committed a violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility for acts of non-compliance with the Permanent Protection Order, acts

deceitful to avoid legal obligations, and immoral conduct, and whether Attys. Cherry Anne

Dela Cruz and Francisco S. Benedicto III, in conspiracy with Atty. Ruiz, harassed Teodora

which constitutes their own violations of professional ethics

RULING

The Supreme Court determined that Atty. Grave violations of the Code of

Professional Responsibility were committed by Wilfredo A. Ruiz. He refused to comply with

the PPO, deceived others by hiding assets and providing false addresses, and conducted

himself immorally by entering into an illegal arrangement with another woman. Specifically,

he was found to have violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, which prohibit dishonest and deceitful

behavior and require respect for the law, as well as Rule 7.03, which mandates lawyers to

uphold ethical behavior in both their professional and private lives. Moreover, he violated

Rules 10.01 and 10.03, which address deceit and misrepresentation, and Rule 12.04,

which prohibits any scheme to frustrate court judgments.

 4

In view of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty.

Ruiz and ordered his name to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. On the other hand,

the complaints filed against Atty. Cherry Anne Dela Cruz and Atty. Francisco S. Benedicto

III were dismissed for lack of evidence to establish any conspiracy or wrongdoing on their

part.

The Supreme Court, therefore resolved that Atty. Ruiz's actions were not fit for

anyone who wears the cloak of the legal profession and also brought grave public

confidence in the judicial processes to the lowest ebb. His disbarment showed sternly that

lawyers are obligated to live by the greatest standards of integrity and responsibility in

conducting their affairs, be it either inside or outside the courtroom.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents Attys. Cherry Anne Dela Cruz

and Francisco S. Benedicto, III is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

II. ANTI HARASSMENT CASE

G.R. No. 175433 ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. MAILA CLEMEN F.

SERRANO, Respondent.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/mar2015/gr_175433_2015.html

G.R. No. 175433

ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.

FACTS

This matter started when Atty. filed an administrative complaint. Respondent Maila

Clemen F. Serrano is suing her immediate supervisor, Atty. Petitioner Jacinto C. Gonzales, Chief

of the Philippine Racing Commission's (PHILRACOM) Legal Division, for serious misbehavior,

sexual harassment, and lewd behaviors.

 5

ISSUE

According to her complaint, on November 23, 2000, the petitioner forcibly kissed her on

the lips at a restaurant when they were dining with other coworkers, including Eva Bataller, Atty.

Eugene Juanson and Roman Vidal. Despite her efforts to refuse by turning her head away, she

claims the petitioner persisted, leaving her stunned, humiliated, and unable to respond properly

for fear of further humiliation. Respondent also claims that this was not an isolated incident, but

rather part of a pattern of inappropriate behavior by the petitioner, which included previous

advances such as offering to buy her a cell phone, asking her to join him in his car, and inviting

her to lunch, all of which she declined. In addition to these overtures, the petitioner allegedly

made derogatory remarks about her personal life during a confrontation on August 23, 2000,

condemning her for failing to disclose that she had a kid, questioning her relationship status, and

implying that her job performance was poor. Following these instances, the respondent alleges

she reported the issue to the PHILRACOM Grievance Committee but received no response,

causing her to escalate the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman due to the petitioner's

higher status in the office. To back up her accusations, the respondent provided testimonies from

her colleagues who were present during the "kissing" episode and can corroborate her story. In

response, the petitioner rejected the allegations, claiming that the kiss was a casual birthday

greeting that accidentally brushed her lips. He further claimed that his comments about her

personal life were related to her work performance, notably her absences and tardiness, and that

he made them while serving as PHILRACOM’s legal counsel, The case raises severe concerns

about sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and the effectiveness of PHILRACOM’s

internal complaint handling, especially in light of the respondent’s allegations of institutional

indifference.
 6

RULING

On March 19, 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman Administrative Adjudication Bureau,

through Graft Investigation Officer Marlon T. Molina, issued a Decision finding petitioner guilty of

grave misconduct. Approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, among other officers, the

Decision has the following dispositive portion:

FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds substantial evidence that

respondent JACINTO G. GONZALES is guilty of Grave Misconduct.

Accordingly, the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service is hereby imposed upon him

pursuant to Section 52 (A), par. 3, Rule IV of Resolution No. 991936 otherwise known as the

Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

The Honorable Chairman of the Philippine Racing Commission, Electra House Building,

Esteban Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City is hereby directed to implement this Decision in

accordance with law and promptly report to this Office compliance thereof.

III. ANTI RAPE CASE

Case Digest: G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–

Appellee, v. EDGAR

JUMAWAN, Accused–Appellant.

Source:https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_187495_2014.html

G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. EDGAR

JUMAWAN, Accused–Appellant
 7

FACTS

Defendant-appellant and his wife, KKK, were married on October 18, 1975. They lived

together as husband and wife, raised four children and managed several businesses over the

years. Despite their seemingly stable marital relationship, the dynamic changed when, on July

16, 1999, two rape complaints were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the defendant,

KKK, on two separate occasions. The allegations detailed that the defendant intentionally,

unlawfully and criminally obtained carnal knowledge of the KKK against her will through the use

of force and intimidation. These acts allegedly constituted a violation of Republic Act No. 8353,

also known as the Anti-Rape Act of 1997. This law, which amended previous provisions on rape,

criminalized marital rape and recognized the absence of consent even in one marital relationship

constitutes a serious criminal offense. The filing of these charges raised significant legal and

social questions about the limits of consent and the applicability of anti-rape law in the context of

marriage. The case continued and required the court to evaluate the evidence and determine

beyond a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was guilty of the charges

ISSUE

In the case of Rape, which often occur in private areas, the victim's account management

in court proceedings is particularly important. A key question in this context is whether a husband

can be convicted of raping his wife under R.A. No. 8353, regardless of their marital bond.

The court is tasked with evaluating the reliability of the wife's testimony to determine

whether it meets the legal standards for marital rape. This case confronts the outdated notion

that marriage grants eternal consent and emphasizes that a husband is not exempt from legal

action if his behavior fits within the legal parameters of rape

 8

RULING

Under Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, rape is defined without

regard to the relationship between the offender and the victim. This includes the possibility of

rape being committed by a husband against his wife, as long as the statutory elements—such

as force, intimidation, or lack of consent—are present. The law recognizes three forms of rape:

traditional rape, sexual assault, and marital rape. By offering a unified definition, it underscores

that consent is fundamental in all sexual relations, even within marriage, and negates any

presumption of irrevocable consent.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) carefully assessed the evidence and found the testimony

of the private complainant, KKK, to be credible and consistent. Her detailed account of how her

husband forcibly committed sexual acts against her will was truthful and untainted. Despite the

accused’s argument that marital status exempted him from prosecution, the court rejected this,

affirming that marital rape is punishable under the law. The court convicted the accused-

appellant, affirming that marriage does not grant a license to violate a spouse’s rights.