For the sake of truth

Title

Creator

David, Porfirio C.

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Criminal cases--Statistics--1954 --Philippines

Civil cases--Statistics--1954 --Philippines

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[This states the author’s views on an article by Federico Moreno published in Sunday Time Magazine in May 1954. David express his disappointments on the said article as it had dishonored and mocked other judges about their efficacy on the basis of half-truths and mis-truths. Facts and figures were presented to set the record straight and correct any misunderstanding produced by Moreno’s article. ]

Fulltext

Besides, Justice Reyes fail.;i to grasp the method of the mw Civil Code in See. 2 - "Order of Intestate Succession". By Articles 978, 985, 988, 995, 1001, and 1103, the Code names the re. latives who, in the order stated, inherit the whole est<it.. Article 978 assumes that there is no surviving spouse. (To be Continued) A CRITICAL STUDY ... <Continued from page 219) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Much of the possible difficult situations we have endeavored to present which cannot be adequately solved by the present provisions of the Code without absurd results may be remedied by eliminating the conclusive presumption of legitimacy provided for in Article 258 of the present Civil Code in s.ny of the three case9 therein mentioned. This will make the present rigors of the law more flexible to permit its rigidity yield to the realities 9f hfe. The Prima. facie presumption of illegitimacy provided for in Article 257 <C. C.> shoUld be reversed. The presumption of legitimacy should be the rule, but its rebuttal should be allowed under the conditions and circumstances mentioned in Article 257 <C. C.l and adding thereto the case of rape of the wife dul'ing the S•1me period of time. Articles 255 and 259 may remain as they .:ire subject to a modification of Article 259 CC. C.> for clarity only by incorpore.ting to the opening paragraph thereof the foUowing phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of Article 255". · It is, therefore, recommended that Articles 257, 258 and 259 of the Civil Code be redrafted to read as follows: "Art. 257. In case of the commission of adultery by the wife or rape of the wife at or &bout the time of conception of the child, but there was no physical impossibility of access by the husband to the Wife as set forth in Article 255, the presumption of legitimacy therein provided, may be overcome by proof that it is highly improbable for ethnic reasons that the child is that of the husbaiad. Fo1• purposes of this Article the adultery or the rape as the case may be need not be proved in a criminal case.'' rPattemP.d after House Bill No. 1019; Francisco, I Civil Code of the Philippines 683). "Art. 258. A child born within one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the marriage is prima. facie presumed to be legitimate.'' "Art. 259. If the marriage is dissolved by the dee.th of the husband, and the mother contracted another marriage within tliTeO hundred days following such death, the&e rules shall govem, notwithstanding the provisions of article 255: (ll A child bom before one hundred eighty days after the sol~niYtion of the subsequent marriage is disputably presumed to have been conceived during the former marria.ge, provided it be born within three hundred days after the death of the former husband; (2) A child bom after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subSequent marriage i.s primer. faoi.e presumed b have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be bol'D within the three hundred days after the death of the former husband.'' DECISION OF THE. . . <ConUnu•d r- page 248l of time on a particular style of packages any registration which might issue upon its application would not be limited to use upon such packages, and the p&ckages used could be changed by either party at any time. Ambrosia Chocolate Co. v. Myron Foster, 603 0. G. 545, 74 USPQ 307. U1ide-r well settled tW.thority <General Food Corporation v. Casein Company of America, Inc .• 27 C.C.P.A. 797, 108 F.2d 261 144 USPQ 33); Barton Mfg. Co. v. Hercules Powder Co., 24 C.C.P.A. 982, 88 F.2d 708 (33 USPQ 105); Sharp & Dohme, Incorporated v. Abbott Laboratories, 571 0. G. 519, 64 USPQ 247>, the difftn-ences in packaging ca• not affect the right to .. e. gistra.tion." (underscoring supp1ied} In view of the well-settled principle that an opposer need not own a trademark; a registered trademark; or have exclusive rights FOR lHE SAKE OF TRUlH BY POR~'IRIO C. DAVID I wish to make a vigorous exception to Mr. Federico B. Moreno's article ROLL OF HONOR (of judges of First Instance) as published in the Sunday Times Magazine of May 9, 1954. I do not question Mr. Moreno's right to praise a particular judge or group of judges. For the consumption of the public, he can even raise them to the level of an· Arellano, a Cardozo or Holmes. But, he has no right to do so at the expense of other judges whom he had degraded and ridiculed by publishing his conclusions about their efficiency on the basis of half-truths and mis-truths. The proficiency of a judge cannot be co:irrectly Jl)easured by the precise action of the Supreme Court on his appealed decisions and orders for only one year (last year) and on the applications for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus decided in the preceding three years and on the basis of important cases settled by the Court of Appeals in 1952 and 1953 as published in the Official . Gazette. One who is familiar with the machinery of justice, like Mr. Moreno, who is a lawyer, should know that not all decisions are published in the Official Gazette. Hence, to rate a judge en what might have been published of his appealed decisions in the Official Gazette alone would be the height of irresponsibility. Take, for instance, the particular cases of Judges Barot, Moscoso and Ocampo, who are represented to have had Jlo affirmed · decisions of any sort during the period given. This is unbelievable. I regret that I do not have offhand the records CJf Judge Moscoso, wbo is in the Visayas, and of Judge Barot, who is in Pampanga. But from the records alone of Judge Ocampo as available in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Manila, where said judge has been presiding since 1951, I can say that the conclusions of Mr. Moreno about these judges are at once preposterous and gratuitous, if not libelous. In this connection, I am supporting my stand with .the facts and figures appearing on the correct copies of Reports of Cases decided by Judge Ocampo and brought to the Appellate Courts, duly , certified by the clerks in charge, which are self-explanatory. Summarizing, I find: Criminal cases appealed •..•.............. , 34 Affirmed ... . ... . .•. . .... ....... ..... .. 8 Modified , • . • . • • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • 3 Appeal abandoned ......... , . . . • . . • • . . . . 8 Reversed . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. • • • . .. . . . . . . . 2 Pending .............•......... ; . . . . . . . . 13 Civil cases appealed to Supreme Court . . . . . . 4 Pending . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Affirmed .... , .• ,. . . . . . . . • • • . . • . . . .. . . 2 Reversed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Civil cases appealed to the Court of Appeals . . 19 Pending . . . . . . . . . . . .. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 13 AJ;lpeal dismissed or abandoned .... , . . . . 4 Affirmed . . •. . . . . .. . • . . • . . • . . . . . .. . . . . . 2 Reversed . . .. • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non~ If only to set tlle record straight and to oorrect any wrong impression which Mr. Moreno's article may have produced on the readers' minds, I have taken pains to dig up the above facts and figores. to a trademark, registered or unregistered; all he needs being something which is analogous to a trademark, and e. showing that he would probably be damaged by the registration sought; and in view of the egually well-settled principle that the appearance fJf the labels bearing the rival trademarks cannot affect the right to registration of one of them, the motion to dismiss the Opposition ia rejected, and the Respondent-Applicant is' directed to answer the same within fifteen (15) days of his receipt of a copy hereof. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, October 31, 1952. <SGD.) CE1$DONIO AGRA VA Director of Patents May 31, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL 2159

pages

259

Media