The 4 Juiciest Court Cases

sachin001 December 27, 2022December 27, 2022 0 Comments DDS Law

With a busy Philippines, it is no doubt that it has its share of fascinating and juicy cases that make great stories.

What are the juiciest cases in Filipino law history? The juiciest court cases in the Philippines are the De Lima drug case and Pilar Abaigar vs. David D.C. Paz, among others.

De Lima Drug Case

The Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuted and charged former Senator Leila de Lima for three counts of unlawful drug dealing in February 2017 following a public trial before the House of Representatives. However, she was defeated in her petition before the SC by a 9–6 vote.

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen described the case as “basically the employment of the strong arm of the law to silence criticism.” At the same time, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio labeled it one of the “grossest injustices” in the Philippines.

De Lima still has not been released. The former senator has been imprisoned for almost six years, which is too long for preventive detention in current court matters. Moreover, her detention, which prohibited her from actively engaging in legislative discussions, occurred during her term as senator, making her condition worse.

Human rights advocates call for Deas’ release. Due to the nature of her case, there is a good reason why the clamor among the human right advocate community for her case is strong. However, the three government branches need help with what to do about De Lima and her cases, if not a problem.

Pilar Abaigar vs. David D.C. Paz

DDS Law and its members are members of the Philippine bar.

David, a member of the Philippine Bar, was the target of an administrative case that Pilar filed for his disbarment.

Pilar first spoke with David when she dialed the Manila office of Congressman Ramon Bagatsing and asked for advice regarding the divorce petition her husband had filed in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County, USA.

She assumed David had the required legal experience because he identified himself to her as a lawyer. She told him about her legal issues as a result. With her, David gradually “grew incredibly friendly” and eventually confessed his love for her. Since this happened before Tinder, this might have been how things worked 40 years ago.

Pilar alleged that she had been reluctant to be involved with David because David had cohabited with a woman named Virginia Paz. He assured her that they weren’t in a romantic relationship, though. He explained that he had been “compelled” to get married to her in a civil ceremony. Since he and Virginia were not wed in a church, he informed Pilar that he was free to wed anybody he desired in church.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals (CA) and Gina Lao-Tsoi

Gina referred to in court documents as a “distraught wife,” requested the dissolution of her union with Chi Ming. Since their 1988 wedding, Gina and her husband have not engaged in sexual activity. Gina asserted that on their first night together as a married pair, her husband merely climbed into bed. Then, he turned away from her and fell asleep. Throughout their marriage, this continued.

They visited a doctor at some time to see if either or both of them had a flaw. However, she was deemed in great health, and he was allegedly merely given a supplement.

Gina claimed that her husband was truly gay and had merely married her to keep his legal status as a resident of the Philippines, explaining his lack of interest in having sex. She also suggested that his penis was small.

Chi Ming said that Gina was the one who objected to having sex with him. He asserted that the only reasons she sought an annulment were “her fear of consummation and her fear of being forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother.”

Doctors examined the defendant and found out that there was no evidence of impotence and that the defendant was capable of having an erection.

Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Mayor

Glenda worked as a court stenographer in Olongapo City at an RTC (Branch 72).

Glenda was accused of engaging in “many immoral actions, typified by promiscuous sexual activity,” according to the letter sent to then-Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo on October 29, 1998, written by a “Concerned Employee” (whose identity was never revealed).

In addition, Glenda failed her Civil Service Eligibility Exams. Still, her employer, Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas, “has been exhausting all avenues so she can continue and renew her employment,” the letter’s author stated.

The SC rejected Judge Ubiadas’ ruling. Unexpected plot development: It turns out that Glenda was having an affair with married police officer Neslie L. Leao. “The Court finds respondent Glenda E. Mayor, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City, GUILTY of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and orders that she be suspended for six months without pay with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely,” the SC reasoned.