PATRICK A. CARONAN, (Complainant) VS. RICHARD CARONAN a.k.a. Atty. Patrick Caronan, (Respondent)

A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016

FACTS:

Complainant and respondent are siblings. Patrick Caronan has graduated and completed his pre-law education at University of Makati., on the other hand, his brother Richard Caronan, a.k.a. Atty. Patrick Caronan do not completed his bachelor’s degree.  Richard Caronan took the “education records and identify” of his brother and used it to study law. Subsequently, he took the bar and passed. Thus, he became Atty. Patrick Caronan and practice law. 

The complaint learned that the respondent had been using his name to perpetrate crimes and commit unlawful activities. Further, he learned that respondent was arrested for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, other similar crimes. 

Now, due to the controversies and fear for his own safety and security. The complainant filed Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged use of his name and identity.  

Upon investigation, the IBP's reported that indeed, the respondent is guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic records. Thus, it ordered the name Atty. Patrick Caronan be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be   stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

COURT'S RULING:

After a thorough evaluation of the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and recommendations of the IBP.

The IBP is correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. 

Respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity. 

WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan (complainant) to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. 

SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC v. CA (and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA)

G.R. No. 108763, Feb. 13, 1997

FACTS:

Roridel Olaviano Monila and Reylando Molina were legally married and their marriage was blessed with a son. However, after a year when their son was born, Reylando shows signs of immaturity and irresponsible as a husband and a father. Reynaldo spent more time with his friends and become dependent with his parents, and never been honest to his wife financially. The couple engaged in an intense quarrel  which caused Molina went to Bagio and live her family, while Reynaldo relieved from his work and abandoned his wife and their child.

Molina filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina on the ground of psychological incapacity. She contended that Reynaldo had shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrel some individual. 

In his answer, Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals, and failure to run the household and handle their finances.

The trial court had declared the marriage of Molina to Reynaldo void ab initio, on the ground of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code.

An appeal was filed to CA, but such was denied, and the CA sustained the lower court’s decision. 

However, the CA’s decision was assailed by the Office of Solicitor General insisting that "the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case," adding that the appealed Decision tended "to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world"

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case?

COURT'S RULING: 

The petition is meritorious. 

“the psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."

The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitute psychological incapacity.  It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

SO ORDERED.

Shari’ah and Fiqh, a Simplified Explanation in Between

What is Shari’ah and how it be distinguished from Fiqh?

Firstly, allow me to reiterate the three well-known definitions of Shari’ah. It was defined as “Totality of God’s Commandments”. In other materials (Muhammad Shalabee, p., 13, 1983), it was defined as “Sum of the Islamic Law which were revealed to the Prophet Mohammed ﷺ, and which recorded in the Qur’an as well as deducible from the Prophet’s divinely-lifestyle.” It also defined as “that which would not be known had there not been a Divine revelation” (Sard-us Shari’at Tawdih, cit., Abdul Razak, p., 1, 1985)

Now, from the given definition, when it said, “totality” it signifies the broadness of this law. From head to foot, from life to death, all are embraced. Further, it doesn’t solely pertain to the purview of its comprehensiveness, but more so in its perfection. 

Notably, the fundamental and legal aspect of this is when He said, (Al Maidah: 5)اَ لۡيَوۡمَ اَكۡمَلۡتُ لَـكُمۡ دِيۡنَكُمۡ وَاَ تۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِىۡ وَرَضِيۡتُ لَـكُمُ الۡاِسۡلَامَ دِيۡنًا “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” 

Accordingly, the Supreme whom this law originated had concluded of what is permissible and impermissible. The law He has Legislated and everything that enclosed therein conveys truth and authenticity. That is Islamic law or Shari’ah; the general context of the law, and a broad concept of law regulating either spiritual or human business affairs. It clenches all human actions.   

Shari’ah has four primary sources, namely: the Qur’an, Hadith, Ijma, and Qiyas. There are other sources of this law found in many references on Islamic jurisprudence. 

The study, analysis and deduction of these sources mainly at the four major sources, is now the field of fiqh.  It is well known as Usul al Fiqh, which defined as “science of Shari’ah values related to the conduct from their respective evidence” (Agnides, cit., Alauya, p., 3, 1999).

So, because Shari’ah law is broad in a sense, when particular issues or cases not specifically delineated by the law itself, then the faqhi (jurist) will resort to interpret the text of the Qur’an in order to arrive at determine quality of Shari’ah value. 

In a sense, the Shari’ah is what we meant the general laws revealed by the Supreme to His last Prophet, while Fiqh is the human interpretation of such revealed laws. Shari’ah represent the ample principles of laws, whereas fiqh is the extraction and appreciations of Shari’ah ruling reclusively out of that principle. Fiqh is the process of unveiling legal or illegal out of what has been given by Him.