Cortes LAW Free Legal Consultation

Directions

Cortes LAW Free Legal Consultation Free ONLINE Legal Consultation of Atty. Fidel Due Cortes

22/09/2026

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."

In layman’s terms, the quote means:

If the facts support you, clearly present the facts.

If the law supports you, clearly explain the law.

If neither the facts nor the law supports you, you may resort to loud arguments, anger, or emotional pressure—but that does not make your position legally stronger.

It is a warning against replacing substance with noise. In court, a party must prove the facts supporting the claim or defense; the burden of proof does not shift merely because someone argues forcefully. In civil cases, the evidence must generally be more convincing than the opposing evidence—known as preponderance of evidence.

Example: If you claim that someone owes you money, you should show the loan agreement, receipts, messages, or credible testimony. If the other party has no evidence and simply shouts or makes accusations, “pounding the table” does not prove the debt.

I concur.
18/09/2026

I concur.

10/09/2026

Amicus curiae is Latin for “friend of the court.” It refers to a person, lawyer, organization, or government agency that is not a party to a case but is allowed—or asked by the court—to provide information, expertise, or a legal position that may help the court decide the issues.

An amicus curiae does not represent the plaintiff or the defendant. Its role is to assist the court in understanding an important or specialized issue.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (2023), a lawyer must not decline without just cause a request from a court, tribunal, or government agency to act as amicus curiae in a matter relating to the lawyer’s expertise or specialization.

However, appearing as amicus curiae is generally not a matter of right. The court may allow or refuse the appearance, depending on whether the proposed assistance is timely, useful, and impartial. The court may reject a person whose participation appears partisan or whose views merely favor one party, as explained in Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Gardpro, Inc. (2014).

Example: Suppose a court is deciding whether a building collapsed because of defective construction or because of an earthquake. The parties present their own lawyers and experts. The court may ask an association of architects or engineers to submit an independent technical opinion explaining proper building design and construction standards. That association may participate as amicus curiae, not to win the case for either side, but to help the court understand the technical issues. This occurred in Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals (1986).

In simple terms: the parties argue their cases; the amicus curiae gives the court additional, supposedly neutral assistance in deciding the case.

07/09/2026

Presidential Immunity in the Philippines

Presidential immunity means that a sitting Philippine President generally cannot be sued or haled before a court during the President’s tenure or actual incumbency. This protection applies regardless of whether the case is civil, criminal, administrative, or another type of proceeding, and regardless of whether the challenged act is official or unofficial.

The doctrine is intended to prevent lawsuits from distracting the President from performing the duties of the Chief Executive and to preserve the dignity and effective functioning of the office. It does not mean that the President is permanently free from accountability or that unlawful acts become lawful.

Important limits

The immunity is temporary. It exists only while the person is the sitting President. Once the person leaves office, the former President may generally be prosecuted or sued for acts committed during the presidency. Estrada v. Desierto (2001)

The immunity does not erase wrongdoing. A suit may be held in abeyance during the President’s term and pursued after the term ends. Office of the Ombudsman v. Duterte (2023)
An accused cannot invoke the President’s immunity as a defense merely because the President filed or caused a criminal complaint. The immunity belongs to the President and cannot be used by another person to stop a case. Soliven v. Makasiar (1988)

Layman’s example

Imagine that the sitting President allegedly makes a defamatory statement against a private citizen. The citizen generally cannot file and force a civil damages case against the President while the President is still in office—even if the statement was allegedly personal rather than an official presidential act.

The case is not necessarily erased forever. Once the President’s term ends, the former President may face the appropriate legal proceeding, subject to the usual rules on jurisdiction, evidence, and prescription. The protection is therefore best understood as a temporary shield against litigation during the presidency, not a permanent pardon.

07/09/2026

The rule against forum shopping exists to prevent two courts or tribunals from deciding the same dispute differently. If that happens, the parties may receive conflicting orders that cannot both be followed, while the judicial system becomes confused and burdened.
The Supreme Court explains that forum shopping generally involves filing multiple cases with substantially the same parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs, such that a ruling in one case may amount to res judicata—that is, it may finally settle the other case as well. The danger is that a litigant may keep filing cases in different fora until one tribunal gives a favorable ruling.

Layman’s example:

Suppose Ana lends Ben ₱100,000. Ana files a case in Court A asking Ben to repay the loan. While that case is pending, Ana files another case in Court B based on the same loan, asking for the same repayment.

If Court A says “Ben does not have to pay”, but Court B says “Ben must pay,” there are two contradictory decisions involving the same dispute. It would be unclear which order Ben should follow. Ana would also be unfairly trying her luck in two courts, hoping that at least one would rule in her favor.

That is the “evil” the rule seeks to prevent: duplicated litigation, conflicting decisions, harassment of the opposing party, and unnecessary burden on the courts.

06/09/2026

“Taking the law into one’s own hands” means trying to enforce what you believe is your right by yourself—using force, threats, intimidation, or pressure—instead of asking the court or proper authorities for help.

For example, if you believe that a property belongs to you, you cannot simply remove the person occupying it. You must file the proper case and obtain lawful authority to recover possession. Article 536 of the Civil Code expressly says that possession cannot be acquired through force or intimidation when the possessor objects.

Simple example

You lend money to a person, and the person fails to pay. You cannot enter the person’s house, threaten the family, and take a television to settle the debt. That may constitute light coercion under the Revised Penal Code.

Similarly, if you believe you own land occupied by another person, you cannot bring armed men to drive that person away. You must seek the help of the court. Even an owner may be liable for coercion or other offenses if he uses force or intimidation without legal authority.

25/07/2026

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party, at a certain point in the case, to present enough evidence to support or defeat a fact in issue. It can shift from one side to the other as the case goes on, unlike the burden of proof, which never shifts.

In layman’s terms: if you make a claim, you must first show enough proof to make it believable. Once you do that, the other side must then present evidence to answer or refute it.

Example:

If a customer sues a bank for an unauthorized withdrawal and shows the account statement and passbook entries, the customer has met the burden of evidence at that stage. The bank must then present proof that the withdrawal was actually authorized; if it cannot, the bank may lose the case.

24/07/2026

In a psychological violence case, the Supreme Court held that the mental or emotional anguish suffered by the woman is an essential element, so venue may be proper where she resides and suffers that anguish, even if the abusive act was committed elsewhere.

22/07/2026

May nakalaang mekanismo sa batas para sa pagbibigay ng kabayaran sa mga indibidwal na naging biktima ng mararahas na krimen, gayundin sa mga taong nakulong nang walang sapat na batayan. Alinsunod sa Republic Act No. 7309, maaaring magsumite ng kahilingan para sa kompensasyon sa Board of Claims ng Department of Justice ang mga biktima ng mga krimeng tulad ng r**e, seryosong pananakit ng katawan, at iba pang kahalintulad na paglabag, pati na rin ang mga taong napatunayang na-detain o nakulong nang hindi makatarungan.

22/07/2026

Nahatak ang sasakyan dahil sa hindi pagbabayad ng hulog? Hindi ka na maaaring singilin pa para sa natitirang balanse.

Sa ilalim ng Recto Law (Article 1484 ng Civil Code), kapag pinili ng nagbenta na bawiin at i-foreclose ang hinuhulugang personal property gaya ng motorsiklo, doon na nagtatapos ang kanilang remedy. Hindi sila maaaring sabay na maghabol pa ng kakulangan—iisa lamang ang pinapayagang aksyon.

Address

Caloocan
1403

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Cortes LAW Free Legal Consultation posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category