<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Uber Case Digests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>SCRA Made Easier!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='uber2002.wordpress.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="Uber Case Digests" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>ZALDIVAR vs GONZALEZ</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/zaldivar-vs-gonzalez/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/zaldivar-vs-gonzalez/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[166 SCRA 316]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code of professional responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contemptuous Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disbarment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of a Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enrique Zaldivar vs Raul Gonzalez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. Nos. 79690-707]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suspension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zaldivar vs gonzalez]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988 ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 October 7, 1988 ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,  vs. HON. RAUL [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3159&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/zaldivar-vs-gonzalez/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>LITONJUA vs LITONJUA</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/litonjua-vs-litonjua/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/litonjua-vs-litonjua/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article 1771]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article 1772]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article 1773]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 166299]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 166300]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. NOS. 166299-300]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[how formed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litonjua vs litonjua]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litonjua vs yang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PAT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[READ CASE DIGEST HERE Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION G.R. NOS. 166299-300 December 13, 2005 AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR., Petitioner, vs. EDUARDO K. LITONJUA, SR., ROBERT T. YANG, ANGLO PHILS. MARITIME, INC., CINEPLEX, INC., DDM GARMENTS, INC., EDDIE K. LITONJUA SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., EDDIE K. LITONJUA SHIPPING CO., INC., LITONJUA SECURITIES, INC. (formerly [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3157&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/litonjua-vs-litonjua/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>TORRES vs CA</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/torres-vs-ca/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/torres-vs-ca/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antonia torres vs court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 134559]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industrial Partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PAT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharing of Loss in a Partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torres vs ca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torres vs court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torres vs torres]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 134559 December 9, 1999 ANTONIA TORRES assisted by her husband, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: Courts may not extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts. That the terms of a [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3155&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/torres-vs-ca/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>MONTECILLO vs GICA</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/montecillo-vs-gica/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/montecillo-vs-gica/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[60 SCRA 234]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contemptous Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[del mar vs gica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer’s Duty to the Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montecillo and del Mar vs Francisco Gica et al]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[montecillo vs gica]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-36800 October 21, 1974 JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO M. GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G. GAVIOLA, Justices of the Court of Appeals, respondents. In Re Quirico del Mar, For Disciplinary action as [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3152&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/montecillo-vs-gica/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>MCQ Quizzes and Exams</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/mcq-quizzes-and-exams/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/mcq-quizzes-and-exams/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2011 Bar Exams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bar answers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bar exams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bar mcq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law quizzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MCQ Quizzes and Exams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MCQs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple choice questions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online quiz law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online quizzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uber digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2011 Bar Exams is historic for being the first Philippine Bar Exam to include MCQs or multiple choice questions. There seem to be an immediate improvement because of the spike in the national passing rate. With this, be assured that the MCQ type of bar exams is here to stay. It is then imperative [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3106&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/mcq-quizzes-and-exams/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>BORLONGAN vs BUENAVENTURA</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/borlongan-vs-buenaventura/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/borlongan-vs-buenaventura/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[483 SCRA 405]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney – Client Relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barlongan vs Buenaventura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Borlongan vs Buenaventura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dead client]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death of a client]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 167234]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perfection of an appeal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read case digest here.  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 167234          27 February 2006 TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, Petitioner, versus RAFAEL B. BUENAVENTURA and NORBERTO C. NAZARENO, Respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Assailed in this petition for review are the August 31, 2004 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals which denied the petition [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3102&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/borlongan-vs-buenaventura/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGUSTIN vs EMPLEO</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/agustin-vs-empleo/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/agustin-vs-empleo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[484 SCRA 91]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A.C. No. 6986]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Agustin vs Atty. Empleo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Agustin vs Empleo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compromise agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of a lawyer in a client’s compromise agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer's duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer's responsibilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read case digest here.  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION A.C. No. 6986               6 March 2006 JULIUS V. AGUSTIN, Complainant, versus ATTY. ENRIQUE S. EMPLEO, Respondent.   R E S O L U T I O N GARCIA, J.: This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by complainant Julius V. Agustin against [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3100&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/agustin-vs-empleo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>MELO cs CA</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/melo-cs-ca/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/melo-cs-ca/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[115 SCRA 272]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[318 SCRA 94]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forum Shopping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 123686]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profesion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[melo vs ca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Melo vs Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read case digest here.  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 123686          16 November 1999 SPS. APOLINARIO MELO and LILIA T. MELO, and JULIA BARRETO, petitioners vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARSENIA CORONEL, respondents. D E C I S I O N MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3098&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/melo-cs-ca/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>US vs DURBAN</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/us-vs-durban/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/us-vs-durban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[36 Phil 797]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G.R. No. 12510]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practice of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procurador judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unauthorized Practice of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States vs Durban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US vs Durban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read case digest here.  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 12510              27 August 1917 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAREO DURBAN, defendant-appellant.   D E C I S I O N STREET, J.: It appears from the record in this case that upon November 30, 1914, the judge of the [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3096&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/us-vs-durban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>FLORES vs ABESAMIS</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/flores-vs-abesamis/</link>
		<comments>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/flores-vs-abesamis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:20:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Howard Chan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[275 SCRA 302]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[84 SCRA 399]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A.M. No. SC-96-1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atty. Flores vs Judge Abesamis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contempt of Court by a Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flores vs abesamis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=3094</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read case digest here. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 ATTY. DAMASO S. FLORES, complainant, vs. HON. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City (now Deputy Court Administrator), respondent. In re: Contempt Proceeding v. ATTY. DAMASO S. FLORES, respondent. R E S O L U T [&#8230;]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=uber2002.wordpress.com&#038;blog=14242979&#038;post=3094&#038;subd=uber2002&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/flores-vs-abesamis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c7db9eeb217659d999b5af0312284c3b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">uber2002</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
