7/23/2019 Rules for Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rules-for-digest 1/2

General Rules:

1. Be concise. Examinees do not have the luxury of time. They need toread and understand the case real quick – and thus, we need only topresent the gist of the facts and the ruling.

. !ollow the format. This will make it easier for me to edit, and as " amthe only editor for the ##$ cases, " %eg you to %e kind andconsiderate.

&. '( )um%er prevails. *hen searching for the assigned case, pleaseuse the '( )um%er provided. "f the case title and '( num%er match,no pro%lem. "f it doesn+t, the '( num%er should prevail unless the casetitle is so dierent from what was provided that it could only %e anerror, in which case, please contact me.

Instructions

1. -tate the facts in less than 1## words the ruling, in less than1/#. 0ou can do this %y

a. !ocusing on the general facts%. 2iscount the dates 3unless the dates are material4c. "nclude only the ruling which has relevance to the su%5ect

matter. 6atters concerning procedure may %e discounted,unless of course, this happens to %e the very su%5ectmatter.

. "f possi%le, please follow this format in your digest

a. 7eadingi. 8lease follow this format for the heading

1. 9ase Title. '( )o.&. 2ate promulgated:. 8onente

%. !actsc. 6ain contention of appelleed. "ssuese. (uling

i. "f the case has two or more issues, then pleaseanswer these issues separately in the ruling.

ii. Example"ssues 3a4 *hether a is equivalent to %

3%4 *hether 1 $ 1 ; :(uling 3a4 )o, a is not equivalent to %.

3%4 )o. The 9ourt held that 1$1;.

7/23/2019 Rules for Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rules-for-digest 2/2

&. Try to cite the parties using their name, rather than %y using<petitioner,= <appellant,= <respondent,= etc.

Sample Digest

Cheryll Santos Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove'( )o. 1>?@ Aanuary >, #1/ A. (eyes

!acts -antos is a nonteaching personnel of -t. -cholastica+s 9ollege, a9atholic educational institution. -he engaged in premarital sex, gotpregnant out of wedlock, married the father of her child and wasdismissed, in that order. -t. -cholastica argues that the dismissal wasvalid for engaging in premarital sex and getting pregnant istantamount to serious misconduct and conduct un%ecoming of an

employee of a 9atholic school.

"ssue *hether -antos+ pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a validground to terminate her employment.

(uling )o. That petitioner was employed %y a 9atholic educationalinstitution per se does not a%solutely determine whether herpregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. There must %e a3a4 consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding theconduct and an 3%4 assessment of said circumstances against what thesociety generally considers moral and respecta%le.

"n considering what is moral and respecta%le however, it should%e pu%lic and secular morality which should determine the prevailingnorms of conduct, not religious morality. -antos+ pregnancy is notdisgraceful or immoral as she and the father of her child had noimpediment to marry each other.

!urthermore, -antos+ conduct could not have caused such agrave scandal to the students as she is only a nonteaching personnel,her interaction with the students is very limited.