ASG Law

Tag: Penalties

  • Equitable Reduction of Penalties: Balancing Contractual Obligations and Unconscionable Charges

    The Supreme Court ruled that courts can equitably reduce penalties in contracts if they are deemed iniquitous or unconscionable, even if the parties initially agreed to them. This decision underscores the court’s power to balance contractual freedom with fairness, protecting debtors from excessive financial burdens. The ruling emphasizes that while contracts are binding, courts can intervene to prevent unjust enrichment, ensuring that penalties are fair and proportionate to the actual damages suffered.

    Lomuyon’s Timber Troubles: When is a Penalty Charge Too High?

    This case revolves around a dispute between State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) and Lomuyon Timber Industries, Inc. (Lomuyon), along with Amanda and Rufino Malonjao, concerning unpaid receivables and the imposition of penalty charges. Lomuyon sold its receivables to SIHI with a recourse agreement, meaning Lomuyon remained liable if the receivables were not paid. To secure this obligation, the Malonjaos executed a real estate mortgage in favor of SIHI. However, when the checks representing these receivables were dishonored due to insufficient funds, SIHI sought to collect not only the principal amount but also a hefty penalty fee of 3% per month. This ultimately led to a foreclosure of the Malonjaos’ properties, and SIHI’s subsequent claim for a deficiency after the auction sale. The central legal question is whether the imposed penalty charges were iniquitous and unconscionable, justifying the court’s intervention to reduce or disallow them.

    The trial court initially ruled against SIHI’s claim for a deficiency, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, both focusing on the excessive penalty charges. SIHI argued that the penalty was contractually agreed upon and should be enforced, but the courts found that the 3% monthly penalty led to an unreasonable ballooning of the debt. This is where the principle of equitable reduction of penalties comes into play. Article 1229 of the Civil Code allows courts to reduce penalties if the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with, or even if there has been no performance, provided the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable. The rationale behind this provision is to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that penalties are proportionate to the actual damages suffered by the creditor.

    The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts, emphasizing that the disallowance of the deficiency was effectively a reduction of the penalty charges, not a complete deletion. This aligns with established jurisprudence, as the Court noted in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, that surcharges and penalties are considered liquidated damages that can be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous and unconscionable.

    ART. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous and unconscionable.

    The court’s power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable is discretionary and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that it would not make a sweeping ruling that all surcharges and penalties imposed by banks are inherently iniquitous. Instead, the determination must be based on the established facts. In this instance, the lower courts found that the 3% monthly penalty charge, which led to a substantial increase in the outstanding obligation, was indeed unconscionable.

    The Supreme Court pointed out that SIHI had already recouped its investment and earned substantial profits through the initial penalty charges. Furthermore, the foreclosed properties, located in Makati, were undoubtedly valuable and had likely appreciated in value, further satisfying the outstanding obligation. Allowing SIHI to recover an amount almost three times the original investment would be unwarranted and would amount to unjust enrichment. The court also addressed the argument that the penalty charge was standard banking practice. While businesses are generally free to contract, the courts are empowered to step in when the agreed terms are excessively burdensome and unfair. This power is rooted in the principle of equity, ensuring that contracts do not become instruments of oppression.

    The court acknowledged the importance of upholding contractual obligations, but emphasized that this principle is not absolute. It cited Article 1229 and Article 2227 of the Civil Code, which explicitly grant courts the authority to reduce iniquitous or unconscionable penalties. These provisions reflect a broader legal policy of preventing abuse and ensuring fairness in contractual relationships. The decision in this case serves as a reminder that courts have the power to balance the interests of both creditors and debtors, ensuring that neither party is subjected to unduly harsh or oppressive terms.

    To fully understand the implications, consider the difference in perspective between SIHI and Lomuyon. SIHI believed they were entitled to the full amount of the penalty as agreed upon in the contract. Lomuyon, on the other hand, argued that the penalty was excessive and unfairly inflated their debt. The court sided with Lomuyon, recognizing that the penalty, while initially agreed upon, had become disproportionate to the original obligation. This shows that agreements are not set in stone and can be adjusted when they lead to unfair outcomes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the 3% monthly penalty charge imposed by State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) on Lomuyon Timber Industries, Inc. (Lomuyon) was iniquitous and unconscionable, warranting its reduction or disallowance by the court.
    What is the legal basis for reducing penalties in contracts? Article 1229 of the Civil Code allows the judge to equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor, or even if there has been no performance, if the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable.
    What factors did the court consider in determining whether the penalty was unconscionable? The court considered the overall circumstances, including the initial amount of the obligation, the amount already recovered by SIHI through foreclosure, the value of the foreclosed properties, and the disproportionate increase in the debt due to the penalty charges.
    Did the court completely eliminate the penalty charges? No, the court did not completely eliminate the penalty charges but effectively reduced them by disallowing SIHI’s claim for a deficiency after the foreclosure sale. This was considered an equitable reduction of the penalty.
    What was the significance of the foreclosed properties being located in Makati? The location of the foreclosed properties in Makati suggested that they were valuable and had likely appreciated in value, further supporting the court’s finding that SIHI had already recouped its investment.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for debtors? This ruling provides debtors with a legal recourse against excessive and unfair penalties imposed by creditors, allowing courts to intervene and reduce the penalties to a more equitable level.
    Can businesses freely impose any penalty charges they want in contracts? While businesses have the freedom to contract, the courts can intervene when the agreed terms are excessively burdensome and unfair, ensuring that contracts do not become instruments of oppression.
    What is the difference between liquidated damages and penalties? In this context, they are treated similarly. The Supreme Court has stated that surcharges and penalties agreed to be paid by the debtor in case of default partake of the nature of liquidated damages.
    How does this ruling protect against unjust enrichment? By preventing creditors from recovering amounts far exceeding the original obligation and actual damages, the ruling protects against unjust enrichment and ensures fairness in contractual relationships.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of balancing contractual obligations with equitable considerations. While parties are generally bound by their agreements, courts retain the power to intervene when penalties become excessively burdensome or unconscionable. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and preventing unjust enrichment in contractual relationships.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 112590, July 12, 2001

  • Habeas Corpus and Drug Offenses: Ensuring Fair Application of Penalties

    In In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of David Cruz y Gonzaga, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of illegal detention stemming from drug-related offenses. The Court ordered the immediate release of David Cruz, who had been serving a life sentence for the sale of marijuana, after determining that his continued imprisonment was unlawful under the amended Dangerous Drugs Act. This case underscores the importance of ensuring that penalties align with the specific quantity of drugs involved and reflects a commitment to protecting individual liberties against disproportionate punishment.

    When Does a Sentence Become a Violation of Liberty?

    David Cruz y Gonzaga was initially convicted for selling 2.70 grams of marijuana and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act and the landmark case of People v. Martin Simon y Sunga, the penalty for similar offenses involving smaller quantities of drugs was significantly reduced. This change in law brought into question the legality of Cruz’s continued detention, prompting his mother, Maria Cruz y Gonzaga, to file a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf. The legal saga highlights the interplay between legislative changes, judicial interpretations, and individual rights within the Philippine justice system. It raises the question: At what point does a previously lawful sentence become an unlawful deprivation of liberty?

    The case originated when David Cruz was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after allegedly selling 2.70 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops. He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision he initially appealed. However, significant legal developments occurred during the appeal process. Specifically, Republic Act No. 7659 (R.A. No. 7659) amended the Dangerous Drugs Act, altering the penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved. Adding to the legal complexity, the Supreme Court promulgated the case of People v. Simon y Sunga, which provided a new interpretation of the penalties applicable to drug offenses involving quantities less than 750 grams. This reevaluation prompted the Supreme Court to refer Cruz’s appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Following these developments, the Court of Appeals faced a procedural hurdle: Cruz’s counsel failed to file an appellant’s brief, leading the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for abandonment. However, a crucial detail emerged—the Court of Appeals noted that the maximum imposable penalty for Cruz’s offense, given the small quantity of marijuana involved, was significantly less than the life sentence he was serving. This realization raised serious doubts about the legality of Cruz’s continued imprisonment, setting the stage for the habeas corpus petition filed by his mother.

    Analyzing the dismissal of Cruz’s appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, stating that the dismissal was within its discretionary powers under Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. This rule allows for the dismissal of an appeal if the appellant fails to file the required brief, unless they are represented by counsel de oficio, which was not the case for Cruz. Procedural rules must be followed for appeals, and failure to do so can result in dismissal. This aspect of the decision underscores the importance of diligently pursuing appeals within the prescribed legal framework.

    Central to the resolution of the case was the retroactive application of R.A. No. 7659 and the Simon y Sunga ruling. Before R.A. No. 7659, the Dangerous Drugs Act stipulated a penalty of “life imprisonment to death” for the sale of prohibited drugs. However, the amendment introduced a nuanced system, where penalties varied based on the quantity of the drug. Crucially, Section 20, Article IV of the amended act specified that for offenses involving less than 750 grams of marijuana, the penalty would range “from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.” This legislative change necessitated a reevaluation of Cruz’s sentence.

    The Supreme Court, drawing upon its previous ruling in People v. Simon y Sunga, clarified the applicable penalties for offenses involving smaller quantities of drugs. It stated that the range of “prision correccional to reclusion perpetua” should be construed as “prision correccional to reclusion temporal.” This interpretation was pivotal, as it further narrowed the possible sentence for Cruz’s offense. Simon y Sunga established a benchmark, ensuring that reclusion perpetua, the upper limit in the range, would not be imposed arbitrarily. The Court underscored the importance of aligning the penalty with the severity of the crime, particularly concerning drug-related offenses.

    Applying these principles to Cruz’s case, the Court noted that the 2.70 grams of marijuana for which he was convicted fell under the purview of prision correccional, which has a duration of six months and one day to six years. Given that Cruz had already served six years and three months of his sentence, the Court concluded that his continued detention was unlawful. This determination hinged on the recognition that laws are not static; they evolve, and when those changes affect the legality of imprisonment, the courts must intervene to safeguard individual liberties. This interpretation highlights the dynamism of legal interpretation and the courts’ duty to adapt to changes in legislation.

    Furthermore, the Court highlighted the fundamental principles governing the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. An application for the writ must demonstrate that the person is imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, identify the person responsible for the imprisonment, specify the location of confinement, and provide a copy of the commitment or cause of detention. Fundamentally, habeas corpus exists to protect against illegal confinement or detention. In Cruz’s case, the Court found all these elements were satisfied, making the issuance of the writ not only appropriate but essential to uphold his constitutional rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether David Cruz’s continued imprisonment was lawful given amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act that reduced penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved. The Supreme Court examined whether the amended law should be retroactively applied to his case.
    What is a writ of habeas corpus? A writ of habeas corpus is a legal action used to challenge unlawful detention. It requires the detaining authority to justify the imprisonment of the individual, ensuring that no one is held without legal basis.
    What did R.A. No. 7659 change about drug penalties? R.A. No. 7659 amended the Dangerous Drugs Act to introduce a system of penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved. It significantly reduced penalties for offenses involving smaller amounts of drugs compared to the original act.
    How did the Simon y Sunga case affect the penalties? The Simon y Sunga case interpreted the penalty range for offenses involving smaller quantities of drugs, clarifying that it should be understood as prision correccional to reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua, ensuring proportionality in sentencing.
    What was the original sentence given to David Cruz? David Cruz was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for selling 2.70 grams of marijuana under the original Dangerous Drugs Act. This sentence was imposed before the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659.
    Why was David Cruz ordered to be released? David Cruz was ordered to be released because, under the amended law and the interpretation in Simon y Sunga, his offense only warranted a penalty of prision correccional. He had already served more time than the maximum duration of this penalty.
    What is the significance of counsel de oficio in appeal cases? The rules regarding the dismissal of appeals for failure to file a brief make an exception for cases where the appellant is represented by counsel de oficio, indicating that there’s leniency when a defendant cannot afford counsel. The failure to file on the part of a hired lawyer falls under their personal responsiblity to follow through, but if he is a court-appointed counsel the courts grant consideration because defendants cannot always guarantee his appearance.
    What was the consequence for Atty. Carmelo L. Arcilla in this case? Atty. Carmelo L. Arcilla was ordered to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. He failed to file appellant’s brief for David despite notice to do so, causing unnecessary court appeals and dismissal due to attorney abandonment.

    In summary, this case illuminates the dynamic interplay between legislative amendments, judicial interpretation, and individual rights within the legal system. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant the writ of habeas corpus and order David Cruz’s release reaffirms the commitment to ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offense and that individual liberties are protected against unlawful detention. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of staying abreast of legal changes and seeking recourse when rights are potentially violated.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DAVID CRUZ y GONZAGA, G.R. No. 137560, January 19, 2000

  • Due Process in Philippine Rape Cases: Why Improper Charges Can Reduce Penalties

    Procedural Due Process in Philippine Rape Cases: Why Proper Charges Matter

    In Philippine criminal law, even when the facts of a case seem to warrant a severe punishment, the importance of following proper legal procedure cannot be overstated. This principle is vividly illustrated in cases where the charge laid out in the information—the formal accusation—doesn’t fully capture the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court case of People v. Ernesto Perez highlights this crucial aspect, demonstrating that even in heinous crimes like rape, procedural missteps by the prosecution can lead to a reduction in penalties, ensuring the accused’s right to due process is protected. This case underscores the necessity for meticulous accuracy in drafting criminal charges and serves as a stark reminder that justice must be served within the bounds of legal procedure.

    G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario where a perpetrator commits a crime that, by law, could warrant the harshest penalty. Yet, due to a technicality in how the charges were framed, they receive a lesser sentence. This isn’t a loophole for criminals but a cornerstone of justice known as due process. The Philippine Supreme Court, in People v. Ernesto Perez, wrestled with such a situation in a rape case. Ernesto Perez was convicted of raping his stepdaughter, a crime that, under certain circumstances, could lead to the death penalty. However, a critical flaw in the prosecution’s formal charge, the ‘information,’ led to a significant modification of his sentence. The central legal question wasn’t about whether the rape occurred, but whether Perez was properly charged with the ‘qualified’ form of rape that carries a heavier penalty. The case turned on the principle that an accused person has the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, ensuring a fair trial and preventing unjust convictions.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: SIMPLE RAPE VS. QUALIFIED RAPE AND DUE PROCESS

    Under Philippine law, rape is defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Originally, simple rape was punishable by reclusion perpetua, a lengthy prison sentence. However, Republic Act No. 7659 introduced ‘qualified rape,’ which carries the death penalty. This law added several circumstances that ‘qualify’ rape, making it a capital offense. One such circumstance relevant to the Perez case is when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a stepparent. Crucially, for any of these qualifying circumstances to elevate simple rape to qualified rape and justify the death penalty, they must be explicitly alleged in the ‘information’ filed in court.

    The ‘information’ is the formal document that initiates a criminal case by detailing the charges against the accused. It is not merely a formality; it is the bedrock of due process in criminal proceedings. The Philippine Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This constitutional right ensures that the accused can adequately prepare their defense and are not surprised by charges at trial they were not initially made aware of.

    As the Supreme Court emphasized, “it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable by death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.” This principle is rooted in fundamental fairness and the right to a fair trial.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE VS. ERNESTO PEREZ

    Maribel Perez, a thirteen-year-old girl, was brought from Manila to Samar by her stepfather, Ernesto Perez. The stated reason was to separate her from siblings involved in drug use. In Samar, they stayed with a couple, the Nievas. One night, while the Nievas and Perez were drinking in the kitchen, Maribel went to sleep in the bedroom. According to Maribel’s testimony, she was awakened by Perez sexually assaulting her. She recounted how he removed her underwear, penetrated her, and threatened her into silence. The next morning, she reported the assault to Nida Nieva, and subsequently to barangay officials and the police.

    Medical examination confirmed a fresh laceration on Maribel’s hymen, consistent with recent sexual penetration. Perez denied the charges, claiming he slept on the terrace and nothing happened. He even suggested Maribel might have mistaken him for her assailant simply because he was sleeping near her when she woke up.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Perez of rape, finding Maribel’s testimony credible and sentencing him to death, citing the qualifying circumstance that the victim was under 18 and the offender was her stepfather. Perez appealed to the Supreme Court, automatically given the death penalty was imposed.

    The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the case. They affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt, stating, “After a conscientious review of the records and an objective evaluation of the evidence, we agree with the lower court that Maribel is indeed telling the truth.” The Court highlighted Maribel’s consistent and straightforward testimony, her prompt reporting of the crime, and the medical evidence as strongly supporting her account. They dismissed Perez’s defense and attempts to discredit Maribel’s testimony as weak and unconvincing.

    However, the Supreme Court identified a critical procedural flaw. While the evidence presented during the trial established that Maribel was under eighteen and Perez was her stepfather—facts that could qualify the rape—these crucial details were not explicitly stated in the ‘information’. The information only mentioned grave abuse of confidence due to the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship, but crucially omitted Maribel’s age.

    The Supreme Court quoted their previous ruling in People vs. Garcia, emphasizing the denial of due process if an accused is convicted of a qualified offense when the qualifying circumstance isn’t alleged in the information. In Perez, despite the heinous nature of the crime and the aggravating circumstances proven in court, the Supreme Court was constrained by the principle of due process.

    “Procedurally, then, while the minority of Maribel and the relationship of appellant and his victim were established during the trial, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape because he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he was charged.”

    Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the RTC’s decision. While affirming the conviction for rape, they reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, the punishment for simple rape. The Court maintained the award of Php 50,000 in damages but reclassified it as actual or compensatory damages, and added Php 50,000 for moral damages, acknowledging the victim’s suffering.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PRECISION IN CHARGING AND DUE PROCESS

    People v. Ernesto Perez serves as a potent reminder of the paramount importance of procedural accuracy in criminal prosecutions in the Philippines. It’s not enough to prove the facts of a qualified offense; prosecutors must meticulously ensure that all qualifying circumstances are clearly and explicitly alleged in the information. Failure to do so can have significant consequences on the outcome of the case, particularly in offenses carrying severe penalties like death.

    For prosecutors, this case underscores the need for rigorous review of the information before filing charges, especially in cases involving potentially qualifying circumstances. Meticulous drafting and attention to detail are not mere formalities but essential elements of upholding due process and ensuring justice is served within the bounds of the law.

    For defense attorneys, Perez highlights the importance of scrutinizing the information to ensure that the accused is properly charged. Identifying deficiencies in the charging document can be a crucial aspect of defending their clients and ensuring their due process rights are protected.

    For individuals, this case illustrates the critical role of due process in the Philippine legal system. It demonstrates that even in cases involving serious crimes and compelling evidence, the courts will uphold the fundamental rights of the accused, ensuring fairness and preventing unjust convictions based on procedural lapses.

    Key Lessons from People v. Ernesto Perez:

    • Due Process is Paramount: The right of the accused to be informed of the charges is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be overlooked.
    • Precision in Charging is Crucial: For qualified offenses, all qualifying circumstances must be explicitly alleged in the information. Omissions can lead to reduced penalties, even if the facts support a qualified offense.
    • Substance vs. Procedure: While the facts of a case are vital, procedural compliance is equally important. The justice system operates within a framework of rules and procedures designed to ensure fairness.
    • Victims’ Rights and Justice: While upholding due process for the accused, the courts also recognize the suffering of victims. The award of damages in Perez reflects the court’s acknowledgment of the harm suffered by the victim.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is the difference between simple rape and qualified rape in the Philippines?

    A: Simple rape, under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the basic offense. Qualified rape, introduced by Republic Act No. 7659, is rape committed under specific circumstances that make it a more serious offense, carrying the death penalty. These circumstances include the victim being under 18 years old and the offender being a parent or stepparent, among others.

    Q2: What is an ‘information’ in a criminal case?

    A: An ‘information’ is the formal written accusation filed in court by the prosecution, charging a person with a criminal offense. It must state the name of the accused, the offense charged, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the approximate time and place of commission, and the name of the offended party.

    Q3: What does ‘due process’ mean in the context of criminal charges?

    A: ‘Due process’ in criminal charges means that the accused has the right to be formally and clearly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This ensures they can understand the charges and prepare an adequate defense. It’s a fundamental aspect of fair trial and justice.

    Q4: In People v. Perez, why was the death penalty not imposed despite the crime being heinous?

    A: Although the facts presented in court could have supported a conviction for qualified rape (victim under 18, offender stepfather), the ‘information’ filed by the prosecution did not explicitly allege the victim’s age as a qualifying circumstance. Because of this procedural defect, the Supreme Court ruled that Perez could only be convicted of simple rape, which does not carry the death penalty.

    Q5: What are the penalties for rape in the Philippines?

    A: The penalty for simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). Qualified rape, under Republic Act No. 7659, is punishable by death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty for most crimes, the penalty for qualified rape is now likely reclusion perpetua with aggravating circumstances.

    Q6: What kind of damages can a victim of rape receive in the Philippines?

    A: Victims of rape are typically awarded actual or compensatory damages to cover expenses related to the crime, and moral damages to compensate for pain and suffering. In People v. Perez, the court awarded both types of damages to the victim.

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Litigation and Family Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.