Rimando Law Office

09/06/2026

CAN A SCHOOL ESCAPE LIABILITY THROUGH A PRE-ACCIDENT WAIVER OR QUIT CLAIM?

Schools commonly require students or their parents to sign waivers before field trips, sports events, laboratory activities, educational tours, and other school-sponsored programs. These documents ordinarily state that the participant accepts the risks of the activity and releases the school from liability for any resulting injury. Under the law, however, a pre-accident waiver does not automatically provide a school with complete immunity.

A document signed before an accident is more accurately called a waiver, consent form, or assumption-of-risk agreement rather than a quitclaim. Under Articles 6 and 1306 of the Civil Code, rights may be waived and parties may establish contractual conditions only when these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A waiver cannot therefore be treated as permission for a school to disregard the safety of its students.

A waiver may cover the ordinary and inherent risks of an activity when those risks were clearly disclosed, understood, and voluntarily accepted. For example, a student participating in a basketball game may be considered to have accepted the ordinary possibility of falls, physical contact, sprains, or similar injuries naturally associated with the sport. This is different from an injury caused by defective equipment, inadequate supervision, an unqualified driver, unsafe transportation, or another danger created or ignored by the school.

In the 2025 case of Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas, a grade-school pupil was repeatedly punched by classmates during class while the teacher was temporarily absent. The Supreme Court found the school grossly negligent because it lacked adequate procedures for detecting, preventing, investigating, and properly addressing the harm suffered by the student. The school also failed to promptly inform the child’s parents and initially downplayed the incident.

The Supreme Court ruled that the school’s liability arose from its contractual obligation to provide and maintain a safe learning environment. When a school accepts a student for enrollment, it assumes a built-in duty to take adequate measures against threats to the student’s life and physical safety. The Court further explained that this responsibility may extend to official school activities conducted outside the school premises.

Although Mother Goose did not directly involve a pre-accident waiver, its ruling strongly indicates that a school cannot simply contract away its fundamental duty of safety. A waiver may establish consent to participate and acceptance of ordinary risks, but it should not excuse gross negligence, failure to supervise, absence of safety procedures, or failure to respond properly after a student is injured. This is particularly important when the student is a minor and remains under the school’s supervision and special parental authority.

Accordingly, a pre-accident waiver may be valid only within proper limits. It may cover ordinary, inherent, and specifically disclosed risks, but it does not automatically release a school from liability for dangers caused by its own negligence. The controlling question is not merely whether a waiver was signed, but whether the school exercised the diligence, prudence, and foresight required to provide and maintain a reasonably safe environment for its students.

02/06/2026

𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗟𝗘 𝟯𝟲 𝗜𝗦 𝗘𝗩𝗢𝗟𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚:
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗡 𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗡𝗨𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘𝗦

One of the most significant developments in Philippine family law is the Supreme Court's shift in the interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code. For many years, litigants believed that a petition for declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity could not succeed without a psychologist or psychiatrist testifying in court. Today, that is no longer necessarily the case.

In the landmark case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Supreme Court clarified that psychological incapacity is ultimately a legal concept and not merely a medical diagnosis. The Court recognized that the incapacity may be proven through the totality of evidence, including the testimonies of relatives, friends, co-workers, and other individuals who personally witnessed the conduct of the parties before and during the marriage.

As a result, courts are now placing greater emphasis on patterns of behavior rather than technical psychiatric labels. Evidence showing chronic abandonment, serial infidelity, refusal to support the family, pathological lying, emotional cruelty, extreme narcissistic tendencies, or a persistent inability to assume marital responsibilities may be considered in determining whether a spouse is psychologically incapacitated within the contemplation of Article 36.

However, it is important to understand that not every failed marriage qualifies for declaration of nullity. Mere incompatibility, occasional infidelity, frequent quarrels, or falling out of love do not automatically constitute psychological incapacity. The law still requires proof that the spouse's inability to perform the essential obligations of marriage is grave, deeply rooted, and existed at the time the marriage was celebrated.

The current trend reflects a more practical and humane approach by the courts. Rather than focusing solely on medical terminology, the inquiry now centers on whether a spouse was truly capable of undertaking the fundamental obligations of marriage. This development has made Article 36 petitions more accessible while still preserving the integrity of marriage as a social institution.

01/06/2026

𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝘃𝘀. 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗭𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘
𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲

One of the most common misconceptions in labor law is the belief that an employer may terminate an employee at any time for any reason.

The law says otherwise.

Under the Labor Code, an employee may only be terminated for a Just Cause or an Authorized Cause, and only after compliance with the requirements of due process.

🔹 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘

A Just Cause arises from the employee's own acts or omissions.

Examples include:

✔ Serious Misconduct

✔ Willful Disobedience

✔ Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties

✔ Fraud or Breach of Trust

✔ Commission of a Crime Against the Employer

✔ Other Analogous Causes

Since the termination is due to the employee's fault, separation pay is generally not required.

🔹 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗭𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘

An Authorized Cause is not based on employee fault. Instead, it arises from legitimate business or health-related reasons recognized by law.

Examples include:

✔ Redundancy

✔ Retrenchment to Prevent Losses

✔ Closure or Cessation of Business

✔ Installation of Labor-Saving Devices

✔ Disease

In these cases, the employee is generally entitled to separation pay because the termination is not due to any wrongdoing on the employee's part.

⚠️ 𝗗𝗨𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬

For Just Causes, the employer must observe the Two-Notice Rule and provide the employee an opportunity to be heard.

For Authorized Causes, the employer must serve written notices to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least thirty (30) days before the effectivity of the termination.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the employer bears the burden of proving both the existence of a valid cause and compliance with due process.

📖 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲

• 𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝗜𝗻𝗰. 𝘃. 𝗠𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗰
(G.R. No. 166208)

• 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗼 𝘃. 𝗡𝗟𝗥𝗖
(G.R. No. 117040)

𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘

📌 Just Cause = Employee's fault.

📌 Authorized Cause = Legitimate business or health reason.

📌 Both require compliance with due process.

📌 Without a valid cause and proper procedure, the dismissal may be declared illegal.

31/05/2026

𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗩𝗦. 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 (𝗘𝗝𝗦)
𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲
Many people use the terms "Estate" and "Extrajudicial Settlement (EJS)" interchangeably. Legally speaking, they are entirely different concepts.
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘?
An Estate refers to everything a person leaves behind upon death, including:
✔ Real properties
✔ Bank accounts
✔ Vehicles
✔ Investments
✔ Business interests
✔ Rights and claims
✔ Outstanding obligations and debts
The Estate is created upon the death of a person and is transmitted by operation of law to the heirs, subject to the settlement process prescribed by law.
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 (𝗘𝗝𝗦)?
An Extrajudicial Settlement is a legal document executed by the heirs for the purpose of settling and dividing the Estate without court intervention.
Under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, an EJS may generally be availed of when:
✔ The decedent left no will;
✔ The estate has no outstanding debts, or such debts have been fully paid; and
✔ The heirs agree on the distribution of the estate.
An EJS is not the Estate itself. It is merely one of the legal methods for settling an Estate.
𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗢𝗡 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡
Many families believe that payment of Estate Tax automatically transfers ownership of inherited properties.
This is incorrect.
📌 Estate Tax settles the government's tax claim.
📌 EJS settles the ownership and distribution of the Estate among the heirs.
Thus, even if Estate Taxes have already been paid, titles may still remain under the name of the deceased unless the Estate is properly settled through an EJS or a court proceeding.
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗘𝗜𝗥𝗦 𝗗𝗢 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘?
An EJS requires the participation and consent of all heirs.
If one or more heirs refuse to cooperate, the proper remedy may be Judicial Settlement or Judicial Partition, where the court determines the lawful heirs and their respective shares.
𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘
✔ Estate = Everything left behind by the deceased.
✔ Estate Tax = Payment of taxes due to the government.
✔ EJS = Legal settlement and division of the Estate among heirs.
✔ Court Proceedings = Remedy when heirs cannot agree.
Understanding these distinctions can help families avoid costly mistakes, unnecessary delays, and future disputes over inherited properties.

31/05/2026

𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗭𝗘 𝗔 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗚𝗡 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦?

Many Filipinos mistakenly believe that once a divorce is obtained abroad, it automatically becomes effective in the Philippines. This is incorrect. A foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a Philippine court before it can produce legal effects in the country, including the correction of civil registry records and the Filipino spouse's capacity to remarry. Article 26(2) of the Family Code allows the Filipino spouse to benefit from a valid foreign divorce obtained abroad that capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry.

𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗣 𝟭: 𝗢𝗕𝗧𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗚𝗡 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗚𝗡 𝗟𝗔𝗪

The petitioner must secure an authenticated copy of the foreign divorce decree and competent proof of the foreign law under which the divorce was granted. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; they must be properly pleaded and proven as facts during the proceedings. This requirement has been consistently emphasized in cases involving recognition of foreign divorce.

𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗣 𝟮: 𝗙𝗜𝗟𝗘 𝗔 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗚𝗡 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘

A verified Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce is filed before the appropriate Regional Trial Court. The petition seeks a judicial declaration that the foreign divorce is valid and recognizable under Philippine law. Only after a Philippine court recognizes the foreign divorce can it be enforced and reflected in Philippine records.

𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗣 𝟯: 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗚𝗡 𝗟𝗔𝗪

During trial, the petitioner presents evidence establishing: (1) the valid marriage between the Filipino and foreign spouse; (2) the foreign divorce decree; and (3) the foreign law showing that the divorce validly dissolved the marriage and capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry. In 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘃. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼 (G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018), the Supreme Court clarified that Article 26 applies so long as there is a divorce validly obtained abroad that capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry, regardless of who initiated the divorce proceedings.

𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗣 𝟰: 𝗢𝗕𝗧𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗔 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗭𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘

If the court finds the foreign divorce validly proven, it will issue a decision recognizing the divorce. The purpose, as explained by the Supreme Court in 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘃. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼, is to avoid the absurd situation where the foreign spouse is already free to remarry abroad while the Filipino spouse remains married under Philippine law.

𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗣 𝟱: 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗬

Once the decision becomes final, it may be registered with the Local Civil Registrar and the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) for the annotation of the marriage record. Only after this process can the Filipino spouse fully exercise the legal consequences of the recognized foreign divorce, including the capacity to remarry. Recent Supreme Court rulings have further clarified that recognition is not limited to judicial divorces abroad; administrative or mutually obtained foreign divorces may likewise be recognized if valid under the applicable foreign law.

31/05/2026

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗢𝗕𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘?

Many people believe that merely refusing to cooperate with authorities automatically constitutes Obstruction of Justice. That is not always true.

Under Presidential Decree No. 1829, Obstruction of Justice is committed when a person knowingly and willfully performs acts that obstruct, impede, frustrate, or delay the apprehension of offenders or the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.

Examples include concealing or destroying evidence, harboring a fugitive, preventing witnesses from testifying through threats or intimidation, providing false information to investigators, or otherwise interfering with law enforcement and judicial processes.

However, the Supreme Court has clarified that not every act of non-cooperation amounts to a crime. In Navaja v. Hon. De Castro (G.R. No. 180969), the Court emphasized that there must be proof of an act specifically prohibited under P.D. No. 1829 and that such act was committed with the purpose of obstructing or delaying the administration of justice.

Likewise, in De Leon v. Luis (G.R. No. 226236), the Supreme Court ruled that merely knowing the whereabouts of a person subject to arrest does not automatically make one criminally liable for Obstruction of Justice. The law punishes deliberate acts intended to frustrate law enforcement—not mere silence or passive knowledge.

The key element is intent. There must be evidence that the accused knowingly and willfully acted to hinder the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of an offender. Without such intent, criminal liability cannot arise.

THE RUN DOWN:

✔ Obstruction of Justice requires an affirmative act.

✔ Criminal intent must be proven.

✔ Mere silence or passive knowledge is generally not enough.

✔ The law targets deliberate interference with the administration of justice.

12/05/2026

07/05/2026

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DISMISSED AGAINST PMSg. JOHN MOLLENIDO

We confirm that the criminal complaint for Violation of P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice) filed against our client, PMSg. John Mollenido y Ledesma before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan, has been DISMISSED.

After a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, the Office of the City Prosecutor found no prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to justify the filing of charges in court.

PNP Bulacan violated established Protocol

In its Resolution dated April 24, 2026, the Prosecutor expressly recognized significant procedural lapses in the handling of the alleged evidence, including the failure of concerned authorities to properly inventory, document, and turn over the personal effects of the deceased in accordance with established PNP protocols and chain of custody requirements.

The Resolution likewise emphasized that liability under P.D. No. 1829 requires proof that the alleged acts were committed willfully and maliciously—essential elements which were clearly absent in this case.

More importantly, the Prosecutor acknowledged that the immediate disposal of the personal belongings arose from legitimate public health and safety concerns, considering that the remains were already in an advanced state of decomposition and posed potential health risks.

As clearly stated in the Resolution, the Prosecutor found “NO prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to charge the respondent in court.”

This ruling affirms what we have consistently maintained from the very beginning: that our client acted in good faith, without malicious intent, and under extraordinary circumstances.

While certain public narratives sought to prematurely assign criminal liability, this Resolution serves as a reminder that truth must be determined through proper legal processes—not speculation or public pressure.

Our client remains committed to cooperating with all lawful proceedings involving other matters and will continue to avail of every legal remedy necessary to protect his rights, reputation, and interests.

ATTY. CRISTOBAL U. RIMANDO
Counsel for PMSg. John Mollenido y Ledesma

02/05/2026

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

We have taken notice of the recent public post made by the National Police Commission regarding PSSg John L. Mollenido.

At this time, neither our office nor our client has been formally furnished a copy of the alleged decision. We only learned of the matter through social media posts. Accordingly, any public conclusions remain premature pending our receipt and review of the official ruling.

It must likewise be emphasized that our client has already been cleared by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City in relation to the deaths of his wife, Diane Marie Mollenido, and their minor son—negating allegations of criminal intent.

Further, our client did not personally carry out the cremation. The funeral parlor handled the actual process, while he merely signed the necessary authorization documents in good faith. Notably, the authorization expressly required strict compliance with all applicable rules and regulations, which necessarily includes coordination with the proper authorities prior to any cremation. Our client relied on the representation that such procedures were being properly undertaken.

More importantly, the public post appears to disregard the essential legal elements of obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829, particularly the requirement of a willful and deliberate act intended to obstruct, impede, frustrate, or delay the administration of justice—elements that are clearly absent in this case.
At no point did our client intend to obstruct justice or destroy evidence.

Upon receipt of the official decision, we shall avail of the appropriate remedies available under the applicable appeal rules and exhaust all legal remedies to protect our client’s rights.

We respectfully urge the public to allow due process to prevail.

Atty. Cristobal Rimando
Counsel for PSSg John L. Mollenido

30/04/2026

We successfully secured a conviction for our client as private prosecutor. The accused, her American husband, was found guilty under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.