Rimando Law Office- Bacoor

02/07/2026

ANOTHER ACQUITTAL SECURED.

Rimando Law Office successfully obtained the acquittal of our client in a criminal case involving an alleged ₱8 Million Theft.

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client committed theft or that the complainant even established the alleged loss through competent evidence.

In criminal cases, allegations are never enough. The burden always remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice. Integrity. Excellence.

22/06/2026

**LIABILITY OF 14- AND 15-YEAR-OLDS IN THE TACLOBAN INCIDENT**

The reported Tacloban school incident raises a painful but important legal question: how does Philippine law treat minors who are accused of committing a serious offense? While the incident involves grave consequences, the law still requires that the age, maturity, and discernment of the children involved be carefully examined.

Under R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630, a child who is **15 years old or below** at the time of the offense is generally **exempt from criminal liability**. Thus, a 14-year-old cannot be punished in the same manner as an adult offender. However, this exemption does not mean that nothing will happen. The child may still be subjected to intervention, rehabilitation, supervision, and welfare measures under the juvenile justice system.

For a 15-year-old, the exact age at the time of the offense becomes important. If the child was **15 years old or below**, he or she is exempt from criminal liability, although intervention and rehabilitation measures may still apply. However, if the child was already **above 15 but below 18**, criminal liability may arise only if it is proven that the child acted with **discernment**, meaning that he or she had the mental capacity to understand the wrongfulness and consequences of the act. Discernment is not presumed and must be established from the facts and circumstances of the case.

It must also be emphasized that exemption from criminal liability does not automatically erase **civil liability**. The victims and their families may still pursue claims for damages arising from death, injuries, medical expenses, moral damages, and other losses allowed by law. Depending on the facts, parents or persons exercising parental authority may also be held civilly liable if lack of supervision contributed to the incident.

In cases involving fi****ms, the inquiry must also extend to the adults who owned, kept, or allowed access to the weapon. Authorities must determine how the firearm reached the minors, whether it was properly secured, and whether there was negligence by the firearm owner, parent, guardian, or any adult custodian. Separate legal consequences may arise if the firearm was improperly kept or made accessible to children.

The law must therefore balance the rights of the victims with the special rules protecting children in conflict with the law. Justice is not achieved by anger alone, but by a complete and lawful determination of responsibility. In the end, accountability must include the minors’ intervention or liability as allowed by law, the civil remedies of the victims, and the possible responsibility of adults whose negligence may have contributed to the tragedy.

**This post is for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice.**

18/06/2026

Today’s favorable judgment in an ejectment case is more than a legal win—it is the vindication of our client’s lawful rights after a long and difficult dispute. We are grateful for the trust placed in our office and remain committed to pursuing justice with diligence, integrity, and excellence.

Thank you for the trust.
Justice served.

15/06/2026

NO TIME ON WEEKDAYS? WE’RE OPEN ON WEEKENDS.

Legal concerns should not have to wait simply because your weekday schedule is full.

Rimando Law Office is open every Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM to provide accessible, professional, and personalized legal assistance when it is most convenient for you.

Whether you need legal advice, document preparation, case evaluation, or representation, our office is ready to listen and assist.

📞 0936 442 4483
📧 [email protected]

Your time matters. Your rights remain our commitment.

Lawyer & law firm

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.