Atty. Krishia Camdas Evangelista law office

19/05/2026

The law prohibits marriages involving persons below 18 years old, including informal unions or cohabitation between an adult and a minor. Child betrothal or arranging a child for marriage is likewise prohibited.

Congress Criminalizes Child Marriage; Violators Face Imprisonment

Republic Act No. 11596 makes child marriage illegal in the Philippines and treats it as a form of child abuse.

The law prohibits marriages involving persons below 18 years old, including informal unions or cohabitation between an adult and a minor. Child betrothal or arranging a child for marriage is likewise prohibited.

Any person who causes, facilitates, or arranges child marriage may face imprisonment and a fine of at least ₱40,000. If committed by a parent, guardian, or ascendant, the penalty becomes heavier, including longer imprisonment, a fine of at least ₱50,000, and perpetual loss of parental authority.

Persons who officiate or solemnize child marriages may also face imprisonment and a fine of at least ₱50,000.

An adult who cohabits with a child outside wedlock may likewise be imprisoned and fined at least ₱50,000, without prejudice to higher penalties under other laws.

Public officers found liable may be dismissed from government service and perpetually disqualified from holding public office.

The law also declares these offenses as public crimes, meaning any concerned individual may initiate a complaint.

Read the full text in the comment.

17/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: LAWYER’S VOLUNTARY CESSATION FROM PRACTICE CANNOT BE COUNTED AS SERVED SUSPENSION PERIOD

The Supreme Court (SC) held that a suspension from the practice of law takes effect exclusively upon the erring lawyer’s receipt of the high court’s decision imposing the penalty, noting that a lawyer’s unilateral or voluntary cessation from practice prior to the issuance of the actual resolution has no legal effect and cannot be credited as time served.

In a 7-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC en banc denied the bid of Atty. Jose B. Guibone is seeking to have his alleged voluntary cessation from the practice of law before the issuance of the suspension order credited as service of the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Andy Dela Victoria Canonoy and his siblings against Atty. Guibone for notarizing a falsified extrajudicial settlement and partition of estate dated September 22, 2015. The heirs proved they never appeared before him and that their signatures were forged, as they were in completely different locations in the Philippines and abroad at the time.

The investigation revealed that Atty. Guibone maintained multiple notarial offices, allowed his staff to sign documents for him, used multiple notarial seals, and notarized documents using only a community tax certificate—acts he fully admitted to on the online platform Shopee.

On February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc found him guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). He was meted a total of two years of suspension from the practice of law (one year for the notarial violations and another year for making untruthful statements in an affidavit), a fine of ₱100,001.00, and a two-year disqualification from being a notary public. He received this resolution on May 13, 2025.

Atty. Guibone filed a manifestation praying that he be allowed to resume his legal practice on January 30, 2026. He argued that his suspension should be deemed to have run from January 30, 2024, because he had voluntarily ceased practicing law on that date upon receiving a notice of resolution from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The complainant opposed this, noting that Atty. Guibone actually continued practicing law in 2024 and 2025 as a legal officer for the Department of Education.

In denying the plea of Atty. Guibone, the high court ruled that the service of a suspension cannot be backdated or reckoned from an erring lawyer's unilateral choice. It noted that resolutions issued by the IBP are purely recommendatory and carry no final legal weight until affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The SC explained that Atty. Guibone's suspension only officially began on May 13, 2025—the day he received the court's actual final resolution. Because he has not fully served his two-year suspension, his request to resume practice was denied. It underscored that the start of a penalty cannot be left to the convenience or discretion of the errant attorney.

"Moreover, the lifting of a suspension from the practice of law is not automatic. It is effected only upon the lawyer's submission of a sworn statement of compliance, attesting that the full period of suspension has been served and that the lawyer has desisted from the practice of law during the entire duration thereof. Absent compliance with these requirements, the lawyer remains suspended," the Supreme Court said.

"In view of the foregoing, respondent has not yet fully served the penalty of suspension imposed by the Court. His manifestation seeking to resume the practice of law on January 30, 2026, therefore, lacks basis," it concluded.

16/05/2026

Amidst the orchestrated political noise,
let the Constitution speak louder than the chaos.
The lawyers of the Philippines are on watch. ⚖️

May 14, 2026 | IBP Statement on the Reported Shooting at the Philippine Senate

16/05/2026

In 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐦𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯. 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚 𝐂. 𝐑𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟔𝟏𝟖𝟕𝟕. 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟔, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, SC emphasized that a home is one’s refuge from harm, a fortress that offers safety and a sanctuary that provides comfort. Developers who promise to offer safe and suitable homes must faithfully fulfill their undertaking. Failing therein, they shall be liable to return the amortization payments made by the hopeful buyers.

To ensure the fulfillment of the objectives of P.D. No. 957, Section 20 thereof gives developers within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision or condominium project or such other period of time as may be fixed by the Authority to complete the facilities and infrastructures that they advertise or offer to prospective buyers.

However, in case the developer reneges on its obligation to complete the project on time, Section 23 steps in to protect the buyers wherein no installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate.

Specifically, Section 23 grants buyers 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙪𝙢 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, namely:

(i) to continue with the contract but suspend payments until the developer complies with its obligation to finish the project; or
(ii) to cancel the contract and demand a refund of all payments made, excluding delinquency interests

15/05/2026

⚠️ URGENT NOTICE FROM THE IBP NATIONAL OFFICE ⚠️

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reminds the public to always verify the credentials of anyone claiming to provide legal services or representing themselves as connected to any court or government agency.

We are officially warning the public regarding an individual using the name "Atty. Allyssa Ann Nordstrome Agustin." Please be informed that this individual is NOT authorized by, employed at, or affiliated with the government and legal offices she claims a connection to.

Protect yourself from unauthorized legal transactions and misrepresentation. Before paying any fees or sharing case details, it is your right to:
✅ Check the official Supreme Court Roll of Attorneys.
✅ Demand to see their Roll Number, IBP Number, and current MCLE compliance.
✅ Contact our National Office or your local IBP Chapter to confirm their standing.

Do not fall victim to individuals refusing to show proper identification. Report suspicious transactions and preserve your evidence.

Contact the IBP to verify legal credentials today:
📞 Helpdesk: 8634-4696 / 8634-4697
📱 Viber: 0919-095-5859
📧 Email: [email protected]

Mag-ingat. Mag-verify. Huwag basta magtiwala sa nagpapakilalang abogado. ⚖️

15/05/2026

The has ruled that non-verbal threatening gestures with criminal intent may be considered grave threats under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gesture of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.

But it clarified that the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.

Israel, who claimed to be a Belgian architect allowed to practice his profession in the Philippines, was hired by Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville for the construction of their building. After Israel refused to correct the construction defects in the said building, Navez and Denonville filed a case for damages against him.

Sometime in 2017, while Navez and Denonville were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Israel’s motorcycle. The latter then allegedly made two overt gestures: pointing his fingers at Navez’s head as if pulling a gun trigger and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead Navez.

Israel was convicted of grave threats. When his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, he sought relief from the SC, arguing that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts, and that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not cover pure non-verbal gestures.

The SC acquitted Israel after finding that criminal intent was not proven. But it disagreed with his other argument, ruling that non-verbal gestures may be considered grave threats.

To convict for grave threats, the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 requires two elements: the 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 and the 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲.

The SC held that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not differentiate between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures. What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate.

Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Therefore, threats can be either verbal or non-verbal.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166072.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164941.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.