ABMP Law Offices and Consultancy

09/02/2026

𝐒𝐄𝐂 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝟗-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐍𝐨. 𝟕 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 enforcing maximum period of 9 years of directorship for independent directors. This regulatory measure is intended to strengthen corporate governance by promoting transparency, accountability, and alignment with internationally recognized standards.

Further, SEC clarifies that that the term limit applies to companies with a class of equities listed for trading on an exchange. The reckoning period begins in 2012 and covers continuous and intermittent service, and period exceeding of 6 months will be counted as one full year. Said memorandum imposes P1 million penalty per year.

Source: https://business.inquirer.net/571000/sec-bans-independent-directorship-beyond-9years?fbclid=IwY2xjawPnkK9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFLMzZIZDRJSnVtM09iQXYwc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHkOjIZXduk3beNaC9w9T2sMwEcmbCb7a7VrNZCq3t7aYUoheVXZTxK3tLKL_aem_J-YMpzokzQhqCQPmUhjAT

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Headquarters in Makati. | PHOTO: Daniella Agacer / INQUIRER.net MANILA, Philippines - The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has imposed stricter

09/02/2026

𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐲, 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝.

In 1983, the petitioner married Arcon. In 1995, while still married to Arcon, the petitioner entered into marriage with Baleda. Thus, Arcon charged the petitioner and Baleda with bigamy.

In the defense of the petitioner, he insisted that he cannot be held criminally liable for bigamy because his marriages were null and void. The first marriage with Arcon lacked valid marriage license while the marriage with Baleda lacked marriage ceremony.

The RTC convicted the petitioner and acquitted Baleda which the CA affirmed. The CA held that the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of Pulido for the crime of bigamy as jurisprudence dictates that one may still be charged with bigamy even if the second marriage is subsequently declared as null and void so long as the first marriage was still subsisting during the celebration of the second marriage.

The SC abandoned its earlier rulings that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages cannot be raised as a defense by the accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured.

𝐿𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑣𝑠. 𝑃𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021 available at https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67720

06/01/2026

𝐒𝐂: 𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐀 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝

The Supreme Court held that lands with Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) Titles can be mortgaged since it does not equate to a sale, transfer, or conveyance of real property, but merely creates a lien as security for a loan. It is, therefore, excluded from the prohibition provided for by Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6657, which bars the sale, transfer, or conveyance of lands awarded by the Government, through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to third persons, with a prescriptive period of ten (10) years.

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68881

06/01/2026

𝐒𝐂 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲

The court affirms the decision of the lower courts in nullifying the marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity demonstrated through the controlling behavior of the wife towards her husband. It was sufficiently shown through her demands about her husband’s whereabouts, display of arrogance, excessive entitlement, narcissistic personality and her acts of brainwashing their children to hate their father.

In 𝑇𝑎𝑛-𝐴𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑠. 𝐴𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑙, it was explained that the three circumstances to manifest psychological incapacity are juridical antecedence, incurability, and severity which, in this case, were proven to be present before the celebration of their marriage and continued to exist.

Further, SC held that essential marital obligations include “the duty of the husband and wife to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”

Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/259322.pdf

02/01/2026

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 (𝐒𝐂) 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐜. (𝐅𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐡) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲. 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭, 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐬𝐢-𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬.

The petitioner initiated a complaint against respondent FCash before the National Privacy Commission (NPC) for data privacy violations, submitting screenshots of text messages and printouts of email correspondences as evidence.

During NPC proceedings, the respondent neither contested the screenshots of text messages and printouts of email correspondences nor filed a required Responsive Comment following the agency's directive.

Although the NPC ruled in the petitioner's favor, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision on appeal, deeming the electronic evidence inadmissible under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

The SC ruled that grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived. Thus, even on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) may not consider any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.

The Decision dated November 5, 2020, and the Resolution dated March 11, 2021 of the NPC are reinstated. Hence, the respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner Fifteen Thousand Pesos (Php15,000.00) as nominal damages.

Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/271360.pdf

02/01/2026

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐂

In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court reiterates that a valid search warrant must particularly describes the place to be searched.

However, the description of the premises to be searched in the purported warrant is generally worded as “inside the subject house (please see attached sketch map of the house) located at Informal Settlers’ Compound NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”

Said general warrant gave the searching officers undue liberality to search every place within said compound.

The consequent implementation of the warrant was also rendered void, and the items seized are deemed inadmissible in evidence, after the police agents entered the place unannounced, and without permission from the lawful occupant.

Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/264473.pdf

02/01/2026

𝐈𝐧 𝐑𝐞: 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞

On an August 6, 2025 decision, the Supreme Court held that for a resignation to be valid, the intent to relinquish the position and an overt act of relinquishment must concur. Initially, the employee’s resignation letter shows her desire to resign. However, the tenor of the letter revealed that “she was left with no option but to leave” due to pregnancy discrimination.

A pregnant employee who agreed to a “temporary assignment” was required to travel for hours from the accommodation to the new place of assignment. Taken collectively, the immediate transfer of an employee a week after disclosing her pregnancy, without proper justification, is a form of dismissal which constitutes discrimination and a violation of Magna Carta of Women.

Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/262564.pdf

02/01/2026

𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲

The Supreme Court held that, “the intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity.”

Contracting marriage is not a waiver of a spouse’s right to privacy even if such act or acts is used to prove marital infidelity.

In this case, the petitioner took 157 documents consisting of greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, passport, and photographs to prove husband’s alleged cheating by forcibly opening his drawers and cabinets at his clinic.

However, the law ensures that neither the husband nor the wife may testify or use any documents or papers as evidence to prove marital infidelity without the affected spouse’s knowledge and consent while the marriage subsists.

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/59088

02/01/2026

𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬

Time and again, the court held that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime charged but also the identity of the perpetrator of the crime which may be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. Further, SC ruled that for crimes and offenses committed through social media such as Facebook whereas members register and share their information, the account ownership or access and the fact of authorship of the social media post may be established in the presence of the following:

• Admission of the ownership of the Facebook account.
• Visible access and use of the perpetrator.
• Information posted was only known to the perpetrator.
• Language of the post is consistent with language used by the perpetrator in his other posts or messages sent.
• Records of internet service provider, search history and geolocation features that the account is owned by the perpetrator.
• Other pieces of evidence showing that the perpetrator is the owner and the author of the social media account and the social media posts.

In this case, the court ruled that like the fibers of a tapestry, the foregoing circumstances make sense not when plucked out individually scrutinized, but when interwoven and appreciated as a whole, which established the identity of ### as owner and author of the Facebook post beyond reasonable doubt.

Source: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446//

28/11/2025

𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐁𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

Republic Act No. 6552 or the Realty Installment Buyer Act grants a buyer who has paid at least two years of installments the right to pay without additional interest in case of default payment within a grace period of one month for every year of installment paid.

This right may be exercised only once every five years during the life of the contract. If the contract is canceled, the seller must refund the buyer a cash surrender value equivalent to 50% of total payments made, plus an additional 5% per year after five years, but not exceeding 90% of the total payment made.

𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭

𝘐𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: Presuming that the contract is 20 years and the buyer already paid installment for 9 years and defaulted on the 10th year. He shall be entitled to a grace period of 9 months to pay the 10th year arrear. However, such right may only be claimed once every 5 years of the life of the contract. Hence, the next time he can avail of the grace period shall be on his 15th year in case of default.

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/1688/

28/11/2025

𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐔𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝑽𝑶𝑰𝑫 𝑨𝑩 𝑰𝑵𝑰𝑻𝑰𝑶

According to the Supreme Court, decisions rendered by the cadastral court in declaring lands as private property is binding against the whole world, including the government. Land declared private is thereby beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau), making free patents issued by the Bureau after such declaration void from the beginning for having no authority.

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2021/G.R.%20No.%20237514.pdf/

28/11/2025

𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐋𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐔𝐧𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐇𝐎𝐀 𝐃𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐫

𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 15 𝒐𝒇 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑨𝒄𝒕 𝑵𝒐. 9904 (otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Homeowners' Associations") authorizes Homeowners Associations (HOA) to regularly impose dues, fees, and special assessments as provided in its bylaws, which must be approved by a simple majority of its members. While the law does not expressly state whether a HOA may automatically hold new homeowners financially liable for unpaid dues, the authority to collect such outstanding obligations from a new homeowner is ultimately governed by the provisions of the association’s bylaws.

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/16070/