Caguioa Malayba Law

08/08/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Clarifies When a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) May Be Issued

The Supreme Court ruled that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may only be issued when the offense carries a penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or against a foreign respondent regardless of the penalty.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the PHDO could no longer be maintained because the estafa complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The remaining cases were for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, which carry a penalty of only 30 days to one year of imprisonment—below the threshold required for a PHDO.

📌 Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

The (SC) has clarified that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.

The case arose from a complaint for 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 and violation of 𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘨. 22 (BP 22) filed against petitioner Faustine Feliz Abad (Abad) in connection with her purchase of airline tickets from respondent GHT Travel and Tours (GHT).

The City Prosecutor found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violation of BP 22, but found insufficient evidence to charge her with 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢. Two Informations for BP 22 were then filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that she was a flight risk. The RTC granted the request.

Abad later sought to have the PHDO lifted. The RTC denied her request, noting, among others, that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge to the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.

Ruling that the PHDO should have been lifted, the SC cited the Rule on PHDO that it issued on August 7, 2018, which provides that a PHDO may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment. It may also be issued against a foreigner regardless of the penalty.

The SC explained that the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The only charges filed against Abad were two counts of BP 22 violations, each punishable by imprisonment of 30 days to one year.

Thus, the BP 22 charges did not meet the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170320.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165691.

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

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

📢 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘

Please be advised that our office will be open until 12:00 NN only tomorrow, 01 August 2026.

Regular office hours will resume on Monday.

For urgent concerns, you may send us a message through our page or contact us via mobile or Viber at +63 949 809 2540.

Thank you.

18/07/2026

Caguioa Malayba Law Office is now open.

We are pleased to welcome clients to our office at:

📍Unit 11, Dribble and Smash Commercial and Sports Hub, Brgy. Maitim, Bay, Laguna

🕑 Office Hours
Monday to Friday | 2:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Saturday | 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sunday | By Appointment

We look forward to serving the community with professionalism, integrity, and commitment.

16/07/2026

16/07/2026

Nagpasya ang na kung ang karahasang sikolohikal (psychological violence) ay ginawa sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, maaari itong ituring na paggamit ng information and communications technology (ICT). Dahil dito, puwedeng patawan ang gumawa nito ng mas mabigat na parusa alinsunod sa Seksyon 6 ng RA 10175 o Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Sa isang Resolusyon na isinulat ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Ramon Paul L. Hernando, binago nang bahagya ngunit pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang nauna nitong Desisyon noong Oktubre 22, 2025. Sa naturang desisyon, pinanatili ang hatol na nagkasala ang isang indibidwal (###) dahil sa paggawa ng karahasang sikolohikal laban sa dati niyang kasintahan (AAA) sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(i) ng Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, o ang Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), matapos siyang mag-post ng mga mapanirang pahayag tungkol kay AAA sa Facebook.

Gayunman, nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na itaas ng isang antas ang parusa dahil ang paglabag ay ginawa sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, na malinaw na nakasaad sa sakdal at napatunayan sa paglilitis.

Nagsampa si AAA ng kasong VAWC laban sa dati niyang kasintahan na si ### matapos siyang mag-post sa Facebook ng pahayag kung saan tinawag niya si AAA na maruming babae at hayop, at nagbanta siyang susuntukin kapag nakita niya ito. Inulit pa ni ### ang mga panlalait sa mga komento sa naturang post na maaaring mabasa ng publiko.

Habang dinidinig ang kaso, iniharap ni AAA ang mga screenshot ng post sa Facebook at sinabi niyang siya ang gumawa ng account para kay ### kung saan nai-post ang naturang pahayag. Pinatunayan naman ng dalawa niyang kapatid na kay ### ang account at nakatanggap sila ng mga mensahe mula sa kanya gamit ang parehong account.

Sa kabila ng pagtanggi ni ###, pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema, sa desisyong inilabas nito, ang mga naging pasya ng Family Court at Court of Appeals (CA) na naghatol na nagkasala si ###. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na sa mga kasong kriminal, kailangang mapatunayan ng prosekusyon hindi lamang ang mga elemento ng krimen kundi pati ang pagkakakilanlan ng gumawa nito. Pinagtibay din ng Korte Suprema ang parusang ipinataw ng CA kay ###, na kinabibilangan ng pagkakakulong mula anim na buwan at isang araw hanggang walong taon at isang araw, multang PHP 100,000, at pagsailalim sa psychological counselling o psychiatric treatment.

Sa pagresolba sa Motion for Reconsideration ni ###, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na napatunayang si ### ang gumawa ng post sa Facebook nang lampas sa makatwirang pagdududa (beyond reasonable doubt), batay sa mga pamantayang itinakda nito sa nauna nitong desisyon:

1. Pag-amin sa pagmamay-ari ng account o sa paggawa ng naturang post;
2. Pagkakaroon ng patunay na nakita ang akusado na gumagamit ng account o nagsulat ng naturang post;
3. Paglalaman ng impormasyon na tanging ang nagkasala o iilang tao lamang ang nakaaalam;
4. Paggamit ng mga salita o pananalitang naaayon sa karaniwang paraan ng pagpapahayag ng nagkasala;
5. Mga tala mula sa internet service provider, kumpanya ng telekomunikasyon, o social media site, pati na ang resulta ng pagsusuri sa mga digital device na nagpapakita ng lokasyon at iba pang katangiang nag-uugnay sa account sa nagkasala;
6. Mga kilos o gawain na naaayon sa mga nauna niyang post; o
7. Iba pang mga pangyayaring nagpapakita ng pagmamay-ari, paggamit, o paggawa ng account o post.

Dahil napatunayan na si ### ang gumawa ng post sa Facebook at natugunan ang lahat ng kinakailangang elemento ng karahasang sikolohikal, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na naaangkop ang Seksyon 6 ng Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Itinatakda ng probisyong ito ang pagpapataw ng mas mabigat na parusa sa mga krimen at paglabag na ginawa gamit ang ICT. Mas mabigat ang parusa dahil maaaring magamit ang ICT para makaiwas ang mga nagkasala sa pananagutan, makapinsala sa mas maraming tao, o magdulot ng mas malaking pinsala.

Batay sa kahulugan ng ICT, sinabi ng Korte na ang mga social media platform tulad ng Facebook ay maituturing na ICT systems dahil pinapayagan ng mga ito ang mga gumagamit na lumikha, magpadala, tumanggap, mag-imbak, at magproseso ng mga datos na elektronikong mensahe gamit ang mga kompyuter, mobile phone, o iba pang katulad na kagamitang elektroniko.

Sa kasong ito, nakasaad sa sakdal na ginawa ni ### ang post sa Facebook gamit ang kanyang “Facebook Messenger Account… na maaaring makita ng sinuman (set to public view).” Ayon sa Korte Suprema, sapat na ang pahayag na ito para ipakitang ginamit ang ICT bilang isang nagpapabigat na sirkumstansya. Bagaman hindi tahasang nabanggit ang terminong “ICT,” malinaw pa ring ipinaalam sa sakdal kay ### na siya ay inaakusahan ng paggawa ng karahasang sikolohikal laban kay AAA sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, na kabilang sa saklaw ng isang ICT system.

Napatunayan ng prosekusyon ang nasabing pahayag sa paglilitis.

Dahil dito, itinaas ng Korte ng isang antas ang parusa mula sa pagkakakulong na anim na buwan at isang araw hanggang walong taon at isang araw, tungo sa pagkakakulong na anim na taon at isang araw hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan, at isang araw. Nanatili naman ang multang PHP 100,000. Inatasan din si ### na sumailalim sa psychological counselling o psychiatric treatment.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168987

Basahin ang buong kopya ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168968

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/

07/07/2026

Did you know that the iconic triangular shape of Toblerone, inspired by Matterhorn, a mountain of the Alps, has become so distinctive that it has been registered as a three-dimensional (3D) trademark in various jurisdictions? This means its shape serves not only as a design element but also as an identifier of the product's commercial source.

The Philippines also recognizes non-traditional visual marks such as 3D trademarks. A product's shape or packaging may be registered as a trademark if it is distinctive, identifies the source of the goods, and is not merely functional. This means that unique product configurations can become valuable brand assets when consumers associate them with a particular business.

This World Chocolate Day, let's celebrate the creativity and branding behind the products we enjoy every day, and discover how IP helps businesses build identities that consumers recognize and trust. 🍫💡

06/07/2026

The (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 12079, which grants value-added tax (VAT) refunds on certain local purchases made by non-resident foreign tourists.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam challenging the validity of the law. RA No. 12079 introduced Section 112-A of the 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1997, establishing a VAT refund system for non-resident foreign tourists who purchase goods in the Philippines but are meant to be consumed outside the country.

The VAT refund applies to goods bought from duly accredited stores and taken out of the Philippines within 60 days from purchase. The value of the goods must be at least PHP 3,000 per transaction and Section 5 of the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations limits the refund to items intended for personal use.

Tayam argued that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it limits VAT refunds to foreign tourists and excludes Filipino citizens and residents.

In dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons. The Constitution permits different treatment for groups that are genuinely distinct, provided the classification is reasonable and related to the purpose of the law.

The SC found that RA 12079 validly distinguishes foreign tourists from Filipino citizens and residents. The classification is directly related to the law’s objective of promoting tourism and encouraging visitors to purchase local products. Rather than discriminate against Filipinos, the law grants a specific incentive to foreign tourists as part of the State’s effort to strengthen the tourism industry.

The SC also said the VAT refund system follows the basic rule of VAT that goods are taxed where they are consumed. Since the law requires foreign tourists to take the goods out of the Philippines within 60 days, the goods are considered to be consumed abroad and may qualify for a VAT refund. If the goods are consumed in the Philippines, they remain subject to Philippine VAT.

The SC also rejected claims that the law unfairly disadvantages foreigners with long-term visas. It explained that non-resident foreigners may still qualify for the VAT refund, even if they stay in the Philippines for an extended period, as long as they take the goods out of the country within 60 days and consume them abroad.

The SC added that VAT refund programs for foreign tourists are widely practiced around the world.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168521

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168497

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168502

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168507

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