Hernandez Campañano Law

01/01/2026

Happy New Year 2026!

Warm greetings from Hernandez Campanano Law Office.

As we welcome the new year, we extend our sincere thanks to our clients, colleagues, and partners for the trust and confidence you placed in us throughout 2025. We look forward to continuing our work with renewed purpose, clarity, and commitment in 2026.

May the year ahead bring peace, good health, and continued success.

30/12/2025

27/12/2025

Vacations are meant for rest—not risk. Think before you post and keep your home safe while you’re away.

Your safety starts online.

26/12/2025

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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

26/12/2025

As 2025 comes to a close, Hernandez Campanano Law Office extends its sincere gratitude to our clients, colleagues, and partners for your continued trust and support throughout the year. We remain thankful for the opportunity to serve and to grow with you.

Announcement
Our last day of operations for 2025 will be on 29 December 2025, from 9:00 AM to 12:00 NN.

Office Resumption
Regular operations will resume on 5 January 2025, from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.

We look forward to continuing our work with you in the coming year. Thank you for being part of our 2025.

03/10/2025

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) provides the following rules on the cross-border transfer of local and foreign currencies:

1. A person may freely bring into or out of the Philippines, or electronically transfer, legal tender Philippine currency up to PHP50,000 only. Amounts in excess of the PHP50,000 limit shall require: (a) prior written authorization from the BSP; and (b) in case of physical cross-border transfer of Philippine currency, declaration of the whole amount brought into or out of the Philippines using the prescribed Currencies Declaration Form (CDF).

However, the BSP allows cross-border transfer of PHP in excess of the limit for the following purposes only: (i) testing/calibration/configuration of money counting/sorting machines; (ii) numismatics (collection of currency); and (iii) currency awareness.

2. A person may freely bring into or out of the Philippines foreign currency and other foreign currency-denominated bearer monetary instruments in amounts up to USD10,000 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies. For amounts exceeding the USD10,000 threshold, the whole amount brought into or taken out of the Philippines is required to be declared using the CDF.

Download the BSP Manual of Regulations on Foreign Exchange Transactions (as amended):https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Regulations/MORFXT/MORFXT.pdf

03/10/2025

02/10/2025

📢 ANNOUNCEMENT

Please be advised that my official email address has been updated. For all future correspondence, kindly use:

📧 [email protected]

For inquiries and assistance, you may also contact:
👩‍💼 Ms. Angeline Lazaro
📧 [email protected]

📱 +63 930 536 2425

We appreciate your attention to this update and look forward to serving you.

—
HC Law Office

01/10/2025

UPDATES

29/09/2025

The (SC) has clarified that domestic market enterprises can enjoy the zero-rated Value-Added Tax (VAT) incentive under Republic Act No. 11534, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳y 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘢𝘹 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 (𝘊𝘙𝘌𝘈𝘛𝘌) 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 declared Rule 18, Section 5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the 𝘊𝘙𝘌𝘈𝘛𝘌 𝘈𝘤𝘵
and several Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issuances void for unlawfully limiting which businesses could avail of the VAT incentive.

The 𝘊𝘙𝘌𝘈𝘛𝘌 𝘈𝘤𝘵, passed in 2021, grants registered business enterprises (RBEs) VAT exemption on importation and VAT zero-rating on local purchases of goods and services that are directly and exclusively used in their registered project or activity. RBEs include both domestic market enterprises and registered export enterprises.

However, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Finance (DOF) later issued the IRR, which excluded domestic market enterprises from enjoying zero-rated VAT incentives on their business purchases.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) followed with the issuance of Revenue Regulations No. 21-2022 and Revenue Memorandum Circulars No. 24-2022 and 49-2022, which clarified that only registered export enterprises were entitled to the incentive.

Petitioner Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce, Inc. and taxpayer Benjamin E. Antonio III filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing that the IRR and the BIR regulations unfairly excluded domestic market enterprises from the benefits granted by the law.

The SC ruled that the IRR and the BIR regulations were invalid for adding restrictions not found in the 𝘊𝘙𝘌𝘈𝘛𝘌 𝘈𝘤𝘵 The SC stressed that the law clearly covers all RBEs, including domestic market enterprises.

The SC emphasized that government agencies like the DTI and DOF cannot go beyond what the law allows. Since the law includes domestic businesses as RBEs, the IRR cannot exclude them from receiving the incentives.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152408.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152369.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152400.

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

29/09/2025

Nilinaw ng na maaaring makinabang ang mga domestic market enterprise sa zero-rated Value-Added Tax (VAT) incentive sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 11534, o ang Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Act.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez bago siya nagretiro, idineklara ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang Rule 18, Section 5 ng CREATE Act’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), gayundin ang ilang mga pag-isyu ng Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), na void o walang bisa dahil sa labag sa batas ang paglilimita nito kung aling mga negosyo lang ang maaaring mag-avail ng VAT incentive.

Ipinasa noong 2021, nagbibigay ang CREATE Act sa registered business enterprises (RBEs) ng VAT exemption sa pag-import at VAT zero-rating sa mga lokal na pagbili ng mga produkto at serbisyo na direkta at eksklusibong ginagamit sa kanilang rehistradong proyekto o aktibidad. Kasama sa RBEs ang parehong mga domestic market enterprise at rehistradong export enterprise.

Gayunpaman, naglabas kalaunan ang Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) at Department of Finance (DOF) ng IRR na nagbukod sa mga domestic market enterprise mula sa pagtamasa ng zero-rated VAT incentives sa kanilang mga pagbili sa negosyo.

Kasunod na naglabas ang Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) ng Revenue Regulations No. 21-2022 at Revenue Memorandum Circulars No. 24-2022 at 49-2022 na naglinaw na ang mga rehistradong export enterprise lamang ang may karapatan sa insentibo.

Naghain ng petisyon para sa declaratory relief ang Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce, Inc. at ang taxpayer na si Benjamin E. Antonio III na nagsabing hindi makatarungan ang IRR at ang mga regulasyon ng BIR na nagbukod sa mga domestic market enterprise mula sa mga benepisyong ipinagkaloob ng batas.

Nagpasya ang Korte na hindi wasto ang IRR at ang mga regulasyon ng BIR para sa pagdaragdag ng mga paghihigpit na hindi makikita sa CREATE Act. Binigyang-diin nito na malinaw na sinasaklaw ng batas ang lahat ng RBEs, kabilang ang mga domestic market enterprise.

Dagdag pa nito, hindi maaaring lumampas sa pinapayagan ng batas ang mga ahensya ng gobyerno tulad ng DTI at DOF. Dahil kasama sa batas ang mga domestic na negosyo bilang RBEs, hindi sila maaaring ibukod ng IRR sa pagtanggap ng mga insentibo.

Basahin ang Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152408.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152369.

Basahin ang Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152400.

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

11/09/2025

The (SC) has clarified that disputes involving condominium contracts should be decided by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), formerly the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division nullified the RTC’s ruling that held Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) and Sung Ha Jung (Sung) civilly liable to each other over a contract to sell involving a condominium unit.

Under the contract, Cadungog, a developer of a condominium building in Cebu City, agreed to deliver a unit to Sung once he completed payment of PHP 3.5 million. Sung paid a PHP 175,000 downpayment, and later PHP 3 million, leaving a balance of PHP 258,950. Because of the unpaid amount, Cadungog refused to deliver the unit.

Sung then filed a criminal complaint before the RTC against Cadungog, citing a violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦.

The RTC acquitted Cadungog, but ordered her to either: deliver the unit upon full payment of the purchase price, or return the amount Sung had already paid. Cadungog argued that it was the HLURB and not the RTC which had jurisdiction over the civil aspect of her case.

Ruling in Cadungog’s favor, the SC declared as null and void the RTC’s decision on the civil matter of the case.

It explained that while civil liability can be decided in a criminal case, this does not apply when the liability arises from a contract, as in this case.

The SC emphasized that the civil dispute between Cadungog and Sung stemmed from their contract to sell.

Further, under PD 957, as amended, the HLURB (now reconstituted as the HSAC) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contractual and legal obligations between buyers and developers of real estate projects. At the time Sung filed the complaint, it was the HLURB that had authority over such cases.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

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