Pizarro Law Office

11/06/2025

28/12/2024

08/11/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that a violation of procurement laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It is required that all elements of graft be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not just the deficiencies in the procurement process.

The Court acquitted Davao City Water District (DCWD) officials Arnold D. Navales, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte, Alfonso E. Laid, and William V. Guillen of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 for dispensing with competitive public bidding in DCWD’s water supply project.

To fall under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a procurement violation must be done in bad faith, with manifest partiality or inexcusable negligence harming a party, including the government, or giving another undue preference, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.

The Court found that petitioners merely recommended to the DCWD Board of Directors the award of contract to the supplier. It was the DCWD Board which had the authority to approve and award the contract.

While there might have been irregularities in the procurement process that violated procurement laws, there was no evidence showing petitioners were motivated by manifest partiality or bad faith.

Instead, petitioners resorted to a negotiated contract believing it is allowed as an exceptional case given the urgency of the procurement and the lack of qualified bidders.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court’s First Division written by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez.

Read the full text of the press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-violation-of-procurement-law-not-an-automatic-conviction-for-graft/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/219598-220108-arnold-d-navales-rey-c-chavez-rosindo-j-almonte-and-alfonso-e-laid-vs-people-of-the-philippines-william-velasco-guillen-vs-people-of-the-philippines/



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

08/11/2024

𝐄𝐗𝐄𝐂𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐍𝐎. 𝟕𝟒, 𝐬. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒

𝐈𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐁𝐀𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆, 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐄𝐓 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐏𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐒

Visit the Official Gazette website: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/sIJ0wj

24/07/2024

Attention: Memorandum Circular No. 56

Encouraging all Government Lawyers to Participate in the 20th Integrated Bar of the Philippines National Convention of Lawyers

18/12/2023

05/12/2023

Beware of fake pages posing as PSAHelpline.ph.

PSAHelpline's page has more than 400K followers and clearly shows our webpage address, hotline number, and email address.

We do not transact through Facebook Messenger or any other social media platform.

All applications are received through our website and hotline, while inquiries and follow-ups may be done by calling our hotline or through email.

Hotline: 02-8737-1111 (Mon to Sat, 8am to 5pm, except holidays)
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.PSAHelpline.ph

05/12/2023

Examinations - List of Examinees Who Obtained the Twenty Highest Ratings

16/11/2023

📢 Notice Re: 2023 Bar Results

The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair announced that the Results will be released via public announcement on December 5, 2023 (Tuesday).

Please rely exclusively on the official communication channels, and remain vigilant against misinformation and disinformation.

READ the Notice in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NoticeResults.pdf.

13/11/2023

𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier warranting a presumption that he has abandoned his right, or declined to assert it.

Laches, concerns itself with the effect of delay and not the period of time that has lapsed. It asks the question whether the delay has changed "the condition of the property or the relation of the parties" such that it is no longer equitable to insist on the original right.

𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

Prescription refers to the failure or delay to assert a claim within the period prescribed by law. Through prescription one acquires ownership or other real rights through the lapse of time, in the manner and under the condition laid down by law. Likewise, rights and actions are lost on the same ground.

Prescription deals with delay itself and thus is an issue of how much time has passed. The time period when prescription is deemed to have set in is fixed by law.

𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘇𝗼 𝘃. 𝗘𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗼, 𝗚𝗥 𝟮𝟬𝟵𝟰𝟯𝟱, 𝗔𝘂𝗴. 𝟭𝟬, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮, 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼

READ FULL TEXT: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/29549/