Verax Advocatus Law Office

27/05/2026

27/05/2026

Napatunayan ng na nagkasala ang isang clerk of court sa maraming paglabag sa ilalim ng 2025 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭 dahil sa serious dishonesty, falsification of official documents, at gross misconduct.

Sa isang Per Curiam na Desisyon, pinatawan ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ng parusang dismissal o pagkatanggal sa tungkulin si Luzviminda G. Hernandez (Hernandez), Clerk of Court II ng Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Buenavista, Agusan del Norte.

Napatunayang pinalsipika ni Hernandez ang kanyang Daily Time Record para palabasin na nagtrabaho siya mula Abril 26 hanggang 28, 2023 gayong nasa Lungsod ng Dipolog siya at dumalo sa isang kumbensiyon nang walang pahintulot at gamit ang pagkakakilanlan (identity) ng court stenographer ng MTC.

Sa pagtanggal kay Hernandez, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na gumawa siya ng serious dishonesty dahil sa paggamit sa pagkakakilanlan ng kanyang kasamahan sa trabaho para makadalo sa kumbensiyon; sa pagpalsipika ng kanyang Daily Time Record; sa pagiging dahilan ng pag-isyu ng sertipiko ng pagdalo o certificate of attendance, acknowledgment receipt, at mga tseke ng lokal na pamahalaan; at sa pagpirma ng mga papel na may kaugnayan sa kumbensiyon sa kabila ng kawalan niya ng awtoridad na gawin ito.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na sa pamamagitan ng paglikha ng huwad na impresyon na awtorisado siya sa pagdalo at may karapatan sa pampublikong pondo, nagdulot ng pinsala sa pamahalaan ang kanyang mga ginawa.

Nagpasya rin ito na nagkasala si Hernandez sa palsipikasyon (falsification) dahil sa sadyang paglalagay ng mga maling tala sa kanyang Daily Time Record, gayundin sa mga papel para sa attendance at pagpapa-reimburse ng pondo (reimbursement papers) na kanyang inihanda at ginamit sa ngalan ng kanyang kasamahan nang walang awtoridad.

Bukod dito, napatunayan ng Korte na may intensiyon si Hernandez na kumuha ng reimbursement para sa kanyang sarili sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng mga pinalsipikang dokumento.

Napatunayan ding nagkasala si Hernandez sa gross misconduct dahil sa kanyang paulit-ulit na pagpalsipika at maling representasyon (misrepresentation) na nagpakita ng malinaw na intensiyong labagin ang mga itinakdang alituntunin. Sadyang ginawa ang mga ito at hindi lamang mga simpleng pagkakamali sa pagpapasya na nagpapakita ng patuloy na pagwawalang-bahala sa mga tamang pamamaraan.

Dahil hindi na maipapataw ang parusang pagtanggal sa tungkulin (dismissal from service) dahil sa sapilitang pagreretiro (compulsory retirement) ni Hernandez noong 2024, ipinag-utos na lamang ng Korte ang pagbawi at pagsamsam (forfeiture) ng lahat ng kanyang mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro at ang habambuhay na diskwalipikasyon sa muling pagbabalik sa tungkulin o pagtatalaga sa alinmang pampublikong tanggapan.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166752.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164988.

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

27/05/2026

Atty. kailangan daw po naka-"apostille" yung ipapadala ko sa abroad na mga papeles. Ano po yung Apostille⁉️

✅️️An Apostille is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public document. It is issued by a country that is party to the Apostille Convention to be used in another country which is also a party to the Convention.

On 14 May 2019, the Philippines became a party to the Apostille Convention. Authentication is still required for all Philippine documents to be used abroad, but this time with an Apostille instead of an Authentication Certificate (“red ribbon”) as proof of authentication.

After authentication (Apostillization) by the Competent Authority, there is no more need for authentication (legalization) by the Embassies or Consulates except for non-Apostille countries and those that objected to the Philippine accession.

NOTE: The Apostille Convention only applies if both the country where the public document was issued and the country where the public document is to be used are parties to the Convention.

C: DFA-Ph

💯for more info for your apostille needs call,msg our page or email us!

Atty. kailangan daw po naka-"apostille" yung ipapadala ko sa abroad na mga papeles. Ano po yung Apostille⁉️

✅️️An Apostille is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public document. It is issued by a country that is party to the Apostille Convention to be used in another country which is also a party to the Convention.

On 14 May 2019, the Philippines became a party to the Apostille Convention. Authentication is still required for all Philippine documents to be used abroad, but this time with an Apostille instead of an Authentication Certificate (“red ribbon”) as proof of authentication.

After authentication (Apostillization) by the Competent Authority, there is no more need for authentication (legalization) by the Embassies or Consulates except for non-Apostille countries and those that objected to the Philippine accession.

NOTE: The Apostille Convention only applies if both the country where the public document was issued and the country where the public document is to be used are parties to the Convention.

C: DFA-Ph

💯for more info for your apostille needs call,msg our page or email us!

03/02/2026

The has approved the Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing.

The Guidelines shall take effect on February 16, 2026, 15 days following its posting on the Supreme Court and OCA websites.

The Guidelines expand the definition of “overseas venues,” which now covers “Philippine consulates and embassies, other Philippine government offices abroad, other places allowed under applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements, and any other venue authorized by the Supreme Court for videoconferencing from abroad.” [Section 2(j), Part 1]

Section 4, Part 2 of the Guidelines details how videoconferencing is initiated:

“In civil and criminal cases, the parties, through their counsel, individually or jointly, may, by written or oral motion, move that they be allowed to participate via videoconferencing.

“In criminal cases, a motion to participate via videoconferencing shall be accompanied by a waiver of the right of the accused to meet witnesses face to face when the videoconferencing specifically involves the confrontation of a witness.

“Videoconferencing shall be the preferred mode in cases involving PDLs and CICL at all stages of the proceedings.

“It shall also be the preferred mode for arraignment, bail hearings, and hearings involving minor incidents of other accused, such as, but not limited to, clarificatory hearings, compliance hearings, and other similar ancillary matters where the presence of the accused is not necessary, unless the court deems it appropriate for the accused to appear in person.

“For a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases, the court may, on its own instance, order that the proceedings be conducted through videoconferencing at any or all stages”

Copies of the Guidelines are available at:

Supreme Court website:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

Office of the Court Administrator website:https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

03/02/2026

The (SC) has dismissed an adultery case filed by the representative of a married man, reiterating that only the offended spouse may file the complaint.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division dismissed the adultery charge filed by Jin Chiba, through a representative, against his wife, Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and her co-accused Michael Llona. SC reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael.

Aurel’s husband, Jin, through his representative, filed a complaint for adultery and grave threats against the two.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it.

The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative.

The SC disagreed and reiterated that adultery is a private crime that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, citing Rule 110, Section 5, of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and Article 344 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC).

The SC explained that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

In this case, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

Because there is failure to meet the requirement under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and the RPC, the SC held that no valid complaint was filed and dismissed the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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

15/01/2026

Atty. kailangan daw po naka-"apostille" yung ipapadala ko sa abroad na mga papeles. Ano po yung Apostille⁉️

✅️️An Apostille is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public document. It is issued by a country that is party to the Apostille Convention to be used in another country which is also a party to the Convention.

On 14 May 2019, the Philippines became a party to the Apostille Convention. Authentication is still required for all Philippine documents to be used abroad, but this time with an Apostille instead of an Authentication Certificate (“red ribbon”) as proof of authentication.

After authentication (Apostillization) by the Competent Authority, there is no more need for authentication (legalization) by the Embassies or Consulates except for non-Apostille countries and those that objected to the Philippine accession.

NOTE: The Apostille Convention only applies if both the country where the public document was issued and the country where the public document is to be used are parties to the Convention.

C: DFA-Ph

💯for more info for your apostille needs call,msg our page or email us!

13/01/2026

Sinuspinde o pinagpaliban muna ng ang hatol sa isang child in conflict with the law (CICL), bilang paggiit sa layunin ng Republic Act No. (RA) 9344, o ang Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, na isulong ang pinakamahusay na interes at rehabilitasyon ng bata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez bago siya magretiro, tinanggihan ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang apela ni ###265302 (akusado) na napatunayang nagkasala ng qualified r**e ng isang menor de edad. Napatawan siya ng parusang 12 taon hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan at isang araw sa bilangguan.

Ibinalik ang kaso sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para ipag-utos na madetine ang akusado sa isang agricultural camp o iba pang pasilidad ng pagsasanay sa ilalim ng Section 51 ng batas.

Kinasuhan ng panggagahasa sa kanyang limang taong gulang na kalaro ang akusado na 15 taong gulang nang mangyari ang krimen.

Labing-walong taong gulang na siya nang hatulan ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na guilty sa statutory r**e. Ipinataw nito ang parusang pagkakakulong ng walong taon at isang araw hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan at isang araw, ngunit sinuspinde ng RTC ang kanyang sentensiya.

Sa ilalim ng Section 38 ng RA 9344, may karapatan sa suspensiyon ng kanilang sentensiya ang isang akusado na menor de edad sa panahon ng pagkakasala.

Makalipas ang ilang buwan, naglabas ang RTC ng warrant of arrest, at siya ay ikinulong sa New Bilibid Prison. Tinanggihan ng Court of Appeals ang kanyang apela.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang kanyang hatol ngunit nilinaw na ang krimen ay qualified r**e at ipinag-utos ang suspensiyon ng kanyang sentensiya.

Nakasaad sa Section 40 ng RA 9344 na kapag nasa edad 18 ang CICL habang nasa ilalim ng nasuspinding sentensiya, maaari silang palayain ng korte, iutos na ipatupad ang kanilang sentensiya, o palawigin ang suspendidong sentensiya sa loob ng isang panahon o hanggang umabot sila sa maximum na edad na 21 taong gulang.

Sa kasong ito, 25 taong gulang na ngayon ang akusado na inilipat sa Davao Prison and Penal Farm.

Gayunpaman, pinahaba ng Korte Suprema ang pagsuspinde sa kanyang sentensiya para matupad ang layunin ng batas na inuuna ang pagpapanumbalik, rehabilitasyon, at reintegrasyon ng mga batang nagkasala sa komunidad.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159175.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159085.

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

01/01/2026

Happy New Year!
Let us welcome 2026 with joy & peace...
Our office will resume on Monday, January 5, 2026
God bless us all!

01/01/2026

Happy New Year everyone!
God bless 2026!
Good health, peace & breakthroughs ahead!
Our office will resume on January 5, 2025

10/12/2025

HOW THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES VOTED IN THE PHILHEALTH DECISION

G.R. No. 274778, Aquilino Pimentel III et al. v. House of Representatives et al.
G.R. No. 275405, Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Colmenares et al. v. Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin et al.
G.R. No. 276233, 1Sambayan Coalition et al. v. House of Representatives et al.

On December 3, 2025, the unanimously ordered the return to PhilHealth of PHP 60 Billion funds previously transferred to the National Treasury and permanently prohibited the transfer of the remaining PHP 29.9 billion fund balance.

In this , see how the Justices voted on the other issues discussed in the ruling.

For more, read the press release and full text of the Decision, and the opinions of the Justices:

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156834

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156755

Read the Separate Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156760

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156766

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156771

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156776

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156781

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156786

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156792

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156797

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156802

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156807

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156812

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156820

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