OJ UY LAW

01/02/2026

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

30/12/2025

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/.

30/12/2025

08/12/2025

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/.

07/12/2025

The Office of the Chairperson will release the Results of the 2025 Bar Examinations in the afternoon of January 7, 2026. The Oath-Taking and Roll Signing Ceremonies of Successful Bar Examinees will be held on February 6, 2026.

Read the Notice here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-Bar-Notice-re-Release-of-Results.pdf

26/10/2025

Statement on Unauthorized Use of Law Firm Names and Affiliated Lawyers

We have received information that the names Palasan Law Office and OJ Uy Law—including certain lawyers affiliated with either firm—were used without authorization in connection with an online fundraising platform soliciting donations for a case currently pending before the trial court. This post include images of documents or exhibits submitted as evidence, as well as details regarding the status of the case.

We wish to clarify that neither OJ Uy Law, Palasan Law Office, nor any of our affiliated lawyers have participated in, endorsed, or authorized such posting or fundraising activity.

Appropriate steps have already been taken to address this matter, including the demand for the removal of the fundraising post, and to prevent any further misuse of our names and professional affiliations.

Thank you.

Palasan Law Office
OJ Uy Law

13/10/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a marriage officiated by a solemnizing officer without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses honestly believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC’s Second Division dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage filed by a wife who claimed that the person who officiated her wedding was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

The couple was married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, with their marriage contract listing Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) as the solemnizing officer.

However, more than 20 years later, the wife’s lawyer claimed that the purported officiant in their wedding photos was not Judge De Gracia but Rosalio Florendo, a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This led the wife to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

The SC found that the wife failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority. The marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

The SC cited Article 3 of the Family Code (FC) which lists as one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage the authority of the solemnizing officer. Meanwhile, Article 7 of FC clothes incumbent judges within their jurisdiction with such authority. Marriage solemnized by a person without such authority is void under Articles 4 and 35(2) of FC unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized in which case, the marriage is still valid.

While the wife later alleged that the solemnizing officer was not Judge De Gracia, the SC found that she presented no evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.

The SC emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

27/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CKCCEFk8D/

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

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

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

15/06/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that bladed weapons such as knives should not be penalized in the election gun ban as provided under Section 32 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7166, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution 9561-A.

In a 21-page ruling written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division overturned the conviction of Mark Paul Ildefonso for violation of the Omnibus Election Code for carrying a knife outside of his residence during the election period without proper authorization and Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Ildefonso was arrested in a buy-bust operation where two sachets containing shabu and a 10-inch knife were recovered from his possession. The said operation was conducted on October 14, 2013, or within the election period as prescribed and implemented by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The complaint was filed against him for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A, in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 9735 and the Omnibus Election Code for possession of a knife, and Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling and possessing shabu.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Ildefonso for all three crimes charged against him. This paved the way for him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused for selling and possessing illegal drugs, the high court ruled that the arresting officers failed to follow the chain of custody rule, as none of the insulating witnesses were immediately available to witness the drug operations.

It also found out that the inventory, marking, and photograph of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of confiscation, which is fatal to the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug item.

“The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug,” the Supreme Court said.

The SC also denounced the act of the apprehending officer in placing the seized sachet inside his pocket prior to handing it over for marking and inventory, which cast doubt on the identity of the item that was later marked and inventoried.

“This Court cannot simply disregard and ignore the possibility that the items allegedly seized may have been tampered with, altered, or substituted before marking and inventory were conducted,” the Supreme Court added.

As for violation of the gun ban under the Omnibus Election Code, the high court also acquitted the accused, emphasizing that the definition of "deadly weapon" is vague and unclear under the COMELEC resolution prevailing at the time of arrest.

"The [COMELEC]'s definition of 'deadly weapon' is vague and unclear, not only on what may be considered deadly, but also on what may be considered a weapon." As observed by the Court, no law defines what a "deadly weapon" is. Meanwhile, the COMELEC-provided definition is unnecessarily broad, as it includes all types of bladed instruments that are not necessary to the occupation of the possessor or are not used as tools for a legitimate activity,” the Supreme Court said.

The high court also ruled that the poll body exceeded the scope of its legislative authority when it included bladed instruments in the term ''deadly weapons, as it was not the intention of the legislature to make possession and carriage of bladed instruments during the election period punishable.

“The prohibition on the unauthorized possession and carriage of fi****ms and deadly weapons during an election period under Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 132 of Republic Act No. 7166 pertains only to fi****ms and deadly weapons that are regulated. Since bladed instruments such as knives are not regulated, possession and carriage of such items should not be made punishable under Section 2(c) in relation to Section l(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A,” the Supreme Court added.

The Supreme Court urged the COMELEC to provide a clearer and more concise definition of 'deadly weapon' in their future resolutions and must be more discerning and detailed in providing such a definition.

03/06/2025

"I'm a free man!"

These were the first words of our client after hearing the court's verdict after 5 grueling years - two of which he spent in jail before being allowed to post bail: NOT GUILTY on all charges.

He was maliciously accused of multiple crimes he never committed, one of which is non-bailable and has spent years fighting for his innocence. At every hearing he had to endure listening to the fabricated lies of his accuser, yet as a senior African-American, he did not lose hope in our justice system and placed his trust in us, his legal team. Even when the idea of fleeing the country had been suggested by others, he chose to remain in the Philippines to face trial, believing that in the end justice will ultimately prevail.

And prevail it did.

After 5 long years, hearing the Court staff utter the words "Not Guilty" has lifted the weight we had carried off our shoulders. It's moments like this that remind us why we do what we do.

02/06/2025

What an honor to have Slapshock / Chelsea Alley's very own Lean Ansing visit the office. 🤘🏻✌🏻