Medina Law Office

21/02/2026

Buena mano ngayong Pebrero…

19/11/2025

2016 — Naisabatas na ang Enhanced Anti-Hospital Deposit Law (RA 10932). Applicable to all Public and Private Hospital.

1. Bawal ang deposito bago magbigay ng basic emergency services, hindi maaaring manghingi ng bayad ang mga ospital o klinika bago tulungan ang pasyente sa emergency.

2. Paggamit ng LGU emergency vehicle - kung walang ambulansya ang ospital, puwede nilang gamitin ang sasakyan pang-emergency ng lokal na pamahalaan.

3. Emergency cases – kabilang dito ang panganganak at miscarriage, hindi dapat manghingi ang mga hospital ng deposito

4. Dapat ipaskil ang mga serbisyo – kailangang malinaw na nakasulat sa entrance ng ospital o klinika ang serbisyong kanilang ibinibigay.

5. Presumption of liability – mananagot ang ospital o klinika kung hindi in-admit ang pasyente na nagdulot ng mas matinding pinsala o kamatayan.

6. Mas mataas na parusa matapos ang amienda ng batas na ito. Narito ang mga parusa ayon sa batas:

1. Multa (Fine):
• Hindi bababa sa ₱100,000 at hindi hihigit sa ₱300,000 para sa unang paglabag.
• Para sa ikalawang paglabag, multa na mula ₱500,000 hanggang ₱1,000,000 at maaaring bawiin ang lisensya ng ospital o klinika.

2. Pagkakakulong (Imprisonment):
• Ang medical practitioner o hospital official na responsable ay maaaring makulong ng 4 hanggang 6 na taon.

3. Administrative Sanction:
• Ang Department of Health (DOH) ay may kapangyarihang magpataw ng karagdagang parusa, gaya ng suspension o revocation ng permit ng ospital.

Sina Rep. Tom Villarin (Co-author) at Rep. Angelina Tan (Chairperson, Committee on Health) ang nagsulong ng batas na ito sa kongreso. Pinirmahan ito ng yumaong si Pangulong Benigno “PNoy” Aquino III noong 2016.

12/11/2025

Tagal ng di nakapag-post 😍

06/11/2025

28/07/2025

Sumakses na naman ang ferson 🥰

15/07/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that hiding one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband concealed his homosexuality before they got married.

The couple met on social media. On their first date, the woman noticed that the man seemed distant. The man also avoided sitting beside her. When asked about this, the man said he was just shy and lacked confidence.

The two kept a long-distance relationship as the man worked overseas. Notwithstanding this, they got married two years later.

But the man continued to avoid intimacy and often started arguments to avoid his wife. Just two months after the wedding, he returned overseas and stopped communicating with her.

Later, the woman found magazines with half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s things. When she confronted him, he admitted that he was homosexual. The woman then filed for annulment of their marriage.

The SC ruled that the woman’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud, and that the marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent concealment of sexuality, following Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Article 45 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 states that a marriage can be annulled if one party’s consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud. Article 46 further specifies that hiding one’s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered fraud.

The SC gave credence to the woman’s allegations, noting that the man’s admission and his unexplained silence when his sexuality was being questioned could not be ignored. It found that the husband intentionally hid his homosexuality to persuade the woman to stay and marry him.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yjn9a89f.

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

29/06/2025

26/06/2025

This ⬇️⬇️⬇️

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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

18/06/2025

Noted 🥰

04/06/2025

Noted…

Tuesday, June 3, 2025

You don’t have to rush to catch up with anyone. Life isn’t a race—it’s your own unfolding story. So breathe, move at your pace, and remember: progress looks different on everyone. 🌤️

29/05/2025

Sana sa Caloocan din…

𝗡𝗕𝗜 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘 (𝟯) 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗣𝗔𝗦𝗔𝗬 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬

The National Bureau of Investigation – Special Task Force (STF) and Cybercrime Division (CCD), under the leadership of Director JUDGE JAIME B. SANTIAGO (Ret.), arrested three (3) individuals for violation of Article 172 (Falsification by Private Individuals) in relation to Article 171(1) and Article 171(2), Article 176 (Possession of Instruments or Implements for Falsification), Article 177 (Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions), and Article 315 par. 2(a) (Estafa by means of Deceit) of the Revised Penal Code.

On 27 May 2025, the STF and CCD received a request to verify and conduct appropriate actions on the illegal notarial activities of a group of persons in the vicinity of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Pasay City, particularly the notarizing of documents using the Complainant’s name and details as Notary Public without his knowledge, authority, and consent. Acting on the request, NBI agents conducted covert inquiries and verifications in the target area on the same date. An entrapment operation was hatched subsequently.

Upon arrival in the target area, two (2) offices offering Notarial Services were sighted. Simultaneous entrapment operations on both offices were conducted, resulting in the arrest of Subjects IRENE CATUBAY y PABORADA, VIOLETA A. TUGADO, and EVETH A. BUENAVENTURA, and the seizure of instruments and implements used in the illegal notarial practice.

The Subjects were brought to the STF/CCD Office for standard booking and arrest procedures and placed under temporary custody and detention. Thereafter, the arrested Subjects were presented for inquest before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City for the abovementioned violations.

28/05/2025

Magtatanong pa nga kung may bayad ba ang consultation 🙄😩