Encarnacion & Pilapil Law Offices

Encarnacion & Pilapil Law Offices Encarnacion & Pilapil Law Offices is a full-service law firm which aims to provide an efficient and

Encarnacion & Pilapil is a full-service law office which aims to provide an efficient and economically sound but globally competitive legal service. Founded in 2013, EncarnacionLaw has since represented domestic and foreign clients involving criminal, civil and tax litigation in various judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agencies. Its lawyers have also assisted clients in their corporate

and tax compliance and has provided valued advice in the emerging field of electronic commerce, technology and telecommunications.

The Firm's Founding Partner (on leave) The Honorable Ian dela Cruz Encarnacion and the new Managing Partner Atty. Julius...
23/02/2025

The Firm's Founding Partner (on leave) The Honorable Ian dela Cruz Encarnacion and the new Managing Partner Atty. Julius Caesar A. Asuncion attended the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Cavite Chapter General Assembly of Members and Election of Officers for A.Y. 2025-2027.

Before his appointment to the Bench in 2023, Judge Encarnacion was an active member and officer of IBP Cavite Chapter and the IBP Southern Luzon Region. He served as Assistant Secretary (2016-2017), Chairman of Chapter Legal Aid Committee (2017-2019 & 2019-2021), and Secretary (2021-2023). He also served as the Southern Luzon Regional Legal Aid Chair from 2021-2023. Since passing the Bar in 2023, Atty. Asuncion has served the IBP Cavite as a volunteer legal aid lawyer. He is currently being eyed to serve in one of the Standing Committees of the Chapter. EPLaw stands as one of the partner firms of the IBP Legal Aid program and caters to the needs of the less privileged and qualified clients it serves.

In behalf of the Firm, we offer our congratulations to the new officers of IBP Cavite Chapter.

Serve the Country! Hail the IBP!

The   (SC) has reaffirmed that double jeopardy does not apply when the State is deprived of due process despite a previo...
22/02/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that double jeopardy does not apply when the State is deprived of due process despite a previous acquittal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division set aside the acquittal for perjury of Manuel T. Ubarra, Jr. (Ubarra), in his capacity as Vice President of CJH Development Corporation (CJH). The SC also and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for further proceedings.

Atty. Arnel Paciano D. Casanova, then Chief Executive Officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), filed a case for perjury against Ubarra after the latter charged him with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and the Civil Service Decree.

The Metropolitan Trial Court found Ubarra guilty of perjury, but the RTC acquitted him, citing the absence of Casanova’s judicial affidavit in the case records transmitted to it. The Court of Appeals ruled that the RTC ignored key evidence and failed to give the prosecution a chance to address the missing affidavit.

Agreeing with the CA, the SC stated that the RTC prematurely acquitted Ubarra without a full review of the evidence. The RTC failed to allow the prosecution to explain or correct the missing affidavit, despite it being filed and admitted by the MeTC. This violated the State’s right to due process, rendering the judgment of acquittal invalid.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-double-jeopardy-does-not-apply-when-state-is-denied-due-process.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/249890-manuel-t-ubarra-jr-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/.

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   (SC) has clarified the prescriptive periods for filing value-added tax (VAT) refund claims with the Commissioner o...
21/02/2025

The (SC) has clarified the prescriptive periods for filing value-added tax (VAT) refund claims with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division ruled that for VAT refund claims filed before June 11, 2014, the 120-day period for the CIR to resolve the claim begins when the taxpayer determines that its submission of documents is complete.

The SC summarized the rules for filing administrative VAT refund claims under the relevant RMCs and the TRAIN Law, as follows:

𝗔. For administrative claims filed 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰:

1. The 120-day period begins from the date of filing the administrative claim with complete documents or when the taxpayer indicates that it will no longer submit additional documents.
2. If the BIR requests additional documents, the taxpayer has 30 days to comply, and the 120-day period begins upon submission or expiration of the given period.
3. If the BIR does not notify the taxpayer that the submission is incomplete, the 120-day period begins from the date the taxpayer voluntarily submitted additional documents.
4. The taxpayer must file the administrative claim within two years from the end of the taxable quarter.

𝗕. For administrative claims filed 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟯𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟳:

1. The 120-day period begins from the date of filing the administrative claim with complete supporting documents.
2. The taxpayer cannot submit additional documents.
3. The taxpayer must file the administrative claim within two years from the end of the taxable quarter.

𝗖. For administrative claims filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟴:

1. The BIR has 90 days to resolve the administrative claim from the date of its filing with complete supporting documents.
2. Once an administrative claim is filed, the BIR shall no longer require additional documents from the taxpayer. If the taxpayer submits an incomplete claim, it shall be disallowed outright.
3. The taxpayer must file the administrative claim within two years from the end of the taxable quarter or the issuance of tax clearance in instances of cancellation of registration or cessation of business.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-clarifies-vat-refund-deadlines/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/246379-2/ .

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   has reiterated that extrajudicial demand is not required before an action for judicial foreclosure can be resorted...
20/02/2025

The has reiterated that extrajudicial demand is not required before an action for judicial foreclosure can be resorted to, unless required by law or agreed upon by the parties.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division granted the petition of Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation which challenged the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its action for judicial foreclosure due to the absence of demand.

Goldland filed the complaint against the former registered owner of a condominium unit and its subsequent owner. Goldland demanded for payment of the principal sum of PHP 4,362,208.14, representing the unpaid association dues, and in case of default, for foreclosure of the encumbrance over the condominium unit in accordance with Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.

The Court held that “as soon a debt becomes due, the creditor gains not only the right to demand—judicially or extrajudicially—its payment or fulfillment from the debtor. In addition, the creditor becomes entitled to the right to initiate foreclosure of the security as payment."

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-extrajudicial-demand-not-required-before-judicial-foreclosure/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268143-2.

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   (SC) has reiterated that a contract of sale of goods is completed by a mere agreement between the parties, even wi...
19/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a contract of sale of goods is completed by a mere agreement between the parties, even without a written document.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division directed Marcelina Villanueva (Villanueva) to pay Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Coca-Cola) over PHP 600,000 for unpaid products delivered under their dealership agreement.

Coca-Cola sued Villanueva to collect payment for Coca-Cola products her business received but failed to pay for. It claimed it had a dealership agreement with Villanueva, who was operating under the name Vedge Trading.

Villanueva denied knowledge of the dealership agreement, claiming it was her nephews who actually managed the business, and that they should be held liable instead.

Ruling that Villanueva is liable to Coca-Cola for the entire unpaid obligation, the Supreme Court stated that while no written contract was presented, the sale of goods was proven through other evidence, such as signed delivery invoices confirming the purchase, payment terms, and actual delivery of the products.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-contract-of-sale-of-goods-finalized-by-mere-agreement-of-parties/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/6bbav392

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No...
18/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No. 6552, popularly known as the Maceda Law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division upheld the validity of contracts to sell between State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) and spouses Carlos and Victoria Baculo (Spouses Baculo) after SITI failed to meet the Maceda Law’s cancellation requirements.

The Maceda Law’s purpose is to protect real estate buyers on installment payments against one-sided conditions in contracts.

SITI owned two parcels of land, which it offered to sell to Spouses Baculo through two contracts to sell. When the latter failed to complete payments, SITI sent letters demanding payment and, later, declaring the contracts to sell cancelled. The Spouses Baculo refused to vacate the property, leading Siti to file an ejectment case.

The SC ruled that while a seller may cancel a contract to sell under the Maceda Law on its own without going to court, it must still comply with Section 4 of the law, which requires: (1) a 60-day grace period for the buyer to settle overdue installments; (2) a notarized notice of cancellation from the seller; and (3) cancellation only after 30 days from the buyer’s receipt of the notarized notice.

In this case, the SC found that SITI’s letters were not notarized, and it failed to provide the required 60-day grace period, giving only five days to settle the balance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   has deferred the implementation of Section 4 of the Revised By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)...
17/02/2025

The has deferred the implementation of Section 4 of the Revised By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which prohibits government lawyers from serving as IBP chapter officers for the 2025-2027 term.

In a Resolution, the SC En Banc approved the request of the IBP Board of Governors to modify the Guidelines for the 2025 Elections of Chapter Officers (Guidelines), allowing government lawyers to hold chapter officer positions for a two-year term, except for chapter president.

However, the following government lawyers remain ineligible: (1) presidential appointees; (2) national government or government-owned-and/or-controlled corporations officers with Salary Grade (SG) 26 or higher and local government unit officers with SG 25 or higher; (3) elected officials; (4) prosecutors; and (5) those employed in the Judiciary and (6) in quasi-judicial bodies.

The SC also emphasized that government lawyers should not comprise more than half of the total officer positions in a chapter. However, this limitation does not apply to chapters with fewer than 100 members, where officer positions may be difficult to fill due to limited membership.

For broader voter participation, the SC also approved online voting provided that at least 10% of a chapter’s members in good standing formally request it.

The approved modifications to the Guidelines apply only to the upcoming IBP Chapter Elections on February 22, 2025, and do not amend the IBP’s Revised By-Laws, which were approved by the SC En Banc on March 8, 2023.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-defers-ban-on-government-lawyers-as-ibp-chapter-officers-for-2025-2027/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4261-the-proposed-integrated-bar-of-the-philippines-revised-by-laws/.

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The   has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage  – can ask the cour...
16/02/2025

The has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.

The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino whom she later married when she returned to the Philippines.

Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.

After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.

Denying her petition, the Supreme Court stated that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-guilty-spouse-cannot-seek-nullity-of-bigamous-marriage/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/g-r-259520/.

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

Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office Page

The men and women of the Firm congratulates the new lawyers of 2023.Your success remind you of the treble role of an att...
17/04/2023

The men and women of the Firm congratulates the new lawyers of 2023.

Your success remind you of the treble role of an attorney - his duty to the State, his obligation to the Bar, and his fidelity to the clients. May you exemplify Excellence in the Practice of Law every day of your professional life.

Our Firm welcomes you and bids you well in your legal journey.


11/04/2021

Legal Update:

Republic Act No. 11534 or the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises Act (CREATE) amending the National Internal Revenue Code was enacted. Then, the Bureau of Internal Revenue promulgated Revenue Regulation No. 5-2021.

Salient features:

* Reduced corporate income tax for domestic corporations from 30% to 25%, and 20% when the net taxable income does not exceed P5 Million AND the total assets does not exceed P100 Million, excluding the land where the building, equipment, and office is situated.

* Reduced rates of proprietary hospitals and educational institutions from 10% to 1%.

* Resident foreign corporations, non-resident foreign corporations, and regional operating headquarters are taxed at 25% of the net taxable income within the Philippines.

* Income tax on Offshore Banking Units at the rate of 25%.

* Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT), except proprietary educational institutions and hospitals, reduced from 2% to 1% for a fixed period.

* Reduction on certain passive incomes of corporations and individuals

* Repeal of Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax.

* Recognized certain reasonable allowable deductions on the income of enterprises such as travel, entertainment, and training expenses for trainees and learners.




Address

Unit C, 875 P. Burgos Avenue, San Roque
Cavite
4100

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 6pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8:30am - 6pm
Saturday 9am - 12pm

Telephone

+63464312103

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Encarnacion & Pilapil Law Offices posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Encarnacion & Pilapil Law Offices:

Share