BCF Law Offices

24/12/2025

10/09/2025

The (SC) has clarified that disputes involving condominium contracts should be decided by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), formerly the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division nullified the RTC’s ruling that held Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) and Sung Ha Jung (Sung) civilly liable to each other over a contract to sell involving a condominium unit.

Under the contract, Cadungog, a developer of a condominium building in Cebu City, agreed to deliver a unit to Sung once he completed payment of PHP 3.5 million. Sung paid a PHP 175,000 downpayment, and later PHP 3 million, leaving a balance of PHP 258,950. Because of the unpaid amount, Cadungog refused to deliver the unit.

Sung then filed a criminal complaint before the RTC against Cadungog, citing a violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦.

The RTC acquitted Cadungog, but ordered her to either: deliver the unit upon full payment of the purchase price, or return the amount Sung had already paid. Cadungog argued that it was the HLURB and not the RTC which had jurisdiction over the civil aspect of her case.

Ruling in Cadungog’s favor, the SC declared as null and void the RTC’s decision on the civil matter of the case.

It explained that while civil liability can be decided in a criminal case, this does not apply when the liability arises from a contract, as in this case.

The SC emphasized that the civil dispute between Cadungog and Sung stemmed from their contract to sell.

Further, under PD 957, as amended, the HLURB (now reconstituted as the HSAC) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contractual and legal obligations between buyers and developers of real estate projects. At the time Sung filed the complaint, it was the HLURB that had authority over such cases.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

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

31/07/2025

The (SC) has clarified that being listed in a corporation’s General Information Sheet (GIS) is not enough to prove someone is a stockholder.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted a motion for reconsideration of its earlier Decision and ruled that Ma. Christina Patricia C. Lopez (Christina) and John Rusty Lito Lopez (John Rusty) are not stockholders of LC Lopez and Conqueror, despite being listed in the companies’ GIS submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The case stemmed from special stockholders’ meetings held by the two companies to elect new board members. Christina and John Rusty sent proxies to participate, but the companies rejected them, stating that their principals were not registered stockholders. The meetings proceeded, and new directors were elected.

Christina and John Rusty challenged the elections before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that their exclusion invalidated the election due to a lack of quorum. The RTC ruled in their favor, relying on the GIS as proof of their stockholder status.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, pointing out that their names did not appear in the companies’ stock and transfer books.

The SC initially upheld the RTC’s decision, considering the GIS and witness testimonies as sufficient evidence. Respondent board of directors, however, moved for reconsideration.

In granting the motion, the SC clarified that the stock and transfer book is the primary and official record of a corporation’s stockholders. A person must also present a stock certification issued in their name to prove ownership of shares.

Under Section 62 of the Revised Corporation Code, a transfer of shares is not valid—except between the parties—until it is properly recorded in the company's books.

The SC ruled that being listed in the GIS does not make one a stockholder, and that the stock and transfer book prevails.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/35m52bke.

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://tinyurl.com/5n75bf7s.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at https://tinyurl.com/a5jwrd4d.

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

21/07/2025

Congratulations to BCF Law Offices' Partners, Atty. Marc Darryl G. Beaniza and Atty. Anisah Julia E. Fernandez for having been officially certified as Compliance Officers!

08/07/2025

The (SC) has recognized that a sudden outburst of uncontrolled emotions, triggered by years of abuse from the accused’s father, qualifies as passion or obfuscation – a mitigating circumstance that can reduce the penalty for parricide.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of accused Leopoldo Singcol’s (Singcol) for killing his father, but lowered the penalty due to the presence of this mitigating factor.

Case records show that during a heated argument, Singcol’s father attempted to attack him with a bolo, but the former stumbled and fell. Singcol then grabbed the bolo and stabbed his father in the chest, killing him.

Singcol thereafter encountered his sister-in-law and her two-year-old son; he fatally stabbed his sister-in-law, and injured the child.

During trial, Singcol admitted to stabbing his father, his sister-in-law, and the child. He claimed he suffered abuse from his father since childhood, and was thus not thinking clearly when he attacked the others.

While the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that self-defense was not applicable in this case, it ruled that passion or obfuscation should be considered as a mitigating factor or circumstance that lessens the penalty. It sentenced Singcol to two counts of reclusion perpetua or a maximum of 40 years in prison for the parricide and the murder of his sister-in-law.

Under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, the crime of parricide is committed when the accused kills their parents or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of their ascendants or descendants, or legal spouse.

On the other hand, passion or obfuscation is a state of mind present when a crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of emotions triggered by previous unjust or improper acts.

The SC considered the parricide a result of “a sudden surge of the accused’s bottled-up feelings caused by paternal neglect since childhood,” as shown by Singcol’s narration and his extreme, irrational acts of self-harm immediately after the killing.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/5yk5j7sr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4xm6xee3.

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

19/06/2025

Congratulations to one of BCF Law Offices' Partners, Atty. Marc Darryl G. Beaniza for having been officially certified as a Data Protection Officer!

03/06/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in drug cases, prosecutors must raise all their objections when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser crime. Any objections not raised are considered waived.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) ruling that found Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino (Aquino) guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002.

The SC also updated its 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢-𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 as set forth in the 2022 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰, by adding the following guidelines:

1. If the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining motion but cites only some possible grounds, any other ground not raised is considered waived.

2. If the prosecution raises several objections, but the trial court addresses only one, the appellate court or the SC shall direct the trial court to resolve the remaining issues based on the Montierro guidelines and this case.

3. If the records before the appellate court or the SC are incomplete and it is unclear whether either of the above scenarios applies, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter, applying the principles in 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 and this case.

Aquino was charged with selling and possessing shabu. He asked the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser crime, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for both charges. The prosecution agreed to the plea bargain for the possession charge but objected to the plea for the drug sale charge, saying it violated Department of Justice (DOJ) rules. The RTC, however, granted Aquino’s plea.

The SC, agreeing with the RTC, reiterated the 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 ruling that courts may reject the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if the only reason for the objection is that the plea violates rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework.

However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the prosecution’s objection if it is based on valid grounds, such as if the accused is not qualified for plea bargaining, or if the plea does not follow the SC’s approved guidelines.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y627x9fk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pcu6ke3.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/5898sb24.

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

30/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that corporations that own units in a condominium can send representatives to sit on the condominium’s Board of Directors, even if they are themselves not unit owners.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division upheld the election of the group of Gregorio Pastorfide, Ramona Matibag, Cecil Monteblanco, and Roland Agustin Angeles (respondents) to the Board of Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation (MPMCC).

Respondents were elected not as private persons but as official representatives of corporations that own units in the building. However, unit owner Peter Rico Rodriguez (Rodriguez) filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that only actual unit owners should be allowed to sit on the Board.

Upholding the respondents’ authority to sit on the Board as representatives, the SC ruled that it is the corporation – not the individual – that is the actual member sitting on the Board. Since corporations can act only through people, their authorized representatives carry out corporate duties, including being nominated and elected to the Board.

The SC added that banning representatives from participating on behalf of their corporations would be unfair and unreasonable.

Additionally, MPMCC’s By-Laws give corporate representatives full authority over all matters concerning the corporation. Thus, respondents have the right to vote and to sit as members of MPMCC’s Board on behalf of their respective corporations.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/bffvky3z.

Read the full text of the Decision at
https://tinyurl.com/bde2pcbm.

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

11/05/2025

𝗦𝗮 𝗟𝘂𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝟭𝟮 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗮 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘀! 🇵🇭

Narito ang oras at lugar ng botohan:

⏰ 5:00AM - 7:00AM - 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀 eksklusibo sa mga Senior Citizen, Persons with Disability (PWD) at Buntis na botante. Maaari pa rin silang bumoto hanggang 7:00PM.

⏰ 7:00AM - 7:00PM - 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀 para sa lahat.

𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙇𝙖𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙖 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨 - Para sa mga Senior Citizen, PWD, Indigenous People (IP), Buntis, at Escorted Persons Deprived of Liberty na botante ng Regular Polling Places.

𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 - Matatagpuan sa ground floor ng Regular Voting Center para sa mga Senior Citizen, PWD at Buntis na botante.

𝙎𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙚-𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 - Matatagpuan sa Assisted Living Facility para sa mga Senior Citizen at PWD.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙑𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧 - Mga itinatag na voting centers na malapit o nasa loob ng komunidad ng mga Indigenous Peoples.

𝙋𝘿𝙇 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 - Matatagpuan sa loob ng mga detention center o jail facility para sa mga Persons Deprived of Liberty.

Alamin kung saan ka boboto gamit ang Precinct Finder: https://precinctfinder.comelec.gov.ph/ 🔍

Para sa karagdagang impormasyon, magtungo sa official website: https://comelec.gov.ph/?r=2025NLE 🌐

09/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a duplicate or photocopy of original documents, whether in paper or electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court, provided there is no genuine question regarding the original’s authenticity or fairness in using the copy.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Ybo Lastimosa (Lastimosa) for the murder of Ildefonso Vega, Jr. (Vega) in a case involving the use of a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate as key evidence.

Witnesses testified during trial that Lastimosa shot Vega in the head outside a cockpit in Cebu City. Vega’s wife also testified that Vega was already dead when she found him at the hospital. To support her testimony, the prosecution presented a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate, which confirmed that he died from gunshot wounds.

Convicted by the trial court of homicide and by the Court of Appeals of murder, Lastimosa argued before the SC that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was committed because the original death certificate was not presented. He claimed that a photocopy, without comparison to the original for authentication, should not have been admitted as evidence.

The SC affirmed the Court of Appeals, sentencing Lastimoso to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay PHP 275,000 in civil indemnity and damages. It explained that under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, a duplicate is admissible as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or it would be unfair to use the duplicate.

This rule applies to both paper-based and electronic documents, reflecting the modern reality where duplicates are often as reliable as originals.

However, the SC emphasized that while a photocopy may be admissible, its weight or value depends on how well it corroborates or supports other available evidence.

In this case, the photocopy of the death certificate, combined with the testimonies of Vega’s wife and other eyewitnesses, sufficiently established that Vega died from gunshot wounds and that Lastimosa was responsible.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://tinyurl.com/36r9m76u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mwe35fhe.

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

05/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

30/04/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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