Atty. Malaquias Friday B. Bartiquin, LCB

07/01/2026

18/12/2025

Please be advised that I will be on vacation from December 19 to 27, 2025, in observance of the holiday season.

I'll be be back on December 28 to 30, 2025, but just a heads up, these days will be for limited transactions only since I'll be doing my year-end case investory. During this time I won't be able to accomodate unscheduled appointments and will only meet clients with prior appointments.

For inquiries, you may send a message to this page, but please note that I will be able to respond only upon my official resumption of office.

If you have an emergency or urgent legal concern, you may call or message me directly on my mobile number.

Regular office operations will officially resume on January 5, 2025.

Thank you so much for your understanding and continued support. Wishing everyone a peaceful and happy holiday season.

02/12/2025

The pilot implementation of the Bureau of Customs’ Electronic Payment Portal System will finally begin on December 10 for all ports nationwide

22/08/2025

Verbal Loan Agreements, Valid or Not?

Imagine you have a friend who asked to borrow money, and because you are close friends and you trusted him you lent him the money without any written agreement. Then, after a few months, you needed the money, but he denied that he borrowed money from you and is asking you for proof. Can you still file a case against your friend to make him pay you even though you don't have any written proof?

The New Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 1358 in relation to money loans provides that "contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one."

At first glance of the law, we might say that if the amount of the loan exceeds P500.00 it is mandatory that it must be reduced into writing; however, the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Spouses Antonio and Lo**ta Tan v. Carmelito Villapaz, G.R. No. 160892, November 22, 2005, stated that the requirement under Article 1358 for it to be in writing is only for convenience.

A contract of loan cannot be invalidated simply because it was not reduced into writing. Contracts are binding whether oral or written, provided that all the essential requisites for their validity are present.

In conclusion, you can still demand payment from your friend even without a written agreement because the requirement to reduce it into writing is merely for convenience, meaning it only makes the collection easier specially in court since you have a written proof of it.

Send a message to learn more

30/07/2025

Via En Banc Resolution No. 78, Series of 2025, the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) issued the 2025 Revised Rules of Procedure. The Revised Rules mark a significant change as it introduced the Rule on Ex*****on Pending Appeal and Preliminary Attachment. With these procedural innovations, the HSAC aims to make its adjudicatory process more stakeholder-centric.

Anchored on DOJ Opinion No. 37, Series 2023, secured by Officer-in-Charge - Executive Commissioner Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., the Rule on Ex*****on Pending Appeal states that, in the absence of a stay order from the Court of Appeals, decisions and resolutions of the Commission shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from the parties’ receipt thereof.
This means parties do not have to wait for the decision of an appellate court because HSAC’s judgments are considered final and executory, unless stayed by the appellate court.

Meanwhile, the Rule on Preliminary Attachment provides added security for the buyers of real estate, for the property subject of the transaction shall be attached to ensure that the developer does not renege on its obligation to deliver the subject property to the buyer.

HSAC's OIC-Executive Commissioner Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. lauded the 2025 Revised Rules of Procedure as it underscores the Commission's commitment to a just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudicatory process, which is aligned with DHSUD Secretary Jose Ramon Aliling's 8-point Agenda.

"Through these rules, we intend to make our dispute resolution more efficient, accessible, and responsive," OIC-Executive Commissioner Exconde added.

The 2025 Revised Rules were published on 30 June 2025 in the Philippine Star and shall become effective after fifteen (15) calendar days from its publication. The Revised Rules will also be accessible to the public through the official HSAC website at www.hsac.gov.ph.

09/07/2025

1x40'' GRT WATER TANK from Busan, South Korea safely released from the Customs House.

09/07/2025

09/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that an acknowledgment receipt cannot be considered a contract of sale unless it clearly shows that the seller intends to transfer ownership of the property to the buyer.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the agreement between Virgilio B. Chavez and his fellow petitioners (Chavez family) on one hand, and Spouses Joselito and Adriana Gopez (spouses) on the other was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale.

The case involved two properties inherited by the Chavez family, which they agreed to sell to the Spouses Gopez for PHP 31.5 million. The spouses were required to pay PHP 5 million as downpayment and to prepare the necessary documents, including the contract to sell.

The spouses initially paid PHP 200,000, noted in an acknowledgment receipt as “earnest money.” This receipt was the only proof of their agreement.

Later, the Chavez family canceled the agreement, claiming that the spouses had not paid the full down payment and had delayed the paperwork. This led the Spouses Gopez to file a case to force the Chavez family to proceed with the sale.

Ruling that the transaction was a contract to sell, the SC explained that in such a contract, the seller does not agree to transfer ownership of the property just yet. The seller only commits to fulfilling their promise to sell the properties and transfer title to the buyer after an event, typically the full payment of the purchase price. If this does not happen, their obligation to sell does not arise, and the seller retains ownership of the property.

In contrast, a contract of sale clearly shows the seller's intent to transfer ownership to the buyer.

In this case, the acknowledgment receipt did not include any promise to transfer ownership. It only showed that the spouses needed to meet conditions: the payment of the purchase price and preparation of the contract to sell, deed of sale, and estate settlement.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4hvfm3ze.

Read the the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/msysydyb.

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

02/07/2025

The (SC) has found two managers of a pizza restaurant guilty of simple theft for having kept service charges that should have been paid to the restaurant’s employees.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division sentenced Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos, two store managers at the Shakey’s branch in Angono, Rizal, to 6 months in prison. It also ordered them to pay their fellow employees the withheld service charges.

One of Teologo and Delos Santos’ duties as managers was to give the employees their salaries and shares in the service charges. However, employees of Shakey’s Angono branch reported to franchise owner Big G Philfoods & Entertainment that they had not been receiving their share of service charges.

The employees claimed that notwithstanding this, they had been made to sign payroll documents indicating that they received their shares. They said that according to the store managers, this was pursuant to an alleged company policy.

While the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Teologo and Delos Santos of qualified theft, the SC modified the conviction to simple theft.

The 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that the crime of theft is committed by one who takes something that belongs to another without permission, intending to benefit from it, without using violence or force. Theft becomes qualified when it involves the abuse of trust or confidence.

In this case, while the store managers took the service charges meant for the employees, the SC clarified that the victims were the employees, not the employer Big G Philfoods & Entertainment, Inc.

Since there is no special trust relationship between managers and rank-and-file workers, there was no abuse of trust or confidence in this case that would have qualified the theft.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2f6a4tvb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/36vavmjv.

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

21/06/2025

All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves. In their relations with others in the business of life, wits, sense, intelligence, training, ability and judgment meet and clash and contest, sometimes with gain and advantage to all, sometimes to a few only, with loss and injury to others. In these contests men must depend upon themselves — upon their own abilities, talents, training, sense, acumen, judgment. The fact that one may be worsted by another, of itself, furnishes no cause of complaint. One man cannot complain because another is more able, or better trained, or has better sense or judgment than he has; and when the two meet on a fair field the inferior cannot murmur if the battle goes against him. The law furnishes no protection to the inferior simply because he is inferior, any more than it protects the strong because he is strong. The law furnishes protection to both alike — to one no more or less than to the other. It makes no distinction between the wise and the foolish, the great and the small, the strong and the weak. The foolish may lose all they have to the wise; but that does not mean that the law will give it back to them again. Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by then — indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of law, the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it.

- Supreme Court Associate Justice Noel Tijam,

(JOSE PAULO LEGASPI Y NAVERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 225753, October 15, 2018)

14/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that when an accused appeals a criminal conviction, the entire case is reopened—allowing the court to review all its aspects and even impose a higher penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the appeal of an accused who had been convicted of r**e and unjust vexation. The SC affirmed the finding of r**e, but modified the finding of unjust vexation to attempted r**e, which carries a heavier penalty.

In 2013, the victim, then 16 years old, was sexually violated twice by her father, the accused ###. During the second incident, the victim kneed ### in the stomach as he was about to climb on top of her with his ge****ls exposed, forcing him to leave the room.

Convicted by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals of r**e for the first incident and unjust vexation for the second incident, ### appealed to the SC.

While the SC upheld ###’s conviction for r**e, it found him guilty of attempted r**e as regards the second incident, which carries a heavier penalty than unjust vexation.

The SC acknowledged that in several earlier decisions, it had limited its review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.

In the 2010 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵, the SC said it could no longer review the Court of Appeals’ decision to downgrade the conviction from attempted r**e to acts of lasciviousness, as this amounted to an acquittal of the more serious charge.

However, in the present case, the SC held that 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵 was incorrect in invoking the accused's right against double jeopardy.

When the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review—including the possibility of a heavier penalty. In contrast, when it is the State that seeks to challenge an acquittal or request a harsher penalty, the accused may rightfully invoke the protection against double jeopardy.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4nkwwe5c.

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

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