Atty. Jessie Lou "Love" Gumban

22/10/2025

Paalala mula sa IBP: Protektahan ang sarili laban sa pekeng abogado.

Verify before you trust.

05/11/2024

09/12/2023

11/04/2023

6 DAYS LEFT BEFORE THE 2022 AITR DEADLINE

With the deadline fast approaching, the BIR is reminding everyone of the BIR Forms & Filing Facilities to be used by corporations, partnerships & other non-individual taxpayers.

Don't know how to file your 2022 AITR? Watch our webinars to learn how.

Webinar on AITR Filing & Payment - Employees Earning Purely Compensation Income & Mixed Income Earners: https://bit.ly/BIRFBWebinar1

Webinar on AITR Filing & Payment - Self-Employed Individuals: https://bit.ly/BIRFBWebinar2

Webinar on AITR Filing & Payment - Corporations and Partnerships: https://bit.ly/BIRFBWebinar3

31/03/2023

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 40-2023

Announces the availability of the Offline electronic Bureau of Internal Revenue Forms (eBIRForms) Package Version7.9.4. For full text, https://bit.ly/3M1v94V

23/03/2023

SC RULING | Marital Infidelity is Psychological Violence under VAWC

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) of a man who cohabited with another woman and impregnated the same while his wife was working abroad.

In a Decision dated March 1, 2023, the Court’s First Division, through Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, denied the petition for review on certiorari of ### and affirmed the January 31, 2019 Decision and the October 18, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA rulings affirmed the conviction of ### by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act which states that the crime of violence against women and their children is committed by “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s child/children.”

Emphasizing that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence, the High Court agreed with the CA and the RTC and ruled that all the elements to establish a violation of Sec. 5(i) were present. These elements are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and 4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar to such acts or omissions.

Court records show that petitioner ### and AAA were married on December 29, 2006 and had a daughter, BBB. AAA later went for Singapore in 2008 to work there. In May 2015, AAA found ### was in a romantic relationship with another woman, CCC. Worst, she later discovered that the other woman was pregnant with her husband’s child.

AAA later learned that petitioner ### brought the other woman CCC to their hometown prompting the latter to return to the country. Learning that her husband and his mistress started to cohabit, AAA sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter BBB from her mother-in-law.

The petitioner ### was charged with violation of Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262 before the RTC in January 2016. The RTC found ### guilty of inflicting psychological violence against his wife and daughter through emotion and psychological abandonment.

Aggrieved, petitioner ### appealed before the CA and imputed the following errors, among others to the RTC: such as failing to consider that it was his wife who alienated their child from petitioner and for failing to consider that it was him who took custody of the child when she was still seven-months old until October 2015.

The CA found no merit in the petition. It held that contrary to petitioner’s allegation, the Information charged him not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning his family, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omissions” mentioned under Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262.

The CA held that contrary to petitioner’s claims, the Information charged him not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning her and her mother, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omissions” mentioned under Sect. 5(i) of RA 9262. The CA added that while the prosecution was not able to establish that petitioner denied them financial support, the prosecution was able to clearly show that petitioner abandoned them, and such abandonment caused them mental or emotional anguish.” A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but the same was denied by the CA. The petitioner then brought his case to the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that there are several forms of abuse, the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse.

The Court ruled that the prosecution in this case was able to satisfactorily establish petitioner’s marital infidelity, petitioner’s cohabitation with CCC who even bore him a child, and his abandonment of AAA.

“BBB’s psychological trauma was evident when she wept in open court upon being asked to narrate petitioner’s infidelity. In particular, BBB explained that she was deeply hurt because her father had another family and loved another woman other than her mother, BBB,” the Court said, highlighting that the child was only nine years old when she took the witness stand in 2015.

FULL TEXT OF G.R. No. 250219 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/250219- ###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

From the Supreme Court website.
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-marital-infidelity-is-psychological-violence-under-vawc/

23/03/2023

09/01/2023

Nalimutan mo ba ang TIN mo? Itanong mo kay Revie, BIR's Digital Assistant/Chatbot

Maaari nang malaman ang TIN gamit ang TIN Inquiry module ni Revie.

Mahahanap si Revie sa BIR website https://www.bir.gov.ph

09/07/2022

: AQUINO v. AQUINO (G.R. Nos. 208912 and 209018 • 07 December 2021 [Date Uploaded: 07 July 2022] • En Banc • Leonen, J.)

SC Revisits ‘Iron Curtain Rule’ in Succession Law, Upholds Best Interest of the Child

Children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, can now inherit from their grandparents and other direct ascendants by right of representation.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court En Banc reinterpreted Article 992 of the Civil Code, which prohibits nonmarital children from inheriting from their siblings who are marital children, as well as “relatives of [their] father or mother[.]” The Decision used the terms “marital” and “nonmarital” to replace the terms “legitimate” and “illegitimate” when referring to the children, as the latter terms are pejorative terms when used to describe children based on their parents’ marital status.

This case involves a woman who claims to be the nonmarital child of a man who died before she was born. After her alleged paternal grandfather died, she asserted her right to represent her deceased father—a marital child—in inheriting from her grandfather’s estate.

However, in previous cases, the Court had interpreted Article 992 as barring nonmarital children from inheriting from their grandparents and other direct ascendants, as they are covered by the term “relatives.” The Supreme Court had called this prohibition the “iron curtain rule,” inferred from a perceived hostility between the marital and nonmarital sides of a family.

Now, the Court reexamined the iron curtain rule, finding that Article 992 “should be construed to account for other circumstances of birth and family dynamics. Peace within families cannot be encouraged by callously depriving some of its members of their inheritance. Such deprivation may even be the cause of antagonism and alienation that could have been otherwise avoided.”

The Court also recognized that nonmarital children primarily suffer the consequences imposed by laws, despite the status being beyond their power to change. Some children may be nonmarital because their parents choose not to marry; in 2016, the Philippine Statistics Authority reported that, from 2007 to 2016, there was 14.4% decline in registered marriages in the country. Other children may be nonmarital because one or both of their parents are below marriageable age. In 2017 alone, 196,478 children were born to mothers 19 years old and under, and 52,342 children were sired by fathers 19 years old and under. There are also children who are nonmarital when their mother was a survivor of sexual assault who did not marry the perpetrator; or when one parent dies before they can marry the other parent.

Departing from regressive conjectures about family life in favor of the best interests of the child, the Court abandoned the presumption that “nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or that they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family.”

The Court ruled that grandparents and other direct ascendants are outside the scope of “relatives” under Article 992. “Both marital and nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants.” Thus, a nonmarital child’s right of representation should be governed by Article 982 of the Civil Code, which does not differentiate based on the birth status of grandchildren and other direct descendants.

The two amici curiae appointed by the Court, Dean Cynthia Del Castillo and Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, also contributed insights on the Civil Code, Family Code, and jurisprudential treatment of nonmarital children.

However, because of factual issues with the nonmarital child’s claim of filiation, the Court remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court and ordered it to receive further evidence, including DNA evidence. It emphasized that DNA testing is a valid method of determining filiation in all cases where this is an issue.

| Media Release by the Supreme Court Public Information Office dated 31 March 2022

Read full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28508/

07/07/2022

: Cabañez v. AAA (G.R. No. 187175 • Second Division • Leonen, J.)

SC: Anti-VAWC Law Protects Even Women in Illicit Relationships
The illicitness of a relationship a woman engages in does not diminish her dignity in any way. She will be protected just the same by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division upheld a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, over contentions that sought to straitjacket the text and spirit of the law.

The petitioner was a man against whom the PPO had been issued to prevent further acts of violence against the respondents—his longtime live- in partner, a woman, and their children. He was 47 and admittedly married when he met the respondent woman, then 20, in 1979.

Before the Court, the petitioner primarily argues that Republic Act No. 9262 cannot provide relief for the respondent woman, as she was only his paramour. For him, although the law’s protection extends to a woman with whom one has or had a sexual or dating relationship, this should be interpreted to mean as a relationship without any legal impediment to marry each other. Otherwise, he says, the law would effectively tolerate adulterous relationships.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not make any distinction, neither should the courts, the Court corrected the petitioner’s mistaken notion. It said that the law “protects women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship”—including the respondent woman and their children.

The Court applied the same rule in rejecting the petitioner’s other contention: that since their children have attained the age of majority by the time the PPO was issued, this precludes the application of Republic Act No. 9262, which defines “children” as those below 18 years old, or older but incapable of taking care of themselves.

Citing Estacio v. Estacio, a similar case of violence against women and their children, the Court explained that neither Republic Act No. 9262 nor the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children distinguishes the age at which children are included in protection orders.

On both issues, the Court upheld the State policy of protecting women and children from violence and threats to their security and safety, declaring that it “will not interpret a provision of Republic Act No. 9262 as to make it powerless and futile.”

The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload the decision to the SC website once it receives an official copy from the Office of the Clerk Court Second Division. (G.R. No. 187175, Cabañez v. AAA)
| Media Release by the Supreme Court Public Information Office

01/07/2022

Revenue Regulations No. 6-2022

Removes the 5-year validity period on receipts/invoices

For full text, https://bit.ly/3yzTlny