Sarangaya Law Offices

20/05/2026

“You must audit your processes, you must audit your policies, you must audit your implementation to ensure that the employees comply and to check if there are loopholes in the implementation.”

Atty. Sarangaya lays down non-negotiables in the risk mitigation process. He emphasizes the importance of auditing during policy implementation to ensure employee compliance and assess potential setbacks. As part of best practices, he highlights the need for a progressive discipline framework that makes discipline management second nature across the business.

Atty. Ismael L. Sarangaya Jr., as the current Chairperson of PCCI-Makati’s Legal Affairs Committee, led the online forum titled “Employee Termination and Disciplinary Management: Compliance and Risk Mitigation,” an inclusive webinar for MSMEs and HR practitioners, as part of the inaugural edition of Negosyo Talk @ PCCI Makati held on May 15, 2026.

12/05/2026

We are pleased to announce that our Founder and Managing Partner, Atty. Ismael L. Sarangaya Jr., will be the featured speaker for the inaugural edition of Negosyo Talk @ PCCI Makati.

In his capacity as the current Chairperson of PCCI-Makati’s Legal Affairs Committee, Atty. Sarangaya will lead an essential discussion designed specifically for MSMEs and HR practitioners.

🔍 Key Discussion Points:

Nuances of Employee Termination: Understanding the legal grounds and procedural requirements.

Compliance Risk: Identifying potential pitfalls in Philippine Labor Law.

Mitigation Strategies: Practical steps to protect your business and ensure fair treatment.

📅 Event Details:

Date: May 15, 2026 (Friday)

Time: 2:00 PM

Platform: Zoom

Stay ahead of legal risks and strengthen your organization’s HR framework. We look forward to seeing you there!

11/05/2026

The Firm is a proud sponsor of the 5th Annual President’s Cup Golf Tournament of PCCI-Makati City. The proceeds will be used to fund the meaningful projects of the Chamber.

🌟 Meet our Fun Hole Sponsor! 🌟

PCCI Makati is excited to have Sarangaya Law Offices on board for the 5th Annual President’s Cup Golf Tournament 2026, happening on May 29, 2026 at Manila Golf and Country Club! ⛳

Catch them on the greens as they bring great energy to this exciting day of golf and connections! 🙌

👉 Show them some love and follow them here:

Facebook: Sarangaya Law Offices
Instagram:

Don’t miss the action—see you on the greens! ⛳🔥

10/05/2026

To the advocates, the protectors, and the heartbeat of every home—Happy Mother's Day! We salute your resilience and the profound impact you have on the next generation.

06/05/2026

The Supreme Court Speaks: When Is a Statement Not Defamation?

In GMA Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. Nos. 263599 & 263643, November 8, 2025, a dispute arose between two major broadcasting networks over alleged tampering of television ratings data. ABS-CBN relied on information from AGB Nielsen indicating that some households used for TV audience measurement had been contacted and influenced through promotional activities allegedly connected to GMA.

Following these reports, ABS-CBN aired several news and entertainment segments suggesting that GMA was involved in influencing television ratings. In response, GMA filed a complaint for damages, asserting that the statements were defamatory and had harmed its reputation. ABS-CBN, in turn, filed counterclaims, maintaining that GMA’s complaint was unfounded and likewise caused damage to its credibility.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaims, finding no sufficient basis to award damages, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On further review, the Supreme Court sustained these rulings. It held that the statements aired by ABS-CBN were qualified privileged communications and constituted fair commentary on matters of public interest. The Court noted that these statements were anchored on available reports and were not shown to have been made with malice.

Accordingly, ABS-CBN was not held liable for defamation, GMA was not entitled to damages, and ABS-CBN’s counterclaims were likewise denied for lack of factual basis.

Read the full Supreme Court Decision:

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263599-263643-gma-network-inc-vs-abs-cbn-broadcasting-corporation-et-al-abs-cbn-broadcasting-corporation-et-al-vs-gma-network-inc/

01/05/2026

Today, we join the nation in honoring the hard work, dedication, and resilience of every Filipino worker. From those in the office to those on the front lines, your contributions are the backbone of our society and the driving force of our economy.

We remain committed to upholding the dignity of labor and ensuring that the rights of every worker are protected and respected.

To all the workers who keep our country moving forward—Maraming salamat at Mabuhay ang manggagawang Pilipino!

29/04/2026

The Supreme Court Speaks: When Can a Case Be Dismissed Early?

In Inocencio Taganile, et al. v. Filomena Dolar, et al., G.R. No. 262480, October 29, 2025, the Taganile family, together with other families, claimed that they had been residing on a property in Pasig City since the 1970s, and thus believed themselves to be the rightful owners.

However, Dolar’s family, along with the other respondents, later claimed that Taganile and the other families were merely lessees, asserting that they were the rightful owners as the registered title holders of the property. As a result, Taganile’s group filed a petition for quieting of title, arguing that the title issued in favor of Dolar’s group was invalid and cast a cloud over their ownership.

Dolar’s group then filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action since the petitioners allegedly did not sufficiently establish their ownership. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals later affirmed this ruling.

On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court explained that courts can dismiss a case early only by looking at the complaint and its attachments, nothing more. They should not consider other pleadings or evidence at this stage. In this case, the Court found that both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the evidence submitted by Dolar’s group. By doing so, they decided the case too early and did not give Taganile’s group the chance to present their own evidence.

Since the petitioners sufficiently alleged long possession, ownership in the concept of an owner, and the invalidity of the respondents’ title, the Court ruled that the case should not have been dismissed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Read the full Supreme Court Decision:

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262480-inocencio-taganile-et-al-vs-filomena-delos-santos-dolar-et-al/

25/04/2026

Tignan!

“Nikon & Design”, hindi pwedeng i-rehistro ayon sa Korte Suprema!

Nagpasya ang na hindi maaaring irehistro ng ISCO Holding Corporation (ISCO) ang logo o marka nitong "NIKON & DESIGN" dahil sa nakalilitong pagkakahawig sa kilalang trademark na "NIKON" ng Nikon Corporation.

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng ISCO at pinagtibay ang naging pasya ng Court of Appeals (CA) na nauna nang tinanggihan ang trademark application ng ISCO.

Nagsumite ang ISCO ng aplikasyon para sa trademark na “NIKON & DESIGN” para sa kanilang mga ibinebenteng gamit pambahay. Tumutol sa aplikasyon ang Nikon Corp., isang dayuhang korporasyon na naunang gumagamit ng rehistradong markang “NIKON” sa Pilipinas. Ikinatwiran nito na may nakakalitong pagkakahawig sa kanilang sariling marka ang ginawa ng ISCO.

Sumang-ayon ang Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA) sa Nikon Corp. at tinanggihan ang aplikasyon ng ISCO. Bagaman binaliktad ng IPO Office of the Director General ang desisyong ito, ibinalik ng CA ang desisyon ng IPO-BLA. Dinala ng ISCO ang kaso sa Korte Suprema.

Katwiran ng ISCO, walang kaugnayan ang kanilang mga produkto sa mga produkto ng Nikon Corp. at ang mga pagkakaiba, gaya ng imahe ng isang angkla na nasa loob ng bilog at ang kombinasyon ng mga kulay, ay makaiiwas sa pagkalito ng mga mamimili.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng CA at idineklara nito na hindi maaaring irehistro ang marka ng ISCO. Ipinaliwanag nito na ginagamit ang mga trademark para kilalanin at itangi ang mga produkto o serbisyo. Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 147 ng Intellectual Property Code, isa sa mga karapatan ng may-ari ng trademark ay ang pagbawalan ang iba sa paggamit ng kanilang marka sa paraang makalilito sa mga mamimili at magdudulot ng pinsalang pinansiyal sa may-ari.

Kung rehistrado sa Pilipinas ang isang tanyag na trademark, walang iba na maaaring magrehistro ng isang katulad o nakalilitong kaparehong marka kahit pa magkaiba ang mga produkto.

Sa kasong ito, napatunayan ng Korte Suprema na well-known o tanyag ang trademark ng Nikon Corp. Matagal nang ginagamit ang markang "NIKON", ipinu-promote, at nakarehistro sa buong mundo kabilang ang Pilipinas kung saan tinatamasa ng kumpanya ang malaking benta sa pandaigdigang merkado at malakas na presensiya sa industriya.

Nakita rin ng Korte Suprema na isang natatanging trademark ang "NIKON". Isa itong coined o inimbentong salita na walang karaniwang kahulugan sa Ingles o Filipino at hindi karaniwang ginagamit sa Pilipinas maliban bilang isang trademark.

Sa pagsusuri ng dalawang marka, napatunayan ng Korte Suprema na may nakalilitong pagkakahawig ang “NIKON & DESIGN” ng ISCO sa "NIKON" na trademark ng Nikon Corporation. Ginamit dito ang Dominancy Test na nakatuon sa pinakapansin-pansin at madaling matandaang bahagi ng mga marka. Hindi binibigyang-halaga ang mga maliliit na pagkakaiba sa disenyo, kulay, o pagkakaayos.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164274.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164266.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

25/04/2026

Happy Birthday, Atty. Claire!

Wishing you good health, happiness, and continued success in your career and in life. May you continue to achieve great things and make a difference.

Enjoy your special day! 🎉

16/04/2026

The Supreme Court Speaks: Minor Errors Do Not Automatically Cancel a Candidacy

In Errol B. Comafay, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Paquinto B. Sallaya, G.R. No. 279413, January 14, 2026, Comafay filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tabuk City, Kalinga in the 2025 National and Local Elections. In his COC, he indicated his residence as “Taraki National Rd., Purok 5, Brgy. Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga.”

Sallaya, another candidate, filed a petition before the COMELEC to cancel Comafay's COC. He claimed that the address indicated in Comafay’s COC contained a material misrepresentation because there was allegedly no “Taraki National Road” in Barangay Bulanao. The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition and ruled that Comafay made a false representation regarding his residence. The COMELEC En Banc later affirmed this ruling.

Comafay elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not his intention to mislead the electorate and that the issue arose only from the placement of a comma in the address stated in his COC.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Comafay and explained that the supposed discrepancy was merely a punctuation issue and did not amount to a false material representation. The Court stated that cancellation of a COC requires proof that a candidate made a false statement regarding a qualification for office and deliberately intended to deceive the electorate. Since Comafay consistently used the same address in almost all of his transactions, legal documents, and identification cards, and there was no evidence of intent to mislead, the Court held that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling his COC.

Therefore, the Supreme Court granted Comafay's petition and set aside the COMELEC resolutions.

Read the full Supreme Court Decision:

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/279413-errol-b-comafay-jr-vs-commission-on-elections-and-paquinto-b-sallaya/

09/04/2026

Ngayong Araw ng Kagitingan, kaisa ang SarangayaLaw sa paggunita at pagpaparangal sa hindi matatawarang tapang at sakripisyo ng ating mga bayani sa Bataan at Corregidor.

Ang kanilang paninindigan para sa kalayaan at katarungan ay nagsisilbing inspirasyon sa ating patuloy na pagtataguyod ng karapatan at batas sa ating bansa. Nawa’y manatiling buhay sa ating lahat ang diwa ng pagkakaisa at pagmamahal sa bayan.

Isang makabuluhang Araw ng Kagitingan sa inyong lahat.