GMA Law Office Danao City

09/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of their notarial commission.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division dismissed the administrative complaint against Attys. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr., Editha Talaboc, and Mark Oliveros (respondents) due to lack of proof that they allowed the unauthorized use of their notarial signatures, notarial seals, and notarial registers for a fee.

The complaint stemmed from the alleged notarization of documents related to criminal cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the Malampaya Fund issue. The documents were supposedly notarized using the respondents’ signatures, notarial seals, and registers – allegedly forged by Ben Hur Luy.

The 𝘕𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 prohibits notaries from notarizing documents if the signatory is not present and properly identified. The Ombudsman claimed that the respondents allowed others to misuse their notarial registers, stamps, and seals in exchange for money and recommended disciplinary action.

However, the SC held that there was no concrete proof that the respondents willingly allowed the misuse of their notarial registers, stamps, and seals.

It noted several missing elements in the documents, including details such as respondents’ notarial commission serial numbers, office addresses, Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapters, and Professional Tax Receipt numbers. It also found irregularities in the notarial certificates regarding the validity of their notarial commissions.

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

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

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

09/04/2025

Our GMA law office is open for you: Our holiday hours ensure you are taken care of, even on special days. Come and visit us at Guinsay, Danao City near San Antonio de Padua.

Free Consultation for the folowing cases:
📍RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act)
📍RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
📍Labor Cases

For more details you can reach us via:
📱+63 908 326 4656
📞 0322398799
📩[email protected]

Have a great holiday everyone!✨

Guiding you through life's legal challenges here at GMA Law and Consultancy✨

📍We are located at Guinsay, Danao City, near San Antonio de Padua Durano Campus.

For more info you can contact us on;
📱+63 908 326 4656
📞 0322398799
📩[email protected]

09/04/2025

Daily Bible Verse

This verse is a reminder that true success comes from aligning our plans with God's will and seeking His guidance, rather than relying solely on our own abilities or plans✨

08/04/2025

Emphasizing the importance of social security protection for all, the has ruled that all Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) must be covered under the Social Security System (SSS) as required by Republic Act No. (RA) 11199, or the Social Security Act of 2018. The Court, however, held that requiring land-based OFWs to pay their SSS contributions before obtaining an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) is unconstitutional.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC En Banc declared unconstitutional Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 11199 (IRR) requiring advance payment of SSS contributions as a precondition for the OEC. The SSS, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and Department of Labor and Employment are permanently prohibited from implementing the requirement.

Migrante International and other petitioners challenged the law and its IRR, claiming they discriminate against land-based OFWs. They argued that land-based OFWs should not be treated as self-employed or required to pay their employer’s share since they have foreign employers. They also claimed that requiring the payment of SSS contributions for the issuance of an OEC is unfair and restricts their right to work and travel.

The Court held that all OFWs, whether land-based or sea-based, have the right to social security. It added that the State must consider differences in employment conditions when enforcing social security laws.

Social security policies must be fair. Thus, the SC clarified that land-based OFWs cannot be forced to pay SSS contributions before getting an OEC.

Tying OEC issuance to SSS payments unfairly burdens OFWs who have not yet started work or received salaries. This contradicts the principle of protecting workers’ rights.

The SC also ruled that this violates the right to travel for land-based OFWs, as lacking the OEC significantly restricts their ability to travel abroad.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-upholds-mandatory-sss-coverage-for-ofws-but-strikes-down-payment-requirement-for-oec/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-migrante-international-feliza-b-benitez-et-al-vs-social-security-system-represented-by-carlos-g-dominguez-iii-in-his-capacity-as-chairman-aurora-c-ignacio-et-al/.

Read the full text of the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-separate-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/.

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/.

Read the full text of the the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-dissent-justice-amy-c-lazaro-javier/.

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

07/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that companies issuing registered securities must use only certified public accountants (CPAs) accredited by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for independent audits of their annual financial statements.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC En Banc granted the SEC’s Second Motion for Reconsideration, reversing its previous ruling and declaring valid and not unconstitutional Rule 68, paragraph 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Securities Regulation Code (RA No. 8799) and SEC Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2009.

These rules require CPAs serving as external auditors for corporations issuing registered securities to obtain SEC accreditation.

The SEC, which regulates the corporate sector and securities industry, issued the accreditation rule as a quality control measure for external auditors.

However, 1Accountants Party List, Inc., an organization of CPAs, challenged this requirement, arguing that it restricted CPAs’ right to practice their profession under the Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004 (RA No. 9298).

In its June 21, 2022 Decision, the SC ruled that the SEC’s authority applied only to corporations, not individual CPAs. However, after reconsideration, the SC found merit in the SEC’s arguments and reversed its earlier decision.

The SC held that the Accountancy Act does not limit regulation of the practice of accountancy to the Professional Regulatory Board of Accountancy. The Securities Regulation Code and the Revised Corporation Code give the SEC powers to implement the State policy to protect investors, ensure full and fair disclosure of securities, and minimize insider trading, which harms the free market.

This accreditation requirement is not a regulation of the accountancy profession but the specific activity of auditing. Thus, CPAs engaged merely for bookkeeping or other non-audit services are not required to be accredited by the SEC.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2fy8xat9.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yw5ne3ak.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/8ahnravu.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://tinyurl.com/4t87dvsa.

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

07/04/2025

The verse encourages us to find pleasure and satisfaction in God, rather than in worldly pursuits and when we prioritize delighting in God, He will grant the desires of our hearts. ✨

05/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

05/04/2025

As we walk with God, we can praise Him for His faithfulness whether win or lose.
We can always count on God, our Heavenly Father, for He changes not; He always is the same. Yesterday, today, forever, He is faithful, And we know He loves us.🙌
Have a blessed day!

04/04/2025

Intent to Commit Crime Vs. Intent to Perpetrate the Act⚖️

SC: In Criminal Law, Intent to Commit Crime is Different from Intent to Perpetrate the Act |

Dispensing with proof of criminal intent for crimes mala prohibita, where criminal intent is not an element, does not discharge the prosecution’s burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the prohibited act was done by the accused intentionally.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, granting the petition for review on certiorari filed by Felix G. Valenzona (Valenzona). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) conviction of Valenzona for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree (PD 957).

The Court clarified that while jurisprudence has recognized that a violation of PD 957 is regarded as malum prohibitum, or such offenses which are prohibited regardless of the person’s intent, the prosecution nevertheless still needs to show that the prohibited act was done intentionally by the accused.

The Court thus proceeded to distinguish between ‘intent to commit the crime’ and ‘intent to perpetrate the act’: “[W]hile a person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime regarded as malum prohibitum, he or she may still be held liable if he or she did intend to commit an act that is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. Thus, for acts that are mala prohibita, the intent to perpetrate the prohibited act under the special law must nevertheless be shown.”

“While volition or voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done (as opposed to knowledge of the nature of the act), criminal intent is the state of mind that goes beyond voluntariness, and it is this intent which is punished by crimes mala in se,” held the Court.

Thus, for crimes mala in se, there must be proof of criminal intent, while for crimes mala prohibita, it is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously, provided that it is established that the accused had the volition or intent to commit the prohibited act.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-in-criminal-law-intent-to-commit-crime-is-different-from-intent-to-perpetrate-the-act/.

Read G.R. No. 248584 (Valenzona v. People) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248584-the-people-of-the-philippines-vs-felix-g-valenzona/.

04/04/2025

This verse encourage us to not give up wherever or whatever we do in our daily life. Know that our work will be rewarded and that God sees it.✨
Have a blessed day!

03/04/2025

Good day!
For notary services and legal consultations you can visit our Law Office located at San Antonio, Guinsay Danao City near CSAP Durano Campus.

Free Consultation for the folowing cases:
📍RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act)
📍RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
📍Labor Cases

For more info you can contact us on:
📩[email protected]
📱09083264656
📞0322398799

03/04/2025

Dear God, as we go about our day, we pray that everything we do brings glory to your name. Whether we are eating, drinking, or working, may our actions reflect your love and grace. Help us to always keep you at the forefront of our mind and to seek your will in all that we do.✨😇