Atty. Mark N B Mendenilla, JD

02/08/2025

The (SC) has upheld a company's decision to suspend an employee who blocked access to the software he created while working there.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division held that JGC Philippines, Inc., a design engineering and construction management company, validly placed one of its senior engineers, Santiago dJ. Sillano, under preventive suspension while investigating his actions.

Sillano developed several programs while working under JGC. When a dispute arose over who owned the software—Sillano claimed it was his, while JGC said it belonged to the company—Sillano activated security features that made the programs unusable.

JGC responded by preventively suspending Sillano. When Sillano refused to unlock the programs and turn over the source codes, JGC fired him for disobedience and filed a complaint against him before the National Labor Relations Commission for breach of his employment contract.

In response, Sillano sued JGC for illegal dismissal and suspension. He also filed a case before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which later ruled that he owned the software.

The SC agreed with the Court of Appeals, which ruled that while JGC was justified in suspending Sillano, its termination of Sillano’s employment was “devoid of substantial due process.”

Under the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, an employer can preventively suspend an employee without pay for up to 30 days if the employee’s presence poses a threat to the company or its property.

In this case, the SC found that JGC had good reason to suspend Sillano.

At that time, the company believed it owned the software, as the IPO had not yet ruled on this matter. Sillano’s action of blocking access to the software posed a threat to its property. Additionally, the suspension also complied with the 30-day limit provided under the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yd2enyea.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://tinyurl.com/5n87sfkc.

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

26/03/2024

SC: One-Year Appointment Ban on Losing Candidates Applies to Contracts of Service |

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional prohibition on the appointment to government positions within one year from the election applies to all losing candidates, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office where they are appointed.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court filed by Raul F. Macalino (Macalino). The petition challenged the rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the payment of Macalino’s wages and allowances as Legal Officer II of the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga.

In denying Macalino’s petition, the Court stressed that Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution is clear that those who lost in the election are prohibited from being appointed to any government position within one year of such election.

Section 94(b) of the LGC likewise states that except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election, within one year after such election, shall be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or in any of their subsidiaries.

The Court added that such prohibition is “a recognition of political will—it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid.”

The Court also rejected Macalino’s arguments that (1) the prohibition does not apply to contracts of service and (2) there was no violation because he was appointed as Legal Officer II in Mexico, Pampanga, and not in San Fernando City, Pampanga, where he ran and lost as vice mayor.

The Court stressed that both the Constitution and the LGC explicitly use the phrase “any office in the Government or any [GOCCs] or in any of their subsidiaries.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-one-year-appointment-ban-on-losing-candidates-applies-to-contracts-of-service/. Read G.R. No. 253199 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253199-raul-f-macalino-vs-commission-on-audit/.

26/03/2024

SC: LGU Legal Officers May Not Represent Local Government Officials Before the Ombudsman |

Due to conflict of interest, legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the LGUs they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. as it reprimanded a provincial legal officer for unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the then Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

The Court found that there is no proof that the lawyer possessed an authority to practice law outside of his duties as provincial legal officer. Thus, his act of representing Gov. Degamo in the criminal and administrative cases against the latter constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

The lawyer’s argument that he was simply performing his official duties as provincial legal officer was also rejected by the Court, stressing its ruling in the 2016 case of Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, that a basic conflict of interest exists when a government lawyer represents another public official before the Ombudsman.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lgu-legal-officers-may-not-represent-local-government-officials-before-the-ombudsman/. Read A.C. No. 13219 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13219-in-re-g-r-nos-226935-228238-and-228325-vs-atty-richard-r-enojo/.

16/03/2024

06/03/2024

Good luck to all future attorneys. Serve our people.

🔔 REMINDER: 30 DAYS LEFT TO APPLY FOR THE 2024 BAR EXAMS |

The application for the 2024 Bar Examinations closes in 30 days, or on April 5, 2024. To apply, create or update your Bar Applicant Registration System and Tech Assistance (BARISTA) account, complete the online entries, upload the required documents, pay the fee exclusively through the BARISTA, and submit |the printed and signed BARISTA-generated application form along with the required documents to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) within ten (10) calendar days from notice of approval of application. Please be assured that your application will be processed as long as you have uploaded all the mandatory documents and paid the fee in full before the deadline.

For more details, see Bar Bulletin No. 2, dated January 11, 2024, at (https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Bar-Bulletin-No-2-S-2024.pdf), the Frequently Asked Questions at (https://bit.ly/2024BarExamsFAQs), or access the OBC Helpdesk at (https://bit.ly/2024BarExamsHelpdesk). Applicants may also contact the OBC at (02) 8552 9642 or (02) 8552 9690.

01/03/2024

SC Disbars Former Bureau of Customs Director |

The Supreme Court has ordered the disbarment of a lawyer who used his position as a Director of the Bureau of Customs in an elaborate scheme of pretending to sell a vehicle confiscated by the Bureau.

Atty. Jorge P. Monroy was found guilty of violating Canon II, Sections 1, 2, and 28 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and was disbarred from the practice of law after he falsely represented that his position as Director III of the Bureau of Customs–Financial Services has the specific authority to sell vehicles that have been seized by the agency. The Court ordered Monroy’s name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. It also fined Monroy in the amount of PHP 20,000.00 for his disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-disbars-former-bureau-of-customs-director/

27/02/2024

SC Affirms Conviction of Child Pornographer |

Sending a strong message that child po*******hy, among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the internet, the Court affirmed the conviction of a child pornographer and sentenced it to imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, as it denied the appeal of Luisa Pineda (Pineda) who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for child po*******hy qualified with the use of a computer system.

The Court found all the elements of child po*******hy under RA 9775 present in Pineda’s case.

Under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of RA 9775, the elements of child po*******hy are: (1) the victim is below 18 years old or over but unable to fully take care of himself or herself; (2) the offender either: (i) hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces or coerces a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child po*******hy; or (ii) produces, directs, manufactures or creates any form of child po*******hy; or (iii) publishes, offers, transmits, sells, distributes, broadcasts, advertises, promotes, exports or imports any form of child po*******hy; and (3) the child’s sexual activities were represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-sentences-child-pornographer-to-imprisonment-and-php2-million-fine/

26/02/2024

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.

23/02/2024

SC Grants Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data in Favor of Environmental Advocates |

The Supreme Court has ruled that environmental advocates Jonila F. Castro (Castro) and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano (Tamano) are entitled to the remedies of writs of amparo and habeas data, as well as a temporary protection order (TPO).

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the petition filed by Castro and Tamano (collectively, petitioners) against Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and members of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army; Police Captain Carlito Buco and Members of the Philippine National Police, Bataan; National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya (ADG Malaya); National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), and all others acting under their direction, instructions, and orders, (collectively, respondents). Petitioners prayed for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data, with prayer for TPO, permanent protection order (PPO), and Production Order (PO).

Petitioners are volunteers for the Alyansa para sa Pagtatanggol sa Kabuhayan, Paninirahan, at Kalikasan ng Manila Bay (AKAP KA Manila Bay), a network of various environmental advocate groups that aim to advance the concerns of marginalized stakeholders along the Manila Bay Area. Petitioners were thus dispatched by AKAP KA Manila Bay to Orion, Bataan, to coordinate with communities affected by the Manila Bay reclamation projects.

In granting their petition, the Court found that petitioners were able to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in their petition meriting the protection of their freedoms through the writs of amparo and habeas data.

Respondents and all the persons and entities acting and operating under their directions, instructions, and orders were thus directed by the Court to comply with the rules on return under Sec. 9 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and Sec. 10 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-writs-of-amparo-habeas-data-in-favor-of-environmental-advocates/

16/02/2024

SC Disbars Lawyer Who Secured Fake Annulment Judgment for Client │

A lawyer received the ultimate penalty of disbarment for securing for a client an inauthentic judgment and certificate of finality supposedly declaring the nullity of the client’s marriage.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the Supreme Court found Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. (Atty. Paña) guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and the Lawyer’s Oath, and accordingly ordered his disbarment from the practice of law.

The administrative complaint against Atty. Paña arose after Melody H. Santos (Melody) sought the lawyer’s assistance for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage.

The Court sustained the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and ruled that Atty. Paña deserves to be disbarred for his transgressions.

Section 1, Canon II of the CPRA expressly prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Section 2 of the same Canon further forbids lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, to the discredit of the legal profession.

Falsification of court documents, in particular, has been pronounced by the Court as an offense amounting to unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. It has the effect of lessening the confidence of the public in the legal system and committing such offense exhibits one’s inability to discharge his or her duties as a member of the bar.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-disbars-lawyer-who-secured-fake-annulment-judgment-for-client/