The Law Office of Atty. Jashera L. Gonzales

19/09/2026

𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐃𝐀𝐘 | 𝐒𝐄𝐏𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝟗

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines joins the nation in the observance of Law Day, celebrated every September 19 pursuant to Proclamation No. 1477, s. 1975. The proclamation recognizes the indispensable role of the administration of justice in a democracy and the important contribution of lawyers in strengthening the rule of law.

Today, we honor the members of the legal profession whose work advances justice, protects rights, and upholds the principles upon which our democratic institutions stand.

May this occasion remind us that the practice of law is not only a profession, but also a continuing responsibility to serve the public, defend the rule of law, and help make justice accessible to all.

Happy Law Day!

Serve the Country. Hail the IBP!

18/09/2026

The has reiterated that what Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004, criminalizes is not marital infidelity by itself but the psychological violence that goes with it causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, which penalizes the act of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child.

Married in 1999, the husband and wife’s marital problems began in 2009, when the husband started coming home late and grew distant from his family. In January 2010, the husband sent his wife text messages saying he would no longer return home, wanted to start a new life alone, and intended to seek the nullity of their marriage. The wife later discovered that her husband was living with another woman.

The husband was charged with psychological violence before the Regional Trial Court. During trial, the wife claimed that her husband’s actions caused her severe mental and emotional suffering, and loss of self-esteem and dignity. She said she experienced depression and attempted to take her own life several times.

The psychologist who evaluated the wife found signs of depression, including feelings of inferiority, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and problems relating with others. The psychologist linked these emotional difficulties to the wife’s conflict with her husband and his abandonment of the family for another woman.

The SC affirmed in full the finding that the husband is guilty of psychological violence under the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, sentencing the husband to up to eight years in prison and ordering him to pay a PHP 100,000 fine and PHP 30,000 in moral damages to his wife. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC explained that, depending on the circumstances, an extramarital relationship may or may not cause mental or emotional anguish to the wife. Infidelity may be one of the acts through which psychological violence is committed, but the resulting mental or emotional suffering must still be proven.

In this case, the SC held that the wife’s testimony, psychological evaluation, and other witness testimonies sufficiently proved that her husband’s acts caused her mental and emotional suffering.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173362.

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268619-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168031.

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

16/09/2026

🏡 Need Help with Land Transactions?📄

Looking for reliable assistance with your land-related needs? We can help with:

✅ Land Buying & Selling Transactions
✅ Transfer of Land Title
✅ Deed of Sale Preparation
✅ Land Documentation & Processing
✅ Assistance with Required Government Documents
✅ Consultation on Land Transfer Procedures

Reliable and professional service to help make your land transactions smooth and hassle-free.

📩 Send us a message for inquiries or to schedule a consultation.

16/09/2026

📢 Need a document notarized? We've got you covered!

We offer reliable and professional Notarial Service for your important documents.

We assist with:
✔️ Affidavits
✔️ Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
✔️ Contracts & Agreements
✔️ Deeds
✔️ Sworn Statements
✔️ And other legal documents

📩 Message us today for inquiries, requirements, and appointment scheduling. We're here to make your notarization process hassle-free.

16/09/2026

⚖️ Legal advice is just a message away!

Get hassle-free, convenient, and confidential online legal consultation—wherever you are. Let me help you with your concerns without leaving the comfort of your home.

📩 Message us today to book your online consultation!

15/09/2026

⚖️ Trusted Legal Services
📖 Legal Consultation
🖊️ Notarial Services
⚖️ Case Handling and Legal Representation
🏡 Land Transactions and Documentation

📍Buhangin, Davao City

13/09/2026

The (SC) clarified that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has no jurisdiction over a dispute unless both parties involved are indigenous peoples (IP) from the same group.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division dismissed a petition to compel a judge to set aside its decision in an ejectment case against the spouses claiming to be members of the IP community. The spouses had claimed that under Republic Act No. 8371 or the 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (IPRA), customary laws and practices should govern in resolving disputes involving them.

The case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by Kristoffer R. Co Uy (Co Uy) against Elvin and Jocelyn Sending (the Sendings), seeking to have them vacate a property registered in his name.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals (CA) all ruled in favor of Co Uy and ordered the Sendings to vacate the property.

After attaining finality, and during the enforcement of the decision, the Sendings questioned the jurisdiction of the MCTC. They claimed that they were members of the IP group 𝘓𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘒𝘒𝘒-𝘈𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦. They asserted, for the first time, that customary laws, traditions, and practices should be used to resolve the property dispute, in accordance with IPRA. Under the IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of IPs.

The spouses brought the case to the SC after their motion to suspend the ex*****on of decision was denied by the MCTC. They argued that the Higaonon Tribe and the Dadantulan Tribal Court, not the MCTC, should have jurisdiction over their case.

The SC disagreed and clarified that under Section 66 of IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving IP rights only when all parties belong to the same indigenous group. If any party is not a member of the same IP community, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

Here, Co Uy was not a member of any indigenous group. The SC explained that subjecting him to the customary laws of an IP community violates the fundamental principles of fair play and due process.

The SC also noted that the Sendings simply claimed they were IPs but failed to provide supporting evidence. They did not explain their customs, political structures, institutions, decision-making processes, or any other proof showing they were truly members of an IP community.

The SC stressed that a final judgment cannot be easily set aside, especially when the parties were given opportunity to present their side, and the decision was reached after careful review of the case.

The SC found that the petitioners invoked the NCIP’s authority simply to avoid the ex*****on of the final judgment against them. They raised their claim of being IP members only during the ex*****on stage, despite having participated in the barangay proceedings and the courts, casting doubt on the credibility of their claim.

The SC ordered the spouses to vacate the subject property within 30 days from receipt of the Decision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172796

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-spouses-elvin-sending-datu-gibo-and-jocelyn-sending-bae-orange-vs-kristopper-rahda-co-uy-atty-jocelyn-pesquera-henry-p-canete-jr-and-hon-ameli-amor-r-estrada-presiding-judge-of-t/

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

11/09/2026

The (SC) has found a bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for spreading false information about the 2023 Bar Examinations on Facebook after stating that the said exams would be checked by means of artificial intelligence (AI).

In a 𝘗𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘮 Decision, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 found Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt. The Court fined him PHP 30,000 and ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers.

On September 21, 2023, a post from the Facebook group and the account 𝘛𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘬𝘦𝘯𝘶 𝘋𝘪𝘻𝘰𝘯 claimed that the 2023 Bar Examinations would be “𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 (𝘈𝘐).” It also stated:

“𝘈𝘓𝘞𝘈𝘠𝘚 𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘙𝘛 𝘞𝘐𝘛𝘏 𝘠𝘌𝘚 𝘰𝘳 𝘕𝘖.
𝘠𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘐 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴.”

As a result, the Office of the 2023 Bar Chair (BCO), headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, had to investigate the source of the post and determine its impact on the examinations. It also issued an advisory clarifying that the examinations would be checked by four human examiners for each subject, all of whom are experts in their respective fields.

But instead of removing the post, Dizon threatened to sue the Court and demanded a public apology “within 24 hours”, in a media interview. He also sent several emails to the SC’s Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming that the advisory had a chilling effect on him. He denied spreading misinformation and asked the Court to issue a statement correcting the advisory.

After being directed by the SC to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for interfering with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations, Dizon admitted owning the Facebook account but denied claiming that AI would check the examinations, arguing that he used the words “TO HELP” in his post.

The SC was not convinced and held him liable under Rule 71, Section 3 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, which punishes unlawful interference with court processes outside a courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law, as indirect contempt.

The SC held that Dizon’s post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the SC, which exercises supervision over the legal profession. It caused confusion and alarm, forcing bar officials to divert their limited time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications, and responding to numerous inquiries.

The SC further noted Dizon’s lack of remorse. Instead of acknowledging the harm caused by his post, he demanded an apology from the Court, threatened legal action, refused to take down the post, and sought a statement retracting the advisory.

The Court likewise warned Dizon from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law when he conducted bar review coaching sessions and authored several bar review materials used in the 𝘉𝘢𝘳 𝘓𝘢𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 training program. Dizon acknowledged that while he had passed the 2016 Bar Examinations, he had not taken the lawyer’s oath, which is one of the requirements to practice law, because of pending criminal cases.

In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that Dizon must be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar examinations. However, he also emphasized the need to balance the Court’s power to punish for contempt with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172950

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-in-re-social-media-posts-of-edgar-s-dizon/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

08/09/2026