JADE Law Office

JADE Law Office A lawyer and notary public located in Bonifacio Street, Davao City.

The (SC) has ruled that security guards cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if they r...
25/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that security guards cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if they reasonably believe that the firearm issued by their agency is licensed.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division acquitted a security guard charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. (RA) 10591 or the Comprehensive Fi****ms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The case stemmed from the arrest of a security guard by a police officer who saw him carrying a firearm issued by his security agency. The police officer noticed that the guard was not wearing his prescribed uniform and asked for the firearm’s license. When the guard failed to present one, he was arrested.

While both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the accused guilty of unlawful possession of fi****ms and ammunition, the SC reversed the conviction.

It ruled that under the 1983 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD No. 1866, private security agency guards can carry fi****ms on work premises so long as authorized by a Duty Detail Order (DDO).

The 2018 Revised IRR of RA 10591 confirms that the DDO serves as the authority for security personnel to carry their issued firearm within the assigned location and period. The issuance of a DDO assumes the presence of a valid license for the fi****ms listed in the order.

The Supreme Court PH (SC) has ruled that a teacher may be held liable to pay damages for harm caused by a student under ...
17/03/2025

The Supreme Court PH (SC) has ruled that a teacher may be held liable to pay damages for harm caused by a student under their supervision if they did not exercise due diligence in preventing the incident.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division upheld the liability of Gil Apolinario (Apolinario), the principal of Brgy. Palale Elementary School in Sta. Margarita, Samar, for damages arising from the death of Francisco De Los Santos (De Los Santos).

The incident involved a 15-year-old student who, under Apolinario’s instruction, cut down a banana plant near the school and on the side of a highway. The plant fell and struck De Los Santos, who was passing by on a motorcycle, leading to his death. De Los Santos’ family then filed a complaint for damages against Apolinario.

Ruling that Apolinario, as the teacher-in-charge, is vicariously liable for damages, the SC held that teachers and school heads are responsible for students’ actions while under their supervision. Even outside school hours, educators must exercise due diligence when assigning tasks to students.

Ordering Apolinario to pay De Los Santos’ heirs PHP 355,000 in damages and litigation expenses, the SC
said that under the Civil Code, a person who causes harm to another due to fault or negligence must pay for the damage done.

This obligation also applies, following the principle of vicarious liability, to teachers-in-charge and school heads who are primarily responsible for their students’ actions while under their supervision unless they can show that they took proper precautions.

The (SC) has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the proper...
03/03/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property – not ownership.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the SC’s First Division ordered respondents Ernie “Toto” Castillo et al. to vacate a parcel of land in Barangay Matina, Davao City (Lot 1957), after finding that they had forcibly entered the property.

The case stemmed from a complaint for forcible entry filed by Edgar M. Rico (Rico), who claimed he was in possession of the property by virtue of his free patent application for Lot 1957 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. He claimed that on October 11, 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.

The SC ruled that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership. It held that the only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proven prior physical possession of the contested property. Since Rico had established his prior possession, the SC ruled in his favor and ordered the respondents to vacate the property.

The Supreme Court has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ...
14/02/2025

The Supreme Court has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.

The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino whom she later married when she returned to the Philippines.

Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.

After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.

Denying her petition, the Supreme Court stated that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.

The has ruled that Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) may still exercise parental authority or sole custody over their ch...
31/01/2025

The has ruled that Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) may still exercise parental authority or sole custody over their children despite being assigned abroad.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court's Second Division awarded an OFW sole custody over her minor children, with provisional custody granted to the children’s grandmother.

Ruling on the petition for habeas corpus filed by the children's father, the Court held that the mere fact that a parent was an OFW does not deprive him or her of the right to exercise parental authority or sole custody over their children.

In this case, the Court awarded sole custody to the mother, who was still able to supervise and take care of her children despite being overseas. This, as opposed to the children's father, who was found to be unfit due to his habitual drinking, smoking, and past violent behavior.

The (SC) has ruled that foreign currency deposit accounts are exempt from estate tax under Republic Act No. 6426 (RA 6...
28/01/2025

The (SC) has ruled that foreign currency deposit accounts are exempt from estate tax under Republic Act No. 6426 (RA 6426), also known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division upheld the claim for an estate tax refund filed by the estate of Charles Marvin Romig (Charles), an American national who was a resident of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro.

Charles passed away in 2011 without leaving a will. His sole heir, Maricel Narciso Romig (Maricel), transferred ownership of his properties to herself, including a dollar deposit account, through an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.

Maricel initially excluded the dollar deposit account from the estate tax computation but later paid an additional PHP 4.56 million to cover it. Subsequently, she sought a refund, arguing that foreign currency deposit accounts are exempt from estate tax under Section 6 of RA 6426.

The Commission on Internal Revenue denied her claim, asserting that the tax exemption over dollar deposit accounts was revoked by the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). However, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ruled in Maricel’s favor.

Affirming the CTA, the SC emphasized that the NIRC, a general tax law, did not expressly repeal the specific tax exemption granted by RA 6426, a special law. The Court clarified that a general law cannot override or revoke a special law without a clear and explicit repeal provision.

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has approved the Rule on Family Mediation (Rule) in a resolution dated November 5, 2024 i...
08/01/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has approved the Rule on Family Mediation (Rule) in a resolution dated November 5, 2024 in A.M. No. 24-02-06-SC. This initiative aims to address the emerging need for family mediation, both domestic and international, enhance the efficiency of family courts, reduce court backlogs, and promote the best interests of the child. The Rule also introduces innovations in dealing with family cases.

The Rule describes family mediation as a process in which a mediator, acting as an impartial third party, facilitates the resolution of family disputes and helps the parties in reaching voluntary agreements.

Family mediation, a non-adversarial process, should include children and give them a chance to share their thoughts on issues that impact them. The process must focus on what is best for the child and the family.

The Rule is limited to suits between spouses; parents and children; other ascendants and descendants; siblings; relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity (by blood) or affinity (by marriage); and parties in a common-law, dating or sexual relationship, former or present.

The Rule took effect 15 calendar days after publication. It was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 14, 2024.

Following the Rule’s approval, the Committee, together with the Philippine Judicial Academy, shall prepare for the Application, Training, and Accreditation of Family Mediators.

The Supreme Court emphasized that search warrants must clearly define the location to be searched; otherwise, they are i...
03/01/2025

The Supreme Court emphasized that search warrants must clearly define the location to be searched; otherwise, they are invalid for violating the right against unlawful searches and seizures.

Thus, the SC acquitted an accused due to a defective search warrant and its irregular ex*****on.

The case stemmed from a 2017 operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which implemented a search warrant against Lucky Enriquez (Enriquez) to search for and seize dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The address in the search warrant states, “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”

PDEA agents, guided by an informant, entered a house where Enriquez was located. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they immediately rushed through the open door, apprehended Enriquez, and seized sachets containing shabu.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Enriquez, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

The SC reversed these rulings, declaring the search warrant invalid. The Constitution requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched. This requirement is crucial to prevent enforcing officers from deciding on their own where to search and whom and what to seize.

The SC ruled that the search warrant was too broad and essentially a general warrant, which is prohibited by the Constitution. This lack of detail gave the PDEA agents unlimited power to search the entire compound.

The SC also found that the search warrant was not carried out properly. According to the Rules of Court, government agents must first identify themselves and ask for permission to enter the place they want to search. They can only force their way in if they are denied entry.

Additionally, searches must be made with the lawful occupants of the house as witnesses, or, if they are unavailable, two residents in the same area. In this case, Enriquez was the lawful occupant of the house but was not able to witness the search.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court Second Division written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

27/09/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

Address

Bonifacio Street , Poblacion District
Davao City
8000

Opening Hours

Monday 1:30pm - 7:30pm
Wednesday 1:30pm - 7:30pm
Friday 1:30am - 7:30pm

Telephone

+639276181654

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when JADE Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to JADE Law Office:

Shortcuts

Share

Category