Cagula & Diaz Law Firm

Cagula & Diaz Law Firm Legal Assistance in Siargao Island and Beyond

‼️A timely reminder from the National Privacy Commission: A person’s face and likeness are personal information protecte...
11/08/2026

‼️A timely reminder from the National Privacy Commission: A person’s face and likeness are personal information protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The creation, posting, or sharing of AI-generated images or videos depicting real, identifiable persons must have a lawful basis and respect the rights and dignity of those depicted.

Please create and share responsibly.

Originally published on the National Privacy Commission’s page.

Site: privacy.gov.ph

30/07/2026
Hindi ito automatic violation ng DPA.Ayon sa NPC Advisory Opinion No. 2018-084, hindi automatic na violation ng batas an...
28/07/2026

Hindi ito automatic violation ng DPA.

Ayon sa NPC Advisory Opinion No. 2018-084, hindi automatic na violation ng batas ang pag-monitor ng employer sa activities ng employee gamit ang office-issued computer. Pwede itong gawin basta’t siguraduhing sumusunod sa mga general data privacy principles of transparency, legitimate purpose, at proportionality na itinakda ng DPA.

Hindi ‘rin pwedeng secret ang monitoring. Dapat alam ng employee na may monitoring, malinaw ang layunin nito (halimbawa, para sa productivity o security), at hindi sobra o mas intrusive kaysa kinakailangan.

Dapat din may malinaw na company policy at nakasaad dito ang mga impormasyon upang ma-inform nang sapat ang mga employado, tulad ng rason kung bakit ginagawa ang monitoring, kailan at paano ito isinasagawa, anong personal data ang maaaring makolekta, sino ang puwedeng mag-access ng records, gaano katagal itatago ang data, paano ito poprotektahan, at paano makakapagreklamo ang employee kung sa tingin niya ay nalabag ang kanyang data privacy rights.

BUT… ang paggamit ng software na nagrerecord ng keystrokes at random photos ng computer screen ay maaaring ituring na excessive at disproportionate, maliban na lang kung talagang kailangan at kayang i-justify ng employer.

IN OTHER WORDS, kahit office-issued ang computer at nasa oras ng trabaho ang employee, may karapatan pa rin siya sa data privacy. Hindi ibig sabihin na puwede nang i-monitor ng employer ang lahat nang walang limitasyon o malinaw na patakaran.

Basahin ang advisory opinion dito:https://privacy.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/AONo_2018-084.pdf

Originally published by the National Privacy Commission.

Site: privacy.gov.ph

The SC has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what ...
24/07/2026

The SC has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by AJ Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491sqm parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo, despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young, who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the RTC to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the CA. The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/SupremeCourtPhilippines

Site: sc.judiciary.gov.ph

We’re at the Dapa Indoor Sports Facility today as part of the IBP Surigao del Norte Chapter Legal Outreach Program. If y...
18/07/2026

We’re at the Dapa Indoor Sports Facility today as part of the IBP Surigao del Norte Chapter Legal Outreach Program. If you have legal concerns or need assistance with simple legal documents, we invite you to drop by and avail of the free legal services available until 3:00 PM.

📍 Venue: Dapa Indoor Sports Facility, Dapa, Siargao Island
🕗 Time: 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM (Today)

Free Services Available:
✔️ Free Legal Consultations
✔️ Drafting of Simple Affidavits
✔️ Free Notarial Services

See you until 3:00 PM!

08/04/2026

ALLEGED DISRESPECT OF LOCALS, NOISE POLLUTION, AMONG OTHERS

The Bureau of Immigration said that foreign nationals in Siargao who violate immigration laws will face sanctions.

Check comments for the story.

The   (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof i...
12/03/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

In a Decision written by written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024 containing the 2024 𝘋𝘖𝘑-𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 (𝘋𝘖𝘑 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴), is a valid exercise of the DOJ’s authority over prosecutorial processes.

Under the DOJ Rules’ new standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest, prosecutors must ensure that the evidence to charge a person with a crime must sufficiently establish all the elements and consequently warrant a conviction.

Atty. Hazel L. Meking questioned the DOJ Rules before the SC, claiming that the DOJ encroached on the SC’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. She argued that the DOJ Rules effectively revised Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦, which provides that the quantum of evidence in preliminary investigations is probable cause.

The SC dismissed her petition and reiterated its ruling in 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, which recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The SC held that the DOJ Rules govern only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive functions. These Rules, however, do not extend to judicial proceedings as the power to promulgate rules of procedure over them remains under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The SC noted it had already recognized preliminary investigation as the exclusive domain of prosecutors when it revised the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005.

In 2024, through 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, the SC also ordered the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 which are inconsistent with the DOJ Rules to harmonize them.

The SC’s constitutional rule-making authority over judicial proceedings remains supreme, as well as its power to correct grave abuse of discretion in any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/SupremeCourtPhilippines

Site: sc.judiciary.gov.ph

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Board has issued ULAS Advisory No. 1, S. 2026, which informs all lawyers of the sch...
12/02/2026

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Board has issued ULAS Advisory No. 1, S. 2026, which informs all lawyers of the scheduled launch of the ULAS Portal – Phase 1 on March 3, 2026.

The ULAS Portal refers to the centralized online platform that will be used for purposes of reporting and monitoring compliance with the ULAS Rules and the Manual. Upon the launch of Phase 1, registered organizations may already submit their manifestations of intent to aggregate, and applicants may apply for pre-accreditation or post-accreditation of legal outreach programs and legal missions through the Portal.

All lawyers are advised that access to the ULAS Portal requires an active PJP account.

Read the full text of ULAS Advisory No. 1, S. 2026 athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ULAS-Advisory-No.-1-s.-2026.pdf

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/SupremeCourtPhilippines

Site: sc.judiciary.gov.ph

READ | ANTI-EPAL DRIVE: DILG Orders Immediate Removal of Officials’ Names and Images from Government ProjectsThe Departm...
31/01/2026

READ | ANTI-EPAL DRIVE: DILG Orders Immediate Removal of Officials’ Names and Images from Government Projects

The Department of the Interior and Local Government has ordered the strict nationwide enforcement of the Anti-Epal policy, directing all local government units and DILG offices to immediately remove the names, images, and likenesses of public officials from all government funded projects, programs, activities, and properties.

Under DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2026-006, all provincial, city, municipal, and barangay officials, including DILG central, regional, and field offices and attached agencies, are required to ensure that no public official’s name, photo, logo, initials, color motif, slogan, or any identifying symbol appears on project signages, markers, tarpaulins, and similar materials funded by public money.

Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla stressed that government projects are paid for by the people and must never be used for personal promotion.

Government programs are not personal billboards. These are funded by taxpayers and must reflect public service, not political credit grabbing.

The Circular cites the 1987 Constitution’s principle that public office is a public trust, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Commission on Audit rules that classify such personalized displays as unnecessary expenses. It is further reinforced by the 2026 General Appropriations Act which explicitly prohibits attaching officials’ names and images to government funded projects.

All concerned officials and employees are directed to cause the immediate removal and correction of non-compliant materials. Heads of offices are accountable for full and prompt compliance, as well as for cascading the directive to all units under their supervision.

The DILG also reiterated the call of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to keep government projects free from political self-promotion and personality branding, and encouraged citizens to report violations of the Anti-Epal policy.

Public funds are for public service. Not for personal publicity.

Originally published by DILG Philippines.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/dilg.philippines

📌 2026 Barangay & Sangguniang Kabataan Elections | Calendar of ActivitiesPlease be guided by the official COMELEC calend...
29/01/2026

📌 2026 Barangay & Sangguniang Kabataan Elections | Calendar of Activities

Please be guided by the official COMELEC calendar for the November 2, 2026 Barangay and SK Elections:

🗓 Filing of COC: September 28 – October 5, 2026
🗓 Election Period: October 3 – November 9, 2026
🗓 Campaign Period: October 22 – October 31, 2026
🗓 Eve of Election: November 1, 2026
🗳 Election Day: November 2, 2026 (7:00 AM – 3:00 PM)
📄 Last day to file SOCE: December 2, 2026

Stay informed. Know the deadlines.
Source: COMELEC Surigao del Norte

Address

San Vicente Street, Barangay 4-Poblacion, Siargao Island
General Luna
8419

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+639635532078

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Cagula & Diaz Law Firm 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 Cagula & Diaz Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share