AK Banquerigo Law Office

24/02/2026

Please be informed that despite the holiday tomorrow, AK Banquerigo Law Office will remain OPEN to assist you with your legal needs.

For consultations and inquiries, feel free to visit
From 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM

22/12/2025

We understand that legal matters don't take a vacation. Whether you are looking to resolve an issue before the year ends or planning for a secure start to 2026, our doors are open.

Special Opening Schedule:

We are welcoming clients and guests on the following dates:

​Dec 22 & 23 (Today & Tomorrow)
​Dec 29 & 30 (Next Week)

04/12/2025

The Office of the Chairperson will release the Results of the 2025 Bar Examinations in the afternoon of January 7, 2026. The Oath-Taking and Roll Signing Ceremonies of Successful Bar Examinees will be held on February 6, 2026.

Read the Notice here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-Bar-Notice-re-Release-of-Results.pdf

08/10/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that banks may be held liable for moral damages suffered by depositors due to negligence, even if there is no proof of bad faith or malice.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ordered Banco de Oro (BDO) to pay Remedios and Angelita Antonino (Antoninos) the proceeds of their time deposit, including PHP 100,000 in moral damages.

The Antoninos, who are U.S. green card holders living abroad, made three time deposit placements totaling over USD 150,000 at BDO’s San Lorenzo Branch in Makati City (BDO San Lorenzo). They had an arrangement with the branch manager that if the deposits were not withdrawn at maturity, they would automatically roll over into interest-bearing savings accounts. The time deposit certificates (TDCs) were not redeemed and were stored in a Banco Filipino deposit box for safekeeping.

Later, Banco Filipino declared bankruptcy and was taken over by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). It took the Antoninos some time to retrieve their TDCs from the PDIC.
BDO San Lorenzo then ceased operations and closed down without notifying the Antoninos, who only discovered the closure when they tried to withdraw their investments.

They sent several demand letters to BDO, but the bank claimed the deposits had already been withdrawn, citing a demand draft allegedly signed by Angelita. Angelita denied signing the document.

The Antoninos filed a complaint against BDO seeking payment of their time deposit placements.

Ruling in favor of the Antoninos, the SC cited Section 9 of BDO’s terms and conditions for time deposit placements, which requires the surrender of TDCs when withdrawing deposits. Since the Antoninos still had the certificates, the SC concluded that the funds were not withdrawn.

The SC noted that the PNP expert said the signature on the demand draft was likely forged. Immigration and passport records also showed Angelita could not have been in the country to sign the draft. Further, BDO failed to verify the identity of the person who withdrew the funds.

The SC held that these lapses showed BDO’s failure to exercise the required diligence, especially given the large amount involved.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152203.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152187.

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

08/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

20/08/2025

ANNOUNCEMENT!!

We would like to inform our valued clients that AK BANQUERIGO LAW OFFICE will remain OPEN on the following holiday dates:

📅 August 22, 2025
📅 August 25, 2025

8:00am -5:00pm

Our office will continue to accommodate your legal concerns and assist you as usual.

Thank you and stay safe!
⚖️ AK Banquerigo Law Office

25/06/2025

05/06/2025

📣 Holiday Update from AK Banquerigo Law Office

Please be informed that despite the holiday tomorrow, AK Banquerigo Law Office will remain OPEN to serve you.

Feel free to visit us during our regular office hours for any legal concerns or appointments. Thank you and stay safe!

— AK Banquerigo Law Office

15/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that when an accused appeals a criminal conviction, the entire case is reopened—allowing the court to review all its aspects and even impose a higher penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the appeal of an accused who had been convicted of r**e and unjust vexation. The SC affirmed the finding of r**e, but modified the finding of unjust vexation to attempted r**e, which carries a heavier penalty.

In 2013, the victim, then 16 years old, was sexually violated twice by her father, the accused ###. During the second incident, the victim kneed ### in the stomach as he was about to climb on top of her with his ge****ls exposed, forcing him to leave the room.

Convicted by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals of r**e for the first incident and unjust vexation for the second incident, ### appealed to the SC.

While the SC upheld ###’s conviction for r**e, it found him guilty of attempted r**e as regards the second incident, which carries a heavier penalty than unjust vexation.

The SC acknowledged that in several earlier decisions, it had limited its review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.

In the 2010 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵, the SC said it could no longer review the Court of Appeals’ decision to downgrade the conviction from attempted r**e to acts of lasciviousness, as this amounted to an acquittal of the more serious charge.

However, in the present case, the SC held that 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵 was incorrect in invoking the accused's right against double jeopardy.

When the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review—including the possibility of a heavier penalty. In contrast, when it is the State that seeks to challenge an acquittal or request a harsher penalty, the accused may rightfully invoke the protection against double jeopardy.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4nkwwe5c.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3pmbffmt.

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

30/04/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

30/04/2025

Holiday Notice‼️

While tomorrow is a public holiday (LABOR DAY),
AK Banquerigo law office will remain open to serve you.

Feel free to contact us or stop by during our regular business hours. (8:00 AM - 5:00PM)

We're here when you need us.

23/03/2025

Watch the full video here: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15vXjLXjTu/