ARD Law & Notary Public

14/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has suspended the sentence of a child in conflict with the law (CICL), reaffirming the intent of Republic Act No. 9344, or the 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵, to promote the best interests and rehabilitation of the child.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the appeal of ###265302 (accused) and found him guilty of qualified r**e of a minor, imposing a penalty of 12 years to 14 years, eight months and one day in prison.

It remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to order the accused's confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility under Section 51 of the law.

The accused, who was 15 years old at the time of the incident, was charged with ra**ng his five-year-old playmate.

The RTC found ###265302 guilty of statutory r**e after he turned 18 years old. It imposed on him the penalty of imprisonment for eight years and one day to 14 years, eight months and one day, but it suspended his sentence, following Section 38 of RA 9344.

A few months later, the RTC issued an arrest warrant, and ###265302 was detained at the New Bilibid Prison. The Court of Appeals denied his appeal.

The SC affirmed ###265302’s conviction but clarified that the crime was qualified r**e and ordered the suspension of his sentence.

Section 40 of RA 9344 provides that when the CICL reaches 18 while under suspended sentence, the court may discharge them, order the ex*****on of their sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a period or until they reach the maximum age of 21 years old.

In this case, the accused, who was transferred to the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, is now 25 years old.

Nonetheless, the SC extended the suspension of his sentence to fulfill the law’s legislative intent, which prioritizes the child offender’s restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration into the community.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159175.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159085.

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

13/01/2026

15/11/2025

We are open today from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Feel free to drop by for any assistance. ⚖️

05/11/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a candidate’s low vote count in past elections does not automatically make them a nuisance candidate in future elections.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 annulled the November 29, 2024 Resolutions of the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) which cancelled the certificate of candidacy (COC) of Subair Guinthum Mustapha (Mustapha) in the 2025 senatorial elections.

Mustapha filed his COC under the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP). The COMELEC Law Department moved to declare him a nuisance candidate, arguing that his candidacy was primarily a distraction, especially since he received only 5,387 votes—just 2.01% of the total votes for the Lanao del Sur Representative seat in the 2022 elections.

Mustapha claimed that he is a qualified and serious candidate for senator, highlighting his academic credentials, leadership roles, dedication to labor advocacy, and governance platform.

The SC ruled that there is no direct link between candidates’ seriousness to run for office and their vote count in previous elections.

The SC warned that if the COMELEC could declare someone a nuisance candidate simply because of low votes in past elections or perceived inability to win, it would be exercising a power reserved for voters on election day.

In Mustapha’s case, the SC found that his low votes in the 2022 elections do not prove he lacked seriousness to run for senator in 2025.

The SC noted he submitted evidence to show his genuine intent, such as his membership in WPP, a recognized and accredited national political party with various policies on labor and other social justice causes.

While the SC recognized the efforts of the COMELEC to w**d out nuisance candidates, it reminded the poll body to exercise caution and avoid using grounds already ruled as invalid by the Court, such as lack of financial capacity, to mount a national campaign or perceived unpopularity.

Although the May 2025 election results had rendered Mustapha’s petition moot, the SC still decided the case as the issue could again arise in future elections.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154935.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154903.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154907.

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

29/10/2025

The has approved the “Rules on Extradition Proceedings."

The new rules will take effect on November 10, 2025, following their publication in the Official Gazette, in two newspapers of general circulation, and on the Supreme Court website.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 22-03-29-SC here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154454

29/10/2025

The En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, dismissed the Petitions filed by Senator Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases:

(a) The Court dismissed Senator Estrada’s Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 236238, 249919 and 254892 involving the Plunder cases, for being moot and academic. The Court took judicial notice of the Sandiganbayan Decision, dated January 19, 2024, acquitting Senator Estrada of the plunder charges, which rendered the said Petitions moot and academic.

(b) The Court, likewise, dismissed Senator Estrada’s Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 228374-84, the graft cases, rejecting Senator Estrada’s contention that his graft charges under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 are “deemed absorbed” by his plunder charges under RA No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law).

The Ombudsman had initially found probable cause to indict Senator Estrada, Janet Lim Napoles, and several other public officials and private individuals before the Sandiganbayan for the following:

(a) Plunder, punished under RA No. 7080, pertaining to Senator Estrada’s alleged ill-gotten wealth in the sum of at least PHP 183,793,750.00 representing kickbacks or commissions received by him from Napoles in connection with the PDAF scam;

(b) Eleven counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, involving fund releases amounting to an estimated PHP 255,114,000.00 drawn from Senator Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through different foundations, as reflected in disbursement vouchers.

The Court declared that the component act of “giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference” under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 cannot be absorbed by the predicate criminal acts under Section 1(d)(2) and (6) of RA No. 7080, emphasizing that the two offenses punish distinct wrongs.

Under RA No. 3019, the benefit or advantage is given to a private individual separate from the public officer; while Under RA No. 7080, it is the public officer himself who directly benefits by receiving kickbacks or unjustly enriching himself through a combination or series of overt acts.

The Court further explained that the absorption principle—where one offense merges into another—does not apply between graft and plunder, except in rare cases where the same public officer is both the giver and recipient of the unwarranted benefit.

The Decision effectively affirms that violations of RA No. 3019 may be prosecuted separately from plunder.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154637.

A copy of the Decision will be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

13/10/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a marriage officiated by a solemnizing officer without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses honestly believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC’s Second Division dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage filed by a wife who claimed that the person who officiated her wedding was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

The couple was married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, with their marriage contract listing Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) as the solemnizing officer.

However, more than 20 years later, the wife’s lawyer claimed that the purported officiant in their wedding photos was not Judge De Gracia but Rosalio Florendo, a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This led the wife to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

The SC found that the wife failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority. The marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

The SC cited Article 3 of the Family Code (FC) which lists as one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage the authority of the solemnizing officer. Meanwhile, Article 7 of FC clothes incumbent judges within their jurisdiction with such authority. Marriage solemnized by a person without such authority is void under Articles 4 and 35(2) of FC unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized in which case, the marriage is still valid.

While the wife later alleged that the solemnizing officer was not Judge De Gracia, the SC found that she presented no evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.

The SC emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-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-policy/.

10/10/2025

Ard Law Office is currently undergoing renovation to serve you better. 🛠️

Despite this, we remain open from Monday to Saturday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, on our regular schedule. ⏰

Thank you for your continued trust and understanding.

See you in the office! ⚖️

07/10/2025

Pinawalang-bisa ng ang pagremata ng ilang mga ari-arian dahil hindi patas ang interes na siningil sa isang pautang sa bangko at ipinataw ito nang walang pahintulot mula sa nangungutang.

Sa isang resolusyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, pinagbigyan ng Special Third Division ng Korte ang Motion for Reconsideration na inihain nina Editha Ang at Violeta Fernandez (mga nangutang). Ang kanilang mga ari-arian ay naremata ng United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) matapos silang mabigong magbayad ng 16 milyong pisong utang.

Nangutang sina Ang at Fernandez mula sa UCPB. Pinahihintulutan ng kasunduan sa pautang ang UCPB na i-adjust ang interest rate kada quarter batay sa kondisyon ng merkado.

Nang mabigo ang mga nanghihiram na bayaran ang kabuuang utang sa takdang panahon ay sinimulan ng UCPB ang proseso ng pagreremata sa kanilang mga ari-arian.

Nagsumite ng petisyon ang mga nangutang sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para ipawalang-bisa ang pagbebenta ng ari-arian. Ayon sa kanila, hindi makatarungan at walang bisa ang kasunduan na ang bangko ang may tanging kapangyarihan na magtakda at magtaas ng interest rate.

Sumang-ayon ang RTC na ang mga probisyon sa interest rate ay hindi wasto dahil ipinaubaya ang mga ito sa pagpapasya ng bangko. Gayunpaman, idineklara nitong legal ang ginawang pagbebenta ng ari-arian. Binaliktad ito ng Court of Appeals, na nagpasiyang walang bisa ang parehong interest rate at ang pagbebenta ng ari-arian.

Sa una ay sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema na hindi wasto ang interest rate ngunit pinagtibay ang pagbebenta ng ari-arian dahil sa kabiguang makapagbayad ng mga nangutang.

Gayunman, sa muling pagsasaalang-alang ng Korte ay nagpasya itong kung ang interest rate ay hindi katanggap-tanggap at ipinataw lamang ng nagpapautang, ang anumang kasunod na pagremata ay wala ring bisa.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng Civil Code, ang mga kontrata ay dapat patas at napagkasunduan ng magkabilang panig. Walang bisa ang kontrata na nakasalalay lamang sa kagustuhan ng isang partido.

Sa kasong ito, tanging ang UCPB lang ang nagtakda ng interest rate. Dahil hindi wasto ang interest rate, walang bisa ang pagremata ng mga ari-arian.

Naniniwala ang Korte na dapat bigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga nangungutang na bayaran ang utang sa isang interest rate na napagkasunduan ng magkabilang panig. Kung hindi, ang kanilang kapalaran ay nasa kamay lang ng nagpapautang, na maglalagay sa panganib para mawalan sila ng ari-arian bunsod ng hindi patas na pagkakataon para mabayaran ang kanilang utang.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

26/09/2025

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/.