Rivera-Serate Law Office

Rivera-Serate Law Office Established in the year 2011, the law office recognizes the various legal needs of individuals and entities.

As such, the office aims to help its clients by providing legal services with utmost professionalism at competitive rates.

🇵🇭 Holiday AdvisoryRIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 31, 2026 (Monday) in observance of National Heroes ...
28/08/2026

🇵🇭 Holiday Advisory

RIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 31, 2026 (Monday) in observance of National Heroes Day.

📞 0919-094-0593 | (032) 260-5388
📍 Across Hall of Justice, Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City

🇵🇭 Holiday AdvisoryRIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 21, 2026 (Friday) in observance of Ninoy Aquino Day...
20/08/2026

🇵🇭 Holiday Advisory

RIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 21, 2026 (Friday) in observance of Ninoy Aquino Day.

☝️ Please come visit us before August 21 and we'd be happy to assist you before the holiday.

📞 0919-094-0593 | (032) 260-5388

📍 Across Hall of Justice, Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City

See you at the office!

🇵🇭 Holiday AdvisoryRIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 6, 2026 (Thursday) in observance of Cebu Province C...
05/08/2026

🇵🇭 Holiday Advisory

RIVERA-SERATE LAW OFFICE will be CLOSED on August 6, 2026 (Thursday) in observance of Cebu Province Charter Day.

☝️ Please come visit us before August 6 and we'd be happy to assist you before the holiday.

📞 0919-094-0593 | (032) 260-5388
📍 Across Hall of Justice, Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City

See you at the office!

As we go through this week, let us carry these words in our hearts—not just as a verse, but as a way of life.
02/08/2026

As we go through this week, let us carry these words in our hearts—not just as a verse, but as a way of life.

Republic Act No. 11314 (Student Fare Discount Act) is clear: the 20% fare discount for students is available during the ...
01/08/2026

Republic Act No. 11314 (Student Fare Discount Act) is clear: the 20% fare discount for students is available during the entire period while the student is enrolled—including weekends and holidays.

The Law: Section 4 states: "The fare discount granted under this Act shall be available during the entire period while the student is enrolled, including weekends and holidays".

LTFRB Warning: The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has warned PUV drivers and operators that rejecting student discounts on weekends or holidays will result in penalties: three-month suspension of driver's license and P1,000 fine per offense for drivers; for operators, a maximum fine of P15,000 and revocation of Certificate of Public Convenience.

Be informed here at Rivera-Serate Law Office
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

HAVE A SAFE WEEKEND!

What Happened?The funds were supposed to provide farm inputs to 10 local government units. Instead, the money was funnel...
31/07/2026

What Happened?
The funds were supposed to provide farm inputs to 10 local government units. Instead, the money was funneled to 10 NGOs managed by Napoles, with falsified signatures of mayors and fabricated documents.

The Penalties:
Napoles: Up to 20 years per malversation count + 15 years per graft count
Pacturan: Up to 19 years per malversation count
Both ordered to return P50 million to the national treasury

Why This Matters to You
This case reminds us of the critical importance of:
✅ Proper contract review — Falsified MOAs led to this conviction
✅ Document verification — 8 mayors testified their signatures were fake
✅ Due diligence in government transactions — Due diligence could have prevented the diversion of funds

The case also demonstrates the Sandiganbayan's role in holding public officials and private individuals accountable for corruption and misuse of public funds.

In Rivera-Serate Law Office, we value accountability and transparency.
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

Do heirs inherit the debts of a deceased person? The Supreme Court addressed this in Heirs of Corazon Villeza v. Alianga...
31/07/2026

Do heirs inherit the debts of a deceased person? The Supreme Court addressed this in Heirs of Corazon Villeza v. Aliangan (G.R. Nos. 244667–69, December 7, 2020). The Court discussed Articles 774, 776, and 1311 of the Civil Code and explained that while obligations can form part of an inheritance, ordinary money debts of a deceased person are chargeable against the estate. The Court stated that heirs are not personally liable for the deceased's money debts beyond the estate; if the estate is insufficient, the heirs generally cannot be made to pay the remaining balance from their own property.

📩 Reach out anytime—we're just a message away.
Rivera-Serate Law Office.
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

Can you publicly post someone's name because they owe you money? The short answer is no—publicly posting someone's name ...
31/07/2026

Can you publicly post someone's name because they owe you money? The short answer is no—publicly posting someone's name because they owe you money can expose you to legal liability under Philippine law. While there is no specific law that says "debt shaming" is outright illegal, several laws and regulations make it a risky and potentially unlawful practice . Depending on how you do it, you could face criminal, civil, or administrative penalties under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Data Privacy Act, the Revised Penal Code, or SEC regulations.

A scenario similar to your question was addressed in a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) column. A debtor posted about her work on social media, and a creditor commented: "Ate, maybe you can pay your debt to me now" . The legal advice given was that the comment could potentially be considered cyber libel if it is a public and malicious imputation that dishonors or discredits the debtor. However, a simple, factual reminder about a preexisting debt may lack the crucial element of malice. The key case reference is Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 11, 2014), where the Supreme Court stated that a comment on an online post may be considered libelous if the comment creates a new or different defamatory statement against the original post's author . If it merely reacts to the original post, it may not be libelous. The burden of proving malice lies with the complainant.

Beyond cyber libel, there are several other legal risks. Under the Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) , unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal and sensitive information—such as posting a debtor's name, address, or debt amount—can be a violation . The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Memorandum Circular No. 18, Series of 2019 specifically prohibits lending companies and their agents from publishing the names and other personal information of borrowers who allegedly refuse to pay debts . This circular applies to financing and lending companies, and the SEC has enforced it by imposing fines on violators . The DOJ has also stressed that "debt-shaming" of online debtors is illegal and may be punished under current law. Furthermore, the Revised Penal Code may apply if the public posting constitutes grave threats, coercion, or unjust vexation . There is also pending legislation, such as House Bill No. 6681, which seeks to prohibit the disclosure or publication of names and personal information of borrowers as an unfair collection practice.

In summary, while the desire to recover money is understandable, publicly posting a debtor's name is a high-risk strategy that can expose you to criminal liability for cyber libel, data privacy violations, and other offenses. Safer alternatives include filing a collection case in the proper court, availing of barangay conciliation proceedings, or sending a formal demand letter through a lawyer.

If you're dealing with a debt collection issue and want to know your legal options without risking liability, message us for a consultation.
Rivera-Serate Law Office.
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

In Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio was born m...
30/07/2026

In Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio was born male and registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" with the s*x "male" on his birth certificate. However, Silverio identified as female since childhood and underwent extensive medical procedures, including psychological examinations, hormone treatment, breast augmentation, and s*x reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand. After surgery, Silverio lived as a female and was even engaged to be married. Seeking legal recognition of his identity, he filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Manila to change his first name to "Mely" and his s*x from "male" to "female" in his birth certificate.

The Trial Court Decision
The RTC granted Silverio's petition, ruling that granting the petition would be in consonance with justice and equity. The trial court sympathized with Silverio's "misfortune to be trapped in a man's body," finding that it was not his own doing. The court also noted that no harm or prejudice would be caused to anyone and that granting the petition would bring happiness to Silverio.

The Supreme Court Reversal
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the trial court's decision and denied Silverio's petition. The High Court made several key rulings that continue to shape Philippine law on gender identity.

First, the Court held that a first name cannot be changed on the ground of s*x reassignment. RA 9048, which governs change of first name, does not include s*x reassignment among its valid grounds. The law allows change of first name only for ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult names; habitual and continuous use of the new name; or to avoid confusion. S*x reassignment is not among these grounds, and changing the name for this purpose "may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest."

Second, the Court ruled that no law allows change of s*x entry based on s*x reassignment. The s*x on a birth certificate is a historical record determined at birth. Article 412 of the Civil Code requires a judicial order for changing entries, and RA 9048 treats s*x as a substantial change—not a mere clerical error. The Court emphasized that "a person's s*x is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person's legal capacity and civil status." No Philippine law recognizes s*x reassignment as a basis for changing one's legal s*x.

Third, the Court made it clear that courts cannot create a law where none exists. While acknowledging Silverio's ordeal, the Court stated: "The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress." The Court further noted that "if the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone s*x reassignment the privilege to change his name and s*x to conform with his reassigned s*x, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines."

If you need legal guidance on changes to civil registry entries, we can help you understand your options under Philippine law.
📩 Message us for a consultation.
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

Under Philippine succession laws, a parent’s freedom to donate property is limited by the legitime—the portion of the es...
30/07/2026

Under Philippine succession laws, a parent’s freedom to donate property is limited by the legitime—the portion of the estate reserved by law for compulsory heirs . If a donation prejudices these heirs, it is considered inofficious and must be reduced to the extent of the impairment.

The Civil Code states that "no person may give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will" .
This means:
Donations to compulsory heirs are generally charged to their legitime—treated as an advance on their inheritance.
Donations to strangers must be charged against the free disposable portion (the part of the estate not reserved for compulsory heirs).
If a donation impairs the legitime, it is inofficious and must be reduced.

In Ramos v. Cariño (G.R. No. L-17429, October 31, 1962), a mother donated property to one son, Alejandro. Another child, Gliceria, claimed the donation was inofficious because it deprived her of her share as a forced heir.

The Supreme Court ruled that to prove a donation is inofficious, the complaining heir must show that the value of the donated property exceeded the donor's free disposable portion plus the donee's share. Gliceria failed to prove this—she did not present evidence of the total value of the donor's estate at the time of death or donation. The Court held that without this, the claim of inofficiousness cannot succeed.

A donation is valid if it does not prejudice the legitime of compulsory heirs. The burden of proof lies on the complaining heir to show the donation was excessive.

Same situation? Book your consultation today here at Rivera-Serate Law Office.
Landline: (032) 260-5388
Mobile: 0919-094-0593
Email: [email protected] | [email protected]

Address

Across Hall Of Justice, Pusok
Lapu-Lapu City
6015

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+63322605388

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Rivera-Serate 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 Rivera-Serate Law Office:

Shortcuts

Share

Category