Baring, Berame, Escalante, and Ondong Law Office - BBEO Law

04/11/2025

FREE NOTARIZATION – AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

Libreng Notaryo para sa mga nawad-an ug dokumento due to Typhoon Tino. Ang atuang libreng notaryo magsugod ugma.

📍 Office Address: Door 303, Mondejar Bldg., Pusok, Lapu- Lapu City (near Lapu - Lapu Hall of Justice)
🕘 Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM; Saturday 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM

31/08/2025

Please be informed that Miss Lizly Lyke Brigoli is no longer connected with our law office. Please direct all your transactions and future communications by messaging us through our official page or via email at [email protected].

19/01/2024

SC Grants Permanent Environmental Protection Order to Preserve Forest in Mountain Province |

The Supreme Court has ordered the cessation of bulldozing, cultivating, building of improvements, and other earth-moving activities that cause irreparable damage to a forest zone in Sabangan, Mountain Province.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez the Court’s Second Division denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by Spouses Robles and Rose Maliones, et al. (petitioners). The petitions challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) grant of environmental reliefs under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in favor of Mario S. Timario, Jr., et al. (respondents).

In resolving the petitions, the Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and the CA that there exists an actual or imminent threat that can be attributed to petitioners, including the activities they are conducting on the subject land that violate environmental laws and cause prejudice to the life, health, or property of residents of Barangay Data, Sabangan, Mountain Province.

The Court also affirmed that since the subject land is presumptively part of the public forest, the acts of the petitioners of occupying, fencing off, clearing, planting on, sowing on, and building on the subject land are contrary to the provisions of PD 705, particularly Sections 51, 52, 53, and 78.

The Court added that there is no evidence on record that petitioners obtained or possessed the requisite permits or authorization to enter, occupy, and clear the forest land they claim. In fact, the City Environment and Natural Resources Office expressly declared that petitioners’ earth-moving activities were being done on a portion of the public forest. These facts were not rebutted by the petitioners, held the Court.

The Court also clarified that the present petition under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is not the proper remedy to assail the validity of the tax declarations in the name of petitioners, nor to seek the recognition of the native title petitioners claim to have inherited from their predecessors.

Thus, the Court held it shall “refrain from resolving the underlying issues on the ownership of the subject land and the recognition of the parties as indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples in the present environmental case which must be addressed in the proper case and in the correct forum.”

“Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from granting reliefs available to [respondents], in accordance with Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,” stressed the Court.

The Court thus made permanent the TEPO earlier issued by the RTC, and issued an EPO, ordering petitioners to cease and desist from bulldozing, cultivating, introducing improvements, other earth-moving activities, cutting trees, kaingin, and other illegal activities that cause irreparable damage to the forest zone and pollution of the soil, water, and the environment.

They were also enjoined from claiming private ownership over the communal forest of Batacang and Am-amoting covered by their tax declarations. Petitioners were likewise ordered to remove their barbed wire fences that restrict the community from the use and enjoyment of the communal forest zone.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-permanent-environmental-protection-order-to-preserve-forest-in-mountain-province/.

12/01/2024

06/01/2024

SC Reiterates Consent of Adopter’s Children Required in Petitions for Adoption |

The consent of the adopter’s legitimate children, who are at least 10 years old, is required for a petition for adoption to prosper.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, as it denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena Bagcat-Gullas (Bagcat-Gullas). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) setting aside the adoption decree previously granted in favor of Bagcat-Gullas.

In dismissing the present petition, the Court emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, is clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for the adoption to be valid.

Reiterating its 2014 ruling in Castro v. Gregorio, the Court held that the “consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitimes, with another person.”

Further, the Court stressed that personal service of summons on the legitimate children is needed to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. Constructive notice does not suffice.

In the present case, the Court found that as the respondents were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings, their written consent was necessary.

As legitimate children of one of the adopters, Jose, respondents are thus indispensable parties to the petition.

Since the respondents were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons upon them, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption is void, ruled the Court.

“The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such, the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present,” said the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-consent-of-adopters-children-required-in-petitions-for-adoption/. Read G.R. No. 264146 (Bagcat-Gullas v. Gullas, et al., August 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/264146-nena-bagcat-gullas-vs-joselito-f-gullas-joie-marie-f-gullas-yu-and-john-vincent-f-gullas/.

06/01/2024

Chain of Custody

In the case of People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No. 199689, the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer.

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.

Third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.

Fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Note: the chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of procedure. It is therefore the Court who has the last say regarding the appreciation of evidence.

03/01/2024

SC: Inventory and Taking Photos of Seized Drugs Must be Done at the Place of Seizure |

In the chain of custody in drugs cases, the seizure and marking, including the physical inventory and photograph-taking, of the seized drug must be done immediately at the place of arrest.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Special First Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, as it granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Allan S. Almayda (Almayda) and Homero A. Quiogue (Quiogue). The motion for reconsideration challenged the Resolution of the Supreme Court affirming the conviction of Almayda and Quiogue for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In granting their motion, the Court restated its 2022 ruling in People v. Casa that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs, which is the first link in the chain of custody of drugs cases, generally must be done at the place of seizure.

The exception to this rule is where the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized item may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team, provided that police officers have justification that (1) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure or (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure, held the Court.

The Court added that when the police officers are able to provide a sensible reason, which is practicable, consistent, and not merely generic or an afterthought, then the courts will recognize that the police officers may indeed conduct the inventory at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Such reason must be indicated in the affidavits of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the inventory and photograph-taking of the seized shabu were done at the PDEA office, not at the place of arrest. However, the prosecution witnesses failed to give any justification for their deviation from the general rule. Hence, the first link in the chain of custody was broken.

The Court also clarified that even if the succeeding links in the chain of custody were compliant with the requirements under the law, this does not serve to cure the breach which attended early on the first link. “There was already a significant break [in the chain of custody] such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination even though the subsequent links were not similarly infirm,” held the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-inventory-and-taking-photos-of-seized-drugs-must-be-done-at-the-place-of-seizure/. Read G.R. No. 227706 (People v. Almayda and Quiogue, June 14, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/227706-people-of-the-philippines-vs-allan-almayda-y-selfides-and-homero-quiogue-y-adornado/.

25/12/2023

Wishing everyone a joyous Christmas filled with warmth, love, and endless happiness!

Merry Christmas from Baring, Berame, Escalante, and Ondong Law Office.

12/12/2023

Libreng Notaryo sa mga “affidavit of loss” para sa atuang mga igsuon nga na sunogan. Bisita lang mo sa atuang office sa Door 303, Mondejar Bldg., Pusok, Lapu - Lapu City. Makita atuang office atbang sa may Lapu-Lapu Hall of Justice.

06/05/2023

The Baring, Berame, Escalante and Ondong Law Office is officially open.

On behalf of all the partners, we would like to thank all our family and friends who joined us during the blessing of our office at Door 303, Mondejar Bldg., Pusok, Lapu-Lapu, Cebu. We would also like to express our heartful gratitude to the generosity of the following people:

To Fr. Dolindo Tabudlong for blessing the BBEO Law Office, the Baring Law Office (Atty. Linda Susan Baring, Miss Leah Bulan, Grace and PJ), The Berame Family, The Java Pavilion (Mr and Mrs. Caesar Atienza, Miss Tina Skrobanek and Joao Atienza), Mr and Mrs. Teofilo Jr. and Victorina Ondong and family, Miss Vanessa Go and family, The MangGaGuBaPa Law, and Mrs. Basil Anderson and family.