Aton Law

Aton Law Lawyer and Notary Public Also, Aton Law Office offers Retainership options, establishing an ongoing partnership to address your evolving legal needs.
(1)

Aton Law Office is your trusted legal partner and a newly established law office located at Basak, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, near Mactan Doctors Hospital (beside Alma Fruit Stand). Aton Law Office specializes in legal services, such as Notarization, Legal Consultation, Affidavits, Special Power of Attorney, Deed of Sale Document, Demand Letters, Certified True Copy, Contract Preparation, and Review. B

eyond these, we extend a range of other legal services, ensuring that Aton Law Office is your one-stop destination for comprehensive legal support. Visit us today and experience the professional excellence of Aton Law.

Celebrating 2 years of Aton Law✨Grateful for our clients’ trust and our team’s unwavering dedication. Here’s to many mor...
15/01/2026

Celebrating 2 years of Aton Law✨

Grateful for our clients’ trust and our team’s unwavering dedication. Here’s to many more years of service and excellence.🥰✨

We would like to express our thanks to our clients for the thoughtful Christmas presents. We truly appreciate it.❤️Looki...
09/01/2026

We would like to express our thanks to our clients for the thoughtful Christmas presents. We truly appreciate it.❤️

Looking forward to serve you best. ✨

19/12/2025

The (SC) has admonished Marikina City Regional Trial Court Judge Rey P. Inciong for his conduct during a parking-related incident involving a Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer, Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula. A video of the incident was later shared on social media.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC En Banc found that Judge Inciong acted improperly when he publicly scolded Atty. Gatdula and demanded a public apology.

Judge Inciong was heard uttering demeaning remarks at Atty. Gatdula after the latter briefly parked his vehicle blocking an access ramp for persons with disabilities and a pedestrian pathway while he logged his attendance to avoid being marked late. Atty. Gatdula immediately apologized several times.

Despite this, Judge Inciong demanded a public apology from Atty. Gatdula. The judge later went to the PAO office, where he again insisted on the apology and lost his temper.

Atty. Gatdula and his supervisor said the judge’s remarks and actions were intimidating and unnecessary, especially since an apology had already been made. They also said that a public apology was no longer required.

The Office of the Court Administrator ordered Judge Inciong to explain his actions and initially recommended that he be reprimanded and sternly warned.

The matter was referred to the Judicial Integrity Board, which recommended that he be found guilty of the light offense of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Canon VI, Section 35(b) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

In admonishing Judge Inciong, the Supreme Court recognized his intention to enforce order in the hall of justice but emphasized that this did not justify harsh language or aggressive behavior.

Citing Canons II (on Integrity) and IV (on Propriety) of the CPRA, the SC reminded judges that even when faced with improper conduct, they must still act with restraint and maintain the dignity of their office. Public confidence in the Judiciary, the SC said, depends on how judges behave.

The SC stressed that judges may exercise their right to free speech and expression, but they must do so within the limits of decency.

The SC observed that Judge Inciong’s conduct was his first offense and that he has maintained a clean record in public service since 1999. While the SC found him free from administrative liability, it issued a warning that future similar behavior will face more serious consequences.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157802

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157776

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157789

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

19/12/2025

The has clarified that the proper term for the crime under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊) is 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 and not 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for ra**ng a 13-year-old girl, sentencing him to a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

Under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC, 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 is committed when a man has s*xual in*******se with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.

The SC affirmed his conviction and also took the opportunity to clarify that the crime should be referred to as 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 instead of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦:

“After all, there is nothing ‘simple’ about R**e and referring to it in such a manner downplays its severity and desensitizes the public to the harm it inflicts,” said the SC.

While 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 was initially classified as a crime against chastity under Article 335 of the RPC, Republic Act No. 8353, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘙𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘓𝘢𝘸 𝘰𝘧 1997, reclassified it as a crime against persons.

Crimes against chastity, such as adultery and seduction, are generally private crimes which focus on protecting the victim’s honor.

On the other hand, crimes against persons, such as homicide, murder, and physical injuries, aim to protect individuals’ bodily integrity and well-being.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

Thank you so much our dear clients. We truly appreciate it. ❤️🥰
09/12/2025

Thank you so much our dear clients. We truly appreciate it. ❤️🥰

06/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

02/07/2025

The (SC) has found two managers of a pizza restaurant guilty of simple theft for having kept service charges that should have been paid to the restaurant’s employees.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division sentenced Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos, two store managers at the Shakey’s branch in Angono, Rizal, to 6 months in prison. It also ordered them to pay their fellow employees the withheld service charges.

One of Teologo and Delos Santos’ duties as managers was to give the employees their salaries and shares in the service charges. However, employees of Shakey’s Angono branch reported to franchise owner Big G Philfoods & Entertainment that they had not been receiving their share of service charges.

The employees claimed that notwithstanding this, they had been made to sign payroll documents indicating that they received their shares. They said that according to the store managers, this was pursuant to an alleged company policy.

While the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Teologo and Delos Santos of qualified theft, the SC modified the conviction to simple theft.

The 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that the crime of theft is committed by one who takes something that belongs to another without permission, intending to benefit from it, without using violence or force. Theft becomes qualified when it involves the abuse of trust or confidence.

In this case, while the store managers took the service charges meant for the employees, the SC clarified that the victims were the employees, not the employer Big G Philfoods & Entertainment, Inc.

Since there is no special trust relationship between managers and rank-and-file workers, there was no abuse of trust or confidence in this case that would have qualified the theft.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2f6a4tvb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/36vavmjv.

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

𝘼𝘿𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙊𝙍𝙔 📢📢📢We’re pleased to inform you that our regular office hours will resume tomorrow, June 30, 2025 (Monday).Our o...
29/06/2025

𝘼𝘿𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙊𝙍𝙔 📢📢📢

We’re pleased to inform you that our regular office hours will resume tomorrow, June 30, 2025 (Monday).

Our office is located at Basak, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu near Mactan Doctors Hospital (in front of Biano's Pizza)

Regular office hours:
Monday-Saturday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Sunday: By appointment

Please don't hesitate to visit us or get in touch at 09761275412 or [email protected]

𝘼𝘿𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙊𝙍𝙔 📢📢📢Please be informed that our office will be closed starting June 25, 2025, until further notice.For inquiries...
24/06/2025

𝘼𝘿𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙊𝙍𝙔 📢📢📢

Please be informed that our office will be closed starting June 25, 2025, until further notice.

For inquiries, feel free to contact us at 09761275412 or [email protected].

18/06/2025

The (SC) has convicted a 68-year-old foreigner of r**e and qualified trafficking for s*xually exploiting a minor, holding that inviting and meeting with a minor for purposes of s*xual exploitation is qualified trafficking in persons. It also differentiated r**e from s*xual abuse.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc sentenced the foreigner to 40 years in prison for r**e and life imprisonment for qualified trafficking in persons, after finding that he forced the victim to go to his apartment to engage in s*xual acts in exchange for money and under threat of uploading her n**e photos online if she refused.

The minor met the foreigner through Facebook Messenger and they later became online “sweethearts.” The foreigner began asking her for n**e photos, offering money in return. She initially complied, but later told him to stop. However, the foreigner threatened to upload her n**e photos if she refused. He then convinced her to meet him in person to have s*x, again promising her money.

The minor complied and went to the foreigner’s apartment, where the latter s*xually assaulted her. Despite the minor’s pleas for him to stop, he continued the assault. When the foreigner fell asleep, the minor escaped and immediately went to the police for help.

While the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the foreigner guilty of s*xual abuse under RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), and qualified trafficking under RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended), the SC found the foreigner guilty of r**e under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not s*xual abuse under RA 7610.

Under Article 266-A(1)(A) of the RPC, the crime of r**e is committed when a man has s*xual in*******se with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation or when the victim is under 12 years of age.

On the other hand, under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, s*xual abuse includes s*xual in*******se or lascivious conduct committed against a child below 18 years old, who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to other forms of s*xual abuse.

The SC noted that the charge against the foreigner did not allege that the minor was exploited in prostitution or subjected to s*xual abuse as defined under RA 7610. What was charged and proven during trial is that he used “force and intimidation,” an element of r**e under the RPC.

Read the full text of the Press Release on G.R. No. 256452, People v. Willem Johannes Peek, at:
https://tinyurl.com/445vaa2a.

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://tinyurl.com/y9c54rts.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://tinyurl.com/2y7du4nd.

Read the Concurrence and Dissent of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://tinyurl.com/58t2zbeu.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://tinyurl.com/5mdk96hw.

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

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 s*xually 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/.

09/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a duplicate or photocopy of original documents, whether in paper or electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court, provided there is no genuine question regarding the original’s authenticity or fairness in using the copy.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Ybo Lastimosa (Lastimosa) for the murder of Ildefonso Vega, Jr. (Vega) in a case involving the use of a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate as key evidence.

Witnesses testified during trial that Lastimosa shot Vega in the head outside a cockpit in Cebu City. Vega’s wife also testified that Vega was already dead when she found him at the hospital. To support her testimony, the prosecution presented a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate, which confirmed that he died from gunshot wounds.

Convicted by the trial court of homicide and by the Court of Appeals of murder, Lastimosa argued before the SC that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was committed because the original death certificate was not presented. He claimed that a photocopy, without comparison to the original for authentication, should not have been admitted as evidence.

The SC affirmed the Court of Appeals, sentencing Lastimoso to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay PHP 275,000 in civil indemnity and damages. It explained that under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, a duplicate is admissible as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or it would be unfair to use the duplicate.

This rule applies to both paper-based and electronic documents, reflecting the modern reality where duplicates are often as reliable as originals.

However, the SC emphasized that while a photocopy may be admissible, its weight or value depends on how well it corroborates or supports other available evidence.

In this case, the photocopy of the death certificate, combined with the testimonies of Vega’s wife and other eyewitnesses, sufficiently established that Vega died from gunshot wounds and that Lastimosa was responsible.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://tinyurl.com/36r9m76u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mwe35fhe.

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

Address

Basak
Lapu-Lapu City
6015

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+639761275412

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Aton Law 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 Aton Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category