Atty. Roan R. Basilla Law & Notarial Office

10/09/2026

05/09/2026

To the Examinees: Your years of sacrifice, sleepless nights, and relentless pursuit of justice all lead to this moment. Believe in your preparation, trust in your passion, and let courage carry you through, future Attorneys! ⚖️✨💜


September 6, 9, and 13

26/08/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

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

12/08/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang mga empleyado na ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ay may karapatan hindi lamang sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 kundi maging sa paghuhulog ng kanilang mga kontribusyon sa Social Security System (SSS).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, nagpasya ang Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nagpapatuloy ang obligasyon ng employer na maghulog ng kontribusyon ng kawani nito sa SSS sa loob ng panahong saklaw ng ilegal na pagkakatanggal sa kawani.

Apat na manggagawa ang ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ng Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC). Inatasan ng National Labor Relations Commission ang LSC na ibalik ang apat sa kanilang dating mga posisyon at bayaran sila ng buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 . Nang maging pinal na ang desisyon, hiniling ng mga empleyado sa LSC na ihulog ang kanilang mga kontribusyon sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 para maging kwalipikado sila sa mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro.

Tumanggi ang LSC at iginiit na sa ilalim ng 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997, natatapos ang obligasyon nitong maghulog ng mga kontribusyon sa SSS sa oras na matigil ang pagtatrabaho ng mga empleyado, anuman ang dahilan o legalidad ng kanilang pagkakatanggal sa trabaho.

Isinantabi ng Social Security Commission (SSC) ang posisyon ng LSC at inatasan itong bayaran ang mga nasabing kontribusyon. Ayon sa SSC, dahil ilegal ang pagkakatanggal sa mga empleyado, itinuturing na nagpatuloy ang relasyon ng employer at empleyado sa panahong hindi sila nakapagtrabaho dahil sa kanilang ilegal na pagkakatanggal.

Sa pagpapatibay na nanatiling obligado ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon ng mga empleyado sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 294 ng 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 ay may karapatan ang mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 at iba pang mga benepisyo.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, itinuturing na nagpapatuloy ang pagtatrabaho ng mga nasabing empleyado sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴. Dahil dito, may karapatan sila sa benepisyong dapat na naipagkaloob sa kanila sa panahong iyon.

Dahil nabigo ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon sa 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 ng mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho, pinanagot ito ng Korte Suprema sa pagbabayad ng tatlong porsiyentong multa bawat buwan sa mga naturang kontribusyon.

Basahin ang 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170676.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165713.

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

11/08/2026

We’re open today!

Good morning from our sleepy secretary😴🐶

10/08/2026

Visit us today at 0656, Cor. White St., Sunrise Subdivision, Brgy. 40 Cruzada, Legazpi City.

📍https://maps.app.goo.gl/LcDYnDkKj56D75Xg9?g_st=ic

09/08/2026

OFFICE HOURS

⚖️ PROFESSIONAL LEGAL & NOTARIAL SERVICES ⚖️

Need documents notarized or legal assistance you can trust? We’re here to help with reliable, efficient, and professional service.

Our Services Include:
✅ Notarization of Legal Documents
✅ Affidavits
✅ Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
✅ Deeds of Sale & Contracts
✅ Authorization Letters
✅ Legal Consultation
✅ Other Legal Documentation Services

We are committed to providing accurate, confidential, and client-focused legal services.

📞 Contact us to schedule an appointment or inquire about our services.

Your Trusted Partner in Legal and Notarial Services.
“Protecting your rights. Authenticating your documents with integrity.”

09/08/2026

The SupremeCourtPH (SC) has clarified that a complaint or petition may only be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action after an examination of the complaint or information itself, together with its annexes—strictly excluding the pleadings or submissions of other parties, reconciling conflicting rulings on the issue.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the lower courts erred in dismissing a petition for quieting of title for supposedly failing to state a cause of action and in interchanging this concept with “dismissal for lack of cause of action.”

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another, the three elements of which are:

1. a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

2. an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and

3. an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

The case arose from a land dispute between the groups of Inocencio Taganile and Filomena Delos Santos Dolar.

Taganile’s group claims that it has occupied a portion of land along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue in Rosario, Pasig City, since 1970. After learning that the land had been registered in the name of Dolar’s group, they filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to challenge the title.

Dolar’s group, on the other hand, claims that Taganile’s group were mere lessees. They filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that it did not state a cause of action because it lacked supporting documents.

The RTC dismissed the case after considering both the petition and the evidence presented by Dolar’s group. It ruled that the petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not include proof of the Taganile’s group’s claim to the land. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling.

The SC disagreed. It clarified the difference between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.

A cause of action exists when a legal right is violated. Courts cannot hear a civil case unless there is a cause of action. A case may be dismissed if the complaint does not state one, or if the party later fails to prove it with evidence. These are different grounds.

To determine whether a complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court looks only at what is written in the complaint and assumes the allegations are true. If, even assuming those facts are true, the court still cannot grant the relief asked for, it can dismiss the complaint on this ground.

In contrast, to determine whether a case lacks a cause of action, the court looks at the evidence presented.

The SC noted that confusion arose from past rulings that allowed courts, in some instances, to look beyond the complaint, such as when the allegations appear to be legally impossible or unfounded. This blurred the difference between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.

To settle the issue, the SC ruled that courts may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action only by examining the complaint and its attachments—nothing more. Courts must not consider other pleadings or submissions at this stage.

The SC explained:

“Once the trial court considers other pleadings submitted by the parties or evidence admitted during the proceedings, it is no longer determining a failure to state a cause of action, but rather the very existence of one. In doing so, the ground for dismissing the complaint or petition ceases to be ‘failure to state a cause of action’ and becomes ‘lack of cause of action.’”

Applying this rule, the SC found that the RTC and CA improperly relied on the submissions and evidence of Dolar’s group. They prematurely ruled on the existence of a cause of action without giving Taganile’s group the chance to present evidence.

The SC also found that, based on the allegations alone, the petition was able to establish a case for quieting of title, noting Taganile group’s claims of long-standing possession and houses built on the property since the 1970s.

The SC directed that the case be returned to the RTC to continue the proceedings and receive evidence on the parties’ claims.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162612

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162606

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

08/08/2026