https://www.facebook.com/368024449729375/

Ortilano-Cajilo Law Office, Cabarles Street, Poblacion, Leon (2026)

04/02/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has approved the 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, further strengthening the rules on virtual court hearings and remote appearances of parties and witnesses.

In a Resolution dated November 4, 2025, in A.M. No. 24-11-02-SC, the SC introduced key reforms to expand access to videoconferencing, particularly for digitally disadvantaged individuals, and to enable wider participation by individuals abroad.

The 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 apply to videoconferencing before first- and second-level courts, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals. It covers all actions and proceedings at any stage, including mediation, consultation, deliberation, and the promulgation of decisions and resolutions, when conducted through videoconference.

Courts are now directed to ensure access to videoconferencing for individuals who are digitally disadvantaged, including those in geographically or geopolitically marginalized areas. This may include deploying court personnel to provide temporary or mobile internet access.

Courts may also establish designated “access points” within judicial regions where litigants, witnesses, and other participants can use computers and videoconferencing equipment under court supervision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160150.

Read the full text of the 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf.

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

15/07/2025

HEADS UP, CREATIVE ARTISTS!!⚖️🖼️

| The Supreme Court (SC) has launched a design contest for a new official seal of all first- and second-level courts across the country.

In an announcement, the SC En Banc said that the competition aims to establish a unified and meaningful seal that reflects the identity of lower courts and distinguishes them from other courts in the Judiciary.

The winning design will be used by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Shari’ah Circuit Court, Regional Trial Court, Family Court, and Shari’ah District Court across courtrooms, signage, documents, and ID cards of judges and court personnel.

The contest is open to everyone, and the winner will receive P100,000 as a prize.

The SC said designs must incorporate the official Supreme Court seal, the color violet, and clearly show the type of court represented (e.g., Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court). A brief description of no more than 300 words should be attached to each entry, explaining the design’s meaning and elements.

The criteria for judging are as follows: relevance to the Judiciary (40%), originality and creativity (30%), visual impact and clarity (20%), and overall impact (10%).

The court will receive submissions until August 15, 2025. Entries must be sent via email to [email protected] with the subject line: Court Seal Design Entry – [Your Full Name].

09/07/2025

For your reference if you have bought a land or real properties or planning to buy one.

21/03/2025

READ : New Philippine Passport Act Allows Reversion to Maiden Name

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/fwjdznd5

09/03/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) Third Division has affirmed the life imprisonment sentence of a woman for qualified trafficking for recruiting a 15-year-old minor as an entertainer for her bar business.

In an 18-page decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC found Larissa Nadel Dominguez guilty of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

The victim testified that Dominguez offered her to work as a babysitter for her 1-year-old child in Cagayan. Instead of working as a babysitter, she was made to work against her will as an entertainer at the entertainment bar owned by Dominguez. At first she refused to accept the job, but the accused forced and threatened her.

She worked as an entertainer for more than a week, where she would sit beside male customers, drink beer, and let the men caress her, kiss her, and touch her private parts. The victim eventually asked help from her mother via phone call, who reported and sought help from TV host Ramon Tulfo.

Thereafter, the accused was arrested following the rescue and entrapment operations conducted by the Philippines National Police (PNP), Municipal Social Worker Development Office (MSWDO) in Cagayan, and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Dominguez guilty of human trafficking as the prosecution sufficiently established that she took advantage of the victim's vulnerability to recruit her under the guise of domestic employment for the purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation. This prompted her to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

The high court upheld her conviction and found that all the elements of trafficking under RA 9208 were clearly met. It said the victim was recruited for the purpose of sexual exploitation and prostitution. The court gave great credence to her testimony, which clearly narrated that Dominguez recruited her, taking advantage of her minority and financial need, under the guise of being hired as a domestic helper but for the real purpose of sexual exploitation or prostitution.

The court also rejected the arguments of the accused, questioning the validity of the entrapment operations where she was arrested. It held that her arrest was pursuant to a valid entrapment operation and was not done through instigation.

The SC meted out the penalty of life imprisonment against Dominguez and ordered her to pay a fine of PHP 2 million, PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

23/01/2025

JUST IN: The Supreme Court (SC) Third Division has upheld the criminal conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), of a man who cohabited with another woman and denied his family financial support despite being financially capable.

The court ruled that the action of the accused in abandoning his family and maintaining an illicit affair had caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to his wife and their children, emphasizing that this is a form of psychological violence punishable under the Anti-VAWC law.

Read full text here: https://www.facebook.com/100065084679190/posts/985136483665832/

04/10/2024

We are located across Leon Gymnasium.
Office hours, every Tuesday and Thursday, 11 am to 5pm.

27/09/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

25/09/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that buyers of defective brand-new motor vehicles may choose to enforce their rights under any available law.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., ruled that Republic Act No. 10642 or the Philippine Lemon Law (Lemon Law), which applies to brand-new vehicles, is not an exclusive remedy.

The Lemon Law allows the manufacturer, distributor or dealer at least four separate repair attempts before replacing the defective vehicle. On the other hand, the Consumer Act, which applies to durable and non-durable consumer products in general, gives the supplier 30 days to correct the defective product.

The Court ruled there is nothing that prevents a consumer from availing of the remedies under the Consumer Act or any other law if the subject of the complaint is a brand-new vehicle.

The Lemon Law is an alternative remedy granted to the consumer who is free to choose to enforce their rights under any applicable law.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lemon-law-not-exclusive-remedy-for-defective-brand-new-vehicles/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254978-79-department-of-trade-and-industry-vs-toyota-balintawak-inc-and-toyota-motor-phils-corp/

01/08/2024

Located at F. Cabarles St., Leon, Iloilo, just across Leon Gymnasium, open every Tuesday and Thursday.
Contact #: +63 998 950 8386

Ortilano-Cajilo Law Office

04/02/2026

15/07/2025

09/07/2025

21/03/2025

09/03/2025

23/01/2025

04/10/2024

27/09/2024

25/09/2024

01/08/2024

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category