Rosales Law Office

13/02/2026

WATCH: How to create an account through the Philippine Judiciary Platform (PJP).eCourt PH can be accessed through the PJP at https://portal.judiciary.gov.ph/...

05/02/2026

02/02/2026

Ano nga ba ang Search Warrant? Alamin upang ang proteksyon at karapatan mo ay tiyakin. 😉

02/02/2026

Ano ang iyong dapat gawin kapag nakatanggap ka ng subpoena? Heto po ang kasagutan. 😉

31/01/2026

The has approved the Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing.

The Guidelines shall take effect on February 16, 2026, 15 days following its posting on the Supreme Court and OCA websites.

The Guidelines expand the definition of “overseas venues,” which now covers “Philippine consulates and embassies, other Philippine government offices abroad, other places allowed under applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements, and any other venue authorized by the Supreme Court for videoconferencing from abroad.” [Section 2(j), Part 1]

Section 4, Part 2 of the Guidelines details how videoconferencing is initiated:

“In civil and criminal cases, the parties, through their counsel, individually or jointly, may, by written or oral motion, move that they be allowed to participate via videoconferencing.

“In criminal cases, a motion to participate via videoconferencing shall be accompanied by a waiver of the right of the accused to meet witnesses face to face when the videoconferencing specifically involves the confrontation of a witness.

“Videoconferencing shall be the preferred mode in cases involving PDLs and CICL at all stages of the proceedings.

“It shall also be the preferred mode for arraignment, bail hearings, and hearings involving minor incidents of other accused, such as, but not limited to, clarificatory hearings, compliance hearings, and other similar ancillary matters where the presence of the accused is not necessary, unless the court deems it appropriate for the accused to appear in person.

“For a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases, the court may, on its own instance, order that the proceedings be conducted through videoconferencing at any or all stages”

Copies of the Guidelines are available at:

Supreme Court website:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

Office of the Court Administrator website:https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

27/01/2026

The (SC) has dismissed an adultery case filed by the representative of a married man, reiterating that only the offended spouse may file the complaint.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division dismissed the adultery charge filed by Jin Chiba, through a representative, against his wife, Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and her co-accused Michael Llona. SC reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael.

Aurel’s husband, Jin, through his representative, filed a complaint for adultery and grave threats against the two.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it.

The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative.

The SC disagreed and reiterated that adultery is a private crime that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, citing Rule 110, Section 5, of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and Article 344 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC).

The SC explained that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

In this case, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

Because there is failure to meet the requirement under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and the RPC, the SC held that no valid complaint was filed and dismissed the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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

07/01/2026

Congratulations! 🥳👏👏👏

02/01/2026

SUPREME COURT FINES LENDING APP FOR UNAUTHORIZED CONTACT ACCESS; CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RECOMMENDED

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a lending app operator to pay damages to a client for accessing her contact list and sending messages about her outstanding loan, actions that harmed her reputation

In a 16-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that set aside the National Privacy Commission (NPC)’s recommendation to charge FCash Global Lending Inc. with violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and to pay damages to complainant Grace Trimillos.

Court records revealed that Trimillos filed the complaints alleging that the lending app accessed her phone’s contacts list without her authority and sent everyone on the list messages about her loan.

She added this tarnished her reputation, as her co-workers and friends were told they were guarantors and would be forced to pay on her behalf if she did not settle her loan.

Trimillos presented screenshots of the text messages allegedly sent by FCash as evidence. When mediation failed, NPC directed FCash to file a responsive comment, which received no response.

The NPC then resolved the issue and ruled that Trimillo’s right to privacy was violated after it found that FCash gathered personal information in excess of what was necessary and processed it for purposes other than those stated in their own privacy policy.

It held that the unauthorized processing of personal information was done with malice, as the messages reveal FCash’s “unquestionable intention to shame Trimillos and jeopardize her reputation” until she settled her obligations.

The NPC awarded P15,000 in nominal damages to Trimillos and recommended to the Department of Justice the filing of criminal cases against FCash for malicious disclosure and processing of sensitive personal information for unauthorized purposes.

However, when the case was brought to the CA, it abandoned the NPC ruling, noting that Trimillos failed to have the screenshots authenticated by any of her supposed witnesses, violating the Rules on Electronic Evidence. This paved the way for Trimillos to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ruling in her favor and reinstating the NPC ruling, the high court found FCash failed to timely object to the admissibility of the screenshots used as evidence in the complaint against it before the NPC.

It explained that because FCash raised the issue for the first time on appeal, it could no longer be used as a ground to reverse the NPC’s decision. The issue was deemed waived when the lending app failed to file its response during the proceedings before the NPC.

“While there had been a ground to question its admissibility, it is clear that FCash failed to make a timely objection on the presentation and offer of the screenshots,” the Supreme Court said.

It also cited a previous ruling that inadmissible evidence may be admitted if not challenged at the proper time, and such an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The highest bench underscored that Trimillos submitted the screenshots to the NPC before the discovery conference. Despite its availability for examination, FCash did not object to these when given an opportunity to comment, including its objection to the inadmissibility of evidence.

“At the risk of being repetitive, grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived. Thus, even on appeal, the CA may not consider any other ground of objection except those that were raised at the proper time,” it added.

30/12/2025

18/11/2025

09/11/2025

: Malacañang announced the suspension of government work in the National Capital Region, Cordillera Administrative Region, and Regions I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V and VIII on Monday, November 10, 2025, due to Super Typhoon .

“Classes at all levels in the aforementioned Regions, Region VI, Region VII, and the Negros Island Region are also suspended on 10 and 11 November 2025,” the memorandum read. | via Helen Flores