Egnar - Blaza Law Office

20/05/2026

SC: Groom Who Abandoned Bride on Wedding Day May Be Liable for Damages

Under Philippine law, a mere “breach of promise to marry” is generally not a crime and is not ordinarily a cause of action for damages. A person cannot usually be forced to marry or be sued simply for backing out of a wedding. However, liability may arise depending on the circumstances.

Read the full details in the comment.

14/05/2026

Egnar-Blaza Law Office
Committed to providing reliable legal services with integrity and professionalism. ⚖️

📍 Bonifacio Drive, Brgy. 1, Malaybalay City
📧 [email protected]

⚖️ Services: Litigation | Notarization of Legal Documents | Legal Consultation

For trusted legal assistance, we are here to serve you.

14/05/2026

SENATE TO CONVENE AS IMPEACHMENT COURT ON MAY 18

JUST IN: The Senate will convene as an impeachment court on May 18, 3 pm, or at the soonest possible time after the receipt of the articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, according to Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano.

SENATE TO CONVENE AS IMPEACHMENT COURT ON MAY 18

JUST IN: The Senate will convene as an impeachment court on May 18, 3 pm, or at the soonest possible time after the receipt of the articles against Vice President Sara Duterte, according to Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano.

12/05/2026

Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, a member of the Taxation Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, a certified public accountant, and a former Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, discusses the extent of the 20% discount for senior citizens in Episode 116: Senior Citizens’ Discount in Burial Benefits: What Does the Law Cover?

What is the rationale behind the 20% discount granted to senior citizens? While this benefit is widely recognized, were “funeral and burial services” covered by the original Senior Citizens Act, and what specific changes did the subsequent expanded acts introduce?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4mx4JgMmNYCJHATU1ZFYTT?si=MZXAZ6XIQVOHb9mcVl_vAg

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000766754483

YouTube: https://youtu.be/jT3Ffq7tSoU

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CvEHM9psr/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

08/05/2026

WIN FOR THE DEFENSE ⚖️

Grateful for the trust reposed by our clients and committed to steadfast legal representation. As counsel for the defense, we remain committed to protecting our clients’ rights.

For legal concerns, you may visit our law office at Bonifacio Drive, Barangay 1, Malaybalay City (in front of DTI).

07/05/2026

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.
As the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name, was marked "𝘕/𝘈" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.

In reversing the accused’s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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

04/05/2026

MALAYA NA SI SONZA

LOOK: Former broadcaster Jay Sonza has been released after posting ₱10,000 bail in connection with his unlawful publication case, according to his legal counsel Atty. Mark Tolentino on Monday, May 4, 2026.

📷: Atty. Mark Tolentino

01/05/2026

Happy Labor Day! ⚖️

30/04/2026

The SC clarified that the term “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution means within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case. This allows the Senate to make the necessary preparations to convene as an impeachment court.
While the Constitution does not set an exact date for the trial, the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.
The SC considered the petition moot because the Senate had begun impeachment preparations, and the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte were nullified by the SC’s July 25, 2025 Decision and January 28, 2026 Resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives. A case is moot when subsequent events remove any issues, making court rulings unnecessary. Since no Articles of Impeachment remained, the SC had no reason to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, April 29, 2026, dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo, Jr., which sought to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court to try the charges against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a 14-0-1 Decision written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the SC held that mandamus, which is meant to enforce a clear legal duty, was not the proper remedy. It ruled that the Senate’s actions within its sphere cannot be revised or controlled by the judicial department through mandamus. As a co-equal constitutional body, the Senate’s exercise of its duties is beyond the SC’s power of review, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

However, specifically for this case and in the interest of equity, the SC treated the petition as one for certiorari and proceeded to determine whether the Senate acted unlawfully or abused its discretion when it did not convene immediately as an impeachment court during its session break.

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the SC found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint in a timely manner.

While the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to act within a certain number of session days on an impeachment complaint, it does not specify a fixed timeframe for the Senate to start an impeachment trial. It simply provides that the trial “shall forthwith proceed,” leaving the timing to the Senate’s discretion.

The SC clarified that the term “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution means within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case. This allows the Senate to make the necessary preparations to convene as an impeachment court.

While the Constitution does not set an exact date for the trial, the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.

The SC considered the petition moot because the Senate had begun impeachment preparations, and the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte were nullified by the SC’s July 25, 2025 Decision and January 28, 2026 Resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives. A case is moot when subsequent events remove any issues, making court rulings unnecessary. Since no Articles of Impeachment remained, the SC had no reason to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred only in the result, that the petition was moot. However he was of the position that the impeachment court should have been convened immediately and that the impeachment court—not merely the Senate President—should have taken charge of organizing that court. (Updated as of April 29, 2026, 5:30 p.m.)

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa took no part.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164510

The full text of the Decision will be uploaded to the SC website once available.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.

28/04/2026

“Respectfully submitted..” is our usual closing phrase in pleadings. It [r]eminds us, as lawyers, to remain respectful in all our dealings, whether in our professional or personal lives.