JG Hecita Law Office

21/07/2026

⚖️ LIBRE KONSULTA LEGAL in MANAPLA!

May legal concern ka? May pamangkot ka parte sa imo rights, property, pamilya, trabaho, ukon iban pa nga legal matters?

Ari na ang chance nga makapangayo sang LIBRE nga legal advice!

📅 August 22, 2026 (Saturday)
🕗 8:00 AM – 12:00 NN
📍 Manapla Gymnasium

Ini nga programa sang IBP - Negros Occidental Chapter, in partnership with the Municipality of Manapla, is open to everyone nga nagakinahanglan sang legal guidance.

Dal-a ang imo legal concerns kag mga dokumento kag magpakonsulta sa libre nga serbisyo legal. 💙⚖️

Kilitaay kita!

23/06/2026

❓Liable ba ang mga menor de edad kapag nakagawa sila ng krimen?

Depende sa kanilang edad at sa sitwasyon.

✅ Kung 15 taong gulang pababa – hindi sila kriminal na mananagot sa ilalim ng Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344), ngunit maaari silang sumailalim sa intervention o rehabilitation programs.

✅ Kung higit sa 15 ngunit wala pang 18 taong gulang – hindi rin sila kriminal na mananagot maliban kung mapapatunayang kumilos sila nang may “discernment” o may sapat na pag-unawa na mali at labag sa batas ang kanilang ginawa.

✅ Kung 18 taong gulang pataas – ganap na silang mananagot sa ilalim ng batas penal tulad ng ibang nasa hustong gulang.

📌 Mahalagang tandaan:�Kahit exempt sa criminal liability ang isang menor de edad, maaari pa rin siyang magkaroon ng civil liability o pananagutan sa danyos na dulot ng kanyang ginawa.

DAHIL SA GOREBOX?

NEWS UPDATE: Naimpluwensiyahan umano ng online gaming app na “GoreBox" ang isa sa dalawang menor de edad na namaril kahapon sa San Jose National High School sa Tacloban, Leyte.

Mahigit isang buwan umanong pinagplanuhan ang pamamaril sa eskuwelahan, ayon sa Police Regional Office 8 (PRO-8).

Sa panayam kay PRO-8 Regional Director PBGEN Jason Capoy, sinabi niyang simula May 1 ay pinagplanuhan na ng mga nasabing estudyante ang kanilang pamamaril. | via Mark Makalalad/DZBB

Bisitahin ang www.gmanetwork.com/news para sa iba pang updates.

15/06/2026

Determining the conviction threshold is especially significant amid deep divisions in the highly volatile Senate. The Gatchalian bloc is believed to command 12 votes, while the Cayetano bloc has 10.

A reduced conviction threshold gives pro-conviction advocates more room to secure a guilty verdict.

15/06/2026

Be watchful of your words and what you post online. A single post can have lasting consequences. ⚖️

The (SC) has suspended a lawyer for using vulgar words in a social media post.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

The case arose from a Twitter post made by Atty. Falcis defending his brother, Nicko, against accusations related to a qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino (Aquino):

“𝘠𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘺𝘢𝘯, 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰. 𝘚𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘪 𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘥. 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘬𝘰 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘨 𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘺𝘰? 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘺𝘶 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘩𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴.”

Jason Gene Baltao (Baltao), Aquino’s former business partner, filed a complaint against Atty. Falcis before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Atty. Falcis argued that previous SC rulings held that the phrase “𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘢” is often used to express anger or frustration, not to defame. He also claimed that lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.

The IBP found that Atty. Falcis violated the 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘊𝘗𝘙𝘈) by using offensive language and recommended a penalty of a fine and reprimand.

The SC agreed with the IBP’s findings but imposed a heavier penalty of suspension.

Under Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA, lawyers must use dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in both their professional and personal dealings. They must not use abusive, offensive, or improper language, whether spoken or written, including on social media. Such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession.

Section 37 of the same Canon requires lawyers to ensure that their online posts—whether public or shared within a limited audience—uphold the dignity of the profession, protect it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.

Section 36 also requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media.

Ruling that Atty. Falcis failed to meet these standards, the SC stressed that he should have understood the risks and consequences of his statements on social media, including how they can spread widely, reach all kinds of audiences, and influence both lawyers and non-lawyers, including children.

The SC held that the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities serve as the limit of free speech for lawyers.

The SC also reminded lawyers of the nature of social media, which encompasses a wide audience and may not easily be restricted.

The SC explained that Atty. Falcis’ actions amounted to misconduct, defined as intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behavior, whether work-related or not. It is considered simple misconduct if there is no corruption or clear intent to violate the law.

The SC increased the penalty from a fine to suspension due to Atty. Falcis’ prior administrative violations, including direct and indirect contempt, and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167468

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167448

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167455

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

12/06/2026

Mabuhay ka, Pilipinas! 🇵🇭

Today, we celebrate the enduring spirit, courage, and resilience of the Filipino people. May we continue to uphold justice, integrity, and service as we work together toward a brighter future for our nation.

Proudly Filipino. Proudly serving.

09/06/2026

“Not all wounds are visible.”

The Supreme Court recognizes that persistent acts creating a hostile and intimidating family environment may constitute grossly abusive conduct under the Family Code, providing a ground for legal separation. ⚖️

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s acts creating a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children may constitute “grossly abusive conduct” under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 which serves as a ground for legal separation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division granted the petition for legal separation filed by a husband against his wife, after finding that her actions constituted grossly abusive conduct under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

The couple married in 2003 and later had two children. To support their family, the wife started selling coffee, but they still faced financial hardships. The husband studied nursing with hopes of eventually relocating their family abroad. However, his plan to move abroad never materialized.

During the marriage, the husband claimed he faced various abusive behaviors from his wife. He reported that she controlled their finances and refused to provide financial help, even when he needed treatment for his toothache and was advised to get a root canal.

The husband also claimed that at a party, his wife told their friends she wanted to cut off his p***s because they were no longer having s*x. He also alleged that she shared stories about him with family and friends, often twisting the facts to make him look bad.

The husband also said that his wife refused marriage counseling, prohibited him from seeing his friends, manipulated their children to force him to provide more financial support, and maintained a controlling attitude throughout their marriage.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition for legal separation after finding that the wife’s behavior amounted to grossly abusive conduct. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that their disagreements were ordinary marital disputes.

The SC affirmed the RTC defining acts constituting “grossly abusive conduct”, which is a ground for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, to include those acts by a spouse that create a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse or the children.

The SC also stressed that courts must decide this issue on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts and evidence presented.

While the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 does not allow absolute divorce, spouses may legally separate by order of a court without ending their marriage. Unlike a declaration that a marriage is void, a legal separation does not break the marital bond.

Among the grounds for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 is repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct against the spouse, their common child, or the spouse’s child.

The SC added that this interpretation is consistent with the State’s constitutional duty to protect marriage as a basic social institution.

In this case, the SC found that the wife’s actions, taken together, created a hostile and intimidating environment for the husband. He was made to constantly follow her lead, and his efforts to fix the marriage through counseling and other interventions were unsuccessful. Witnesses also confirmed her controlling behavior, which supported the finding of a hostile home environment. Because of this, the SC ruled that the husband was justified in seeking reassignment to another province to distance himself from the situation at home.

The SC granted the legal separation and sent the case back to the RTC for the dissolution and division of the couple’s property. It also directed the RTC to decide on the custody and support of their children.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166927

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164913

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164917

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

30/05/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang mga kilos ng isang asawa na lumilikha ng mapanganib at nakakatakot na paligid para sa kanyang kabiyak, kanilang mga anak, at mga anak sa labas ng kasal ay maaaring ituring na “grossly abusive conduct” o labis na mapang-abusong pag-uugali sa ilalim ng Family Code at maaaring magsilbing batayan para sa legal separation.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., pinagbigyan ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon para sa legal separation na inihain ng isang asawa laban sa kanyang kabiyak matapos ituring na grossly abusive conduct sa ilalim ng Article 55(1) ng Family Code ang mga kilos nito.

Ikinasal ang mag-asawa noong 2003 at nagkaroon ng dalawang anak. Pero nakaranas ang asawang lalaki ng iba’t ibang mapang-abusong pag-uugali mula sa kanyang kabiyak. Ayon sa kanya, kontrolado nito ang kanilang pananalapi at tumangging magbigay ng tulong pinansiyal kahit kailangan niyang magpagamot ng matinding sakit ng ngipin at sumailalim sa root canal procedure.

Sa isang salu-salo, sinabi umano ng kanyang kabiyak sa kanilang mga kaibigan na nais nitong putulin ang kanyang ari dahil hindi na sila nagtatalik. Inakusahan din niya ang asawa ng pagkukuwento tungkol sa kanya sa pamilya at mga kaibigan habang binabaluktot ang mga pangyayari para mapalabas siyang masama.

Tumanggi rin umano ang kanyang kabiyak na sumailalim sa marriage counseling, pinagbawalan siyang makipagkita sa kanyang mga kaibigan, minanipula ang kanilang mga anak para pilitin siyang magbigay ng mas malaking suportang pinansiyal, at nananatili ang “controlling” na ugali sa buong panahon ng kanilang pagsasama.

Pinagbigyan ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang petisyon para sa legal separation pero binaliktad ito ng Court of Appeals matapos nitong ituring na karaniwang alitan lamang ng mag-asawa ang kanilang mga hindi pagkakaunawaan.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang pasya ng RTC at nilinaw na ang mga gawaing itinuturing “grossly abusive conduct,” na isang batayan para sa legal separation sa ilalim ng Article 55(1) ng Family Code, ay kinabibilangan ng mga kilos ng isang asawa na lumilikha ng mapanganib at nakakatakot na paligid para sa kanyang kabiyak o mga anak.

Binigyang-diin din ng Korte Suprema na kinakailangang suriin ng mga hukuman ang bawat kaso batay sa kani-kanilang mga pangyayari at ebidensiyang iniharap.

Bagaman hindi pinahihintulutan ng Family Code ang absolute divorce, maaaring legal na maghiwalay ang mag-asawa sa pamamagitan ng utos ng hukuman nang hindi napapawalang-bisa ang kanilang kasal. Hindi tulad ng deklarasyon na walang bisa ang kasal, ang legal separation ay hindi pumuputol sa bigkis ng pag-aasawa.

Kabilang sa mga batayan para sa legal separation sa ilalim ng Article 55(1) ng Family Code ang paulit-ulit na pisikal na pananakit o grossly abusive conduct laban sa asawa, kanilang anak, o anak ng asawa.

Dagdag pa ng Korte Suprema, ang interpretasyong ito ay naaayon sa tungkulin ng Estado sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon na pangalagaan ang kasal bilang pangunahing institusyong panlipunan.

Sa kasong ito, napag-alaman ng Korte Suprema na ang pinagsama-samang kilos ng asawa ay lumikha ng mapanganib at nakakatakot na paligid para sa kanyang kabiyak. Napilitan umano ang asawa na palaging sumunod sa kagustuhan ng kanyang kabiyak, at nabigo rin ang kanyang mga pagsisikap na ayusin ang kanilang pagsasama sa pamamagitan ng counseling at iba pang mga hakbang. Pinagtibay rin ng mga testigo ang “controlling” na ugali ng asawa, na sumuporta sa konklusyon na may umiiral na mapanganib na kalagayan sa kanilang tahanan. Dahil dito, nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na may sapat na dahilan ang asawa para humiling ng reassignment sa ibang lalawigan para makalayo sa sitwasyon sa kanilang bahay.

Pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang legal separation at ibinalik ang kaso sa RTC para sa pagbuwag at paghahati ng ari-arian ng mag-asawa. Inatasan din nito ang RTC na magpasya ukol sa kustodiya at suporta para sa kanilang mga anak.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166927

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164913

Basahin ang Hiwalay na Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164917

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

19/05/2026

Next stop! 🗳️

08/04/2026

You can take a stand, too! 🤛

Kapuso actress Yasmien Kurdi's fight against bullying continues, especially for all youth victims in the country.

08/04/2026