Prada Röck & Associates Law Office

24/08/2026

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

14/08/2026

After four sessions last year, the Supreme Court finally concluded oral arguments on foreign divorce recognition, stemming from the petition of a Filipino-American who obtained divorce in the US and dissolved his marriage to a Filipina.

Link to full story in the comments section.

09/06/2026

19/05/2026

𝗕𝗜𝗥 𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦 “𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦” 𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗟𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡; 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗦 𝗙𝗔𝗦𝗧 𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗗𝗔𝗬𝗦

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 47-2026 on May 19, 2026, prescribing new guidelines to simplify the process for closing businesses and cancelling tax registration, as part of the implementation of Republic Act No. 11976, otherwise known as the “Ease of Paying Taxes Act.”

“This is our ‘Ease of Closing Business’ reform,” Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza said. “In line with President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s directive to make government services faster, better, and more responsive, and Finance Secretary Frederick D. Go’s push to make tax administration more investor-friendly and business-friendly, the BIR is making it easier for taxpayers who have already ceased operations to properly close their business and cancel their registration.”

“From improving the ease of doing business and the ease of paying taxes, this reform completes the BIR’s support for businesses through every stage of the business life cycle. If we make it easier to start and operate a business, then the government must also make it easier to properly close BIR registration once operations have already ceased,” he added.

Under RMC No. 47-2026, taxpayers who have already ceased operations may now apply for the closure or cancellation of their registration, either manually or electronically, through the Revenue District Office where their head office or branch is registered.

The Circular simplifies and standardizes documentary requirements. Together with the application form and the surrender of original BIR registration documents and permits previously issued to the business, taxpayers will only be required to submit two other document sets for closure: the list of ending inventory of goods and supplies, including capital goods for VAT-registered taxpayers, and the unused invoices, supplementary documents, and other unutilized accounting forms, together with their inventory.

Under the new guidelines, penalties for non-filing of tax returns shall no longer accrue once the taxpayer submits the complete documentary requirements for the closure or cancellation of registration. To prevent the further accumulation of open cases, the taxpayer’s registered form types shall likewise be placed under “deregistered” status upon submission of the complete requirements. Filing an application for the closure or cancellation of registration, however, does not preclude the Bureau from conducting an audit to determine any outstanding tax liabilities.

In addition, micro taxpayers shall not be subject to mandatory audit for closure and/or cancellation of business registration. Hence, tax clearances will be issued within three (3) working days from submission of complete documentary requirements for those with no open cases or outstanding liabilities. For micro taxpayers with open cases, tax clearance will be issued within three (3) working days from the submission of the complete documentary requirements and the payment of outstanding liabilities, including penalties.

Commissioner Mendoza encouraged taxpayers who have already ceased operations to avail themselves of the streamlined process to avoid the continued accumulation of penalties and to properly update their registration records with the Bureau.

Read the full RMC here:https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RMC%20No.%2047-2026.pdf

29/04/2026

During the resumption of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court 𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘤 on April 28, 2026 in the case of 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘺𝘰𝘵 𝘷. 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘰-𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘺𝘰𝘵, UP College of Law Professor Elizabeth H. Aguiling-Pangalangan, as an 𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘦, responded to questions of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Raul B. Villanueva.

The case, docketed as G.R. No. 257575, involves a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree involving parties who were both Filipinos at the time the decree was issued. Subsequently, one of the spouses became a naturalized American citizen and eventually reacquired Philippine citizenship, making him a dual citizen.

The petition raises broader legal questions about how shifts in citizenship affect the recognition of foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines and whether there should, instead, be legislation allowing absolute divorce in the Philippines.

29/04/2026

RMC No. 036-2026
Availability of Offline Electronic Bureau of Internal Revenue Forms
(eBlRForms) Package Version 7.9.6.0.

The updated Offline eBlRForms Package v7.9.6.0 contains the following enhancements:

1. Inclusion of BIR Form No. 1701-MS August2024 [Annual Income Tax Return For Individuals Classified as MICRO or SMALL Taxpayers].

2. New Alphanumeric Tax Codes (ATCs) have been added in BIR Form No. 1601-EQ (ATC: WI840, WC840, WI850, WC850, WI860 and WC860).

3. Increase in character field length of Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Branch Code, from three (3) digits to five (5) digits branch code in all tax returns.

4. Updated tax rates, from 15% to 20%, in Schedule 1 for Foreign Currency Deposit based on the return period being filed in BIR Form No. 1602Qv2018.

5. Bug fixes for the following BIR Forms: 0619E, 1601FQ, 1604F, 1702Qv2018C, 1702EXv2018, 1702MXv2018C, 1707v2021, 2000-OT and 2551Qv2018.

28/04/2026

𝗕𝗜𝗥 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧, 𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗩𝗔𝗜𝗟𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗔𝗠𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗬

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2026 to clarify specific rules on filing and payment of estate tax under the Estate Tax Amnesty.

The Circular, posted on April 27, 2026, provides guidance on the submission of proof of settlement, treatment of undeclared estate properties, and installment payment arrangements for taxpayers who availed of the Estate Tax Amnesty.

On the submission of proof of estate settlement, the Circular states:

“There is no deadline to submit the proof of settlement of estate. Non-submission of such proof on or before the June 16, 2025 deadline for availing the Estate Tax Amnesty does not invalidate the application. However, it is important to note that the proof of settlement is required for the processing and issuance of the eCAR, which is necessary for the transfer of the estate’s assets.”

The Circular also addresses cases where additional estate properties are discovered after the filing of the Estate Tax Amnesty Return. It clarifies that properties not included in the original return are not covered by the Estate Tax Amnesty and shall be taxed under the applicable estate tax laws in effect at the time of the decedent’s death.

RMC No. 33-2026 further provides that installment payment may be allowed, subject to prior approval of the concerned Revenue District Officer. Payment may be made within two years from the statutory date of payment, without civil penalties and interest, provided that the first installment was paid on or before June 16, 2025.

Failure to pay any installment on time will result in the forfeiture of the amnesty availment. The estate will then be subject to the applicable estate tax laws at the time of the decedent’s death, including corresponding penalties.

“This Circular is meant to remove confusion for taxpayers who already availed of the Estate Tax Amnesty before the deadline and are now completing the settlement and transfer of estate properties,” Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza said.

22/04/2026

📍Find us at the Second Floor of R&E Space.

R&E SPACE

5.0 ⭐ · Coffee shop

12/04/2026

𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐏𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒

Scammers now use fake bank websites that secretly connect to your real bank account while you are logging in.

Here’s how it works in simple terms:

🔍 How the Scam Happens
1️⃣ Fake Website
You enter your username, password, and the first OTP (one-time password) on a fake site that looks like your bank.
2️⃣ Secret Relay
The scammer uses that OTP right away to log in to your real bank account.
3️⃣ Money Transfer
The scammer starts transferring money, which triggers another OTP.
4️⃣ Final Step
You enter the second OTP on the fake site — and the scammer uses it to complete the transfer and steal your money.

🛡️ How to Protect Yourself
✅ Always check the website link carefully before logging in.
✅ Do not click links from texts or emails.
✅ Do not panic if you see urgent warnings. Call your bank using their official phone number.
✅ Never share your OTP with anyone. Your bank will NEVER ask for your OTP.

📢 Remember:
If someone keeps asking for your OTP — STOP immediately.



See less

12/04/2026

Sexual assault survivors can now genetically identify perpetrators with a r**e kit developed by researchers from the University of the Philippines.

The kit contains the tools needed for health professionals to collect samples that can be used as admissible evidence in court. Apart from the tools, the kit also has forms that document patient narratives, consent, details of samples collected, and the chain of custody. This ensures that the integrity and validity of the sample will hold up in court.

In order to effectively collect evidence, patients are advised to visit a healthcare facility within 72 hours, as this is the timeframe for biological evidence to remain in the body.

University Research Associate Frederick Delfin started developing the kit in 2003, with the goal of genetically identifying the assaulter. Later, Dr. Maria Corazon A. De Ungria and her team continued to develop a prototype of a sexual assault investigation kit (SAIK).

It was only this year, after decades of testing, validating, and researching, that a more refined version of the kit is now available for public use. It is now rebranded as the SAI.Kit, which will be commercially released in partnership with Manila Healthtek Inc this year.

Report by Alyana Fabella