Atty. DG Delfin

02/07/2025

The (SC) has found two managers of a pizza restaurant guilty of simple theft for having kept service charges that should have been paid to the restaurant’s employees.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division sentenced Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos, two store managers at the Shakey’s branch in Angono, Rizal, to 6 months in prison. It also ordered them to pay their fellow employees the withheld service charges.

One of Teologo and Delos Santos’ duties as managers was to give the employees their salaries and shares in the service charges. However, employees of Shakey’s Angono branch reported to franchise owner Big G Philfoods & Entertainment that they had not been receiving their share of service charges.

The employees claimed that notwithstanding this, they had been made to sign payroll documents indicating that they received their shares. They said that according to the store managers, this was pursuant to an alleged company policy.

While the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Teologo and Delos Santos of qualified theft, the SC modified the conviction to simple theft.

The 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that the crime of theft is committed by one who takes something that belongs to another without permission, intending to benefit from it, without using violence or force. Theft becomes qualified when it involves the abuse of trust or confidence.

In this case, while the store managers took the service charges meant for the employees, the SC clarified that the victims were the employees, not the employer Big G Philfoods & Entertainment, Inc.

Since there is no special trust relationship between managers and rank-and-file workers, there was no abuse of trust or confidence in this case that would have qualified the theft.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2f6a4tvb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/36vavmjv.

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

25/06/2025

The has reiterated that a victim’s admission of being in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to s*x. Clear and convincing evidence of consent is still required.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of accused Jhopet Hernandez Toralde for r**e of a 14-year old girl.

In 2017, Toralde showed up at the victim’s house unannounced and forced her to have s*x, threatening to show her family a video of them kissing if she refused. Out of fear, the victim gave in. She then reported the incident to the police.

During trial, the defense claimed that Toralde did not force the victim to have s*xual in*******se as he and the victim were in a romantic relationship—a defense known as the “𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆.”

The SC, however, rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense and declared him guilty of r**e under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, citing that all elements of the crime were present, including the use of threats and intimidation to force s*xual in*******se.

The SC rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense, affirming that being in a relationship does not grant the right to force s*x. The SC stressed that proving a romantic relationship is not enough—there must be clear evidence of consent.

Toralde was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢, or a maximum of 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim PHP 225,000 in damages.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/nvpvv9fm.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/6tzma4tx

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

22/06/2025

The residency requirement for an elective official must be satisfied not only at the time of election or upon assumption of office but also throughout the entire duration of the official’s tenure.

Accordingly, Datu Pax Ali Mangudadatu, while serving as the incumbent Mayor of the Municipality of Datu Abdullah Sangki (DAS), Maguindanao in 2021, was precluded from validly establishing a new domicile of choice in Sultan Kudarat. As such, he failed to meet the residency requirement to qualify as a candidate for Governor of Sultan Kudarat in the 2022 elections.

Consequently, at the time of filing his Certificate of Candidacy for said position in Sultan Kudarat, he remained a resident of DAS, Maguindanao.

In effect, Datu Pax Ali committed a false misrepresentation in his COC, thus invalidating his proclamation as a Governor in Sultan Kudarat in 2022, resulting in a permanent vacancy in the said position. The rule on succession under the Local Government Code shall prevail, rendering the Vice Governor to assume the office of Governor, thereby abandoning the "second placer" rule.

https://abogadohon.blogspot.com/2025/06/datu-pax-ali-mangudadatu-vs-comelec-et.html?m=1

25/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

26/04/2025

Annulment and nullity of marriage cases must now be filed and served electronically through email, except for initiatory pleadings.

In A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, the En Banc expanded Rule 13-A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates electronic filing and service of pleadings, motions, and other papers in civil cases in first- and second-level courts.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended this inclusion, noting that these cases follow similar procedures to civil actions.

The amendment takes effect after publication of the Resolution on April 24, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-requires-electronic-filing-for-annulment-and-nullity-of-marriage-cases/

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, Re: Inclusion of the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage and Annulment of Marriage in the Coverage of Rule 13-A of the Rules of Court, at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-01-13-sc-re-inclusion-of-the-declaration-of-absolute-nullity-of-marriage-and-annulment-of-marriage-in-the-coverage-of-rule-13-a-of-the-rules-of-court/ .

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

06/01/2025

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na dapat na malinaw sa search warrant ang tinutukoy na lokasyong hahalughugin. Kung hindi, mawawalan ng bisa ang search warrant dahil sa paglabag sa karapatan laban sa mga unlawful search and seizure.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, pinawalang-sala ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema si Lucky Enriquez (Enriquez) sa mga krimen ng illegal possession of dangerous drugs at drug paraphernalia sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 o ang Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, dahil sa isang depektibong search warrant at irregular na pagpapatupad nito.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon, kinakailangang ilarawan sa isang search warrant ang partikular na lugar na hahalughugin. Ang requirement na ito ay mahalaga upang mapigilan ang mga enforcing officers na magdesisyon sa kanilang sarili kung saan ang search, kung kanino, at kung ano ang iseize.

Sa kaso ni Enriquez, nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na ang search warrant ay masyadong malawak at maituturing na isang general warrant, na ipinagbabawal sa Konstitusyon. Ang kakulangan ng detalyeng ito ay nagbigay sa mga ahente ng PDEA ng unlimited power para halughugin ang buong compound.

Napag-alaman din ng Korte Suprema na hindi naisilbi nang maayos ang search warrant. Ayon sa Rule 126, Sections 7 at 8 ng Rules of Court, dapat munang magpakilala ang mga government agent at humingi ng permiso na makapasok sa lugar na nais nilang i-search. Maaari lamang nilang pilitin pumasok kung tinanggihan ang kanilang pagpapaalam. Ang rule na ito ay pinoprotektahan ang taong sinilbihan ng warrant at ang mga government agent mula sa posibleng karahasan na maaaring mangyari mula sa isang unannounced entry.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-search-warrants-must-clearly-specify-location-to-be-searched/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/264473-people-of-the-philippines-vs-lucky-enriquez-y-casipi/

02/01/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that while lenders can acquire properties used as loan collateral, ownership cannot automatically transfer to them.

The SC explained that pactum commissorium occurs when (1) a property is used as collateral for a loan; and (2) the loan agreement includes a provision automatically transferring ownership of the collateral to the lender if the borrower fails to pay.

The SC emphasized that pactum commissorium is prohibited to protect borrowers from losing properties that may be worth more than their debt. Ownership can only be transferred through foreclosure and a public auction.

However, the SC clarified that this prohibition only applies to automatic transfers of ownership. Borrowers are free to voluntarily sell their collateral to lenders as repayment.

In this case, the realty corporation willingly entered into a separate agreement to sell its properties to the lenders as payment for the loan. The SC ruled that this was not an automatic transfer and, therefore, did not violate the prohibition against pactum commissorium.

The Decision is from the SC First Division, penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

Read the full text of the press release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/



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

08/09/2024

08/09/2024

BEST OF LUCK, FUTURE LAWYERS! 🙏

The three-day Philippine Bar Examination begins today!

21/07/2024

RA 12009, or the New Government Procurement Act (NGPA), has repealed RA 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA).

Some of the features of the new law include:

1. The “lowest calculated and responsive bid” is now termed the “most economically advantageous responsive bid” (MEARB). This means that winning bidders may not necessarily have the lowest-priced bid. Quality now takes precedence over cost.

2. The awarding of contracts will be reduced from three months to 60 days. Streamlined procurement forms will expedite the process.

3. The law introduces 11 new modalities for procuring goods and services, such as “competitive dialogue,” unsolicited offers with bid matching, direct acquisition, and direct procurement for science, technology, and innovation. This provides greater flexibility for government agencies in their procurement methods.

4. An “e-marketplace” similar to Lazada, Shopee, or Amazon will allow government agencies to place orders for common-use supplies and equipment (CSE). This will significantly reduce the turnaround time for procurement to as short as 30 days.

5. Suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and consultants must now provide beneficial ownership information to participate in government procurement. The public will have access to this registry, ensuring transparency and preventing conflicts of interest between bidders and the agencies making the procurement.

Pres­id­ent Mar­cos says the new law intends to give Filipi­nos the best value for their money in pur­chas­ing sup­plies for gov­ern­ment oper­a­tions. What is most ‘eco­nom­ic­ally advant­age­ous,’ not the low­est bid, will be chosen. Observ­ers...

02/07/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that benefits arising from a seafarer’s death under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration contract should be awarded only to the surviving legitimate spouse, despite being long estranged from the seafarer, alongside the seafarer’s legitimate and illegitimate children.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-only-legal-spouse-children-may-receive-seafarer-death-benefits/