Verba Legis PH

Directions

Verba Legis PH Your Daily Dose of Legal Knowledge

21/09/2026

May a local government unit prohibit a form of gambling expressly authorized by national law? (Bar, 2026).
Read the suggested answer.

(Link in the comments).

19/09/2026

We are claiming it with you: Atty. [Your Name]. โš–๏ธ๐Ÿค
Go live. Youโ€™ve earned this moment. ๐Ÿ’ซ ๐Ÿค๐Ÿฝ

15/09/2026
14/09/2026

Dear Bar takers,

Congratulations on hurdling the exams! Finally, you have made it through the finish line.

Whatever results may come, and whatever happens from this point forward, no one can take away from you that fact that you survived. To most, this is the end of a painstaking journey. But truth be told, this is just the beginning.

For now, savor the moment and celebrate the win. Go out with your loved ones. Have time for your friends. Experience the love of the village that raised youโ€”that placed you where you are today.

Take things one step at a timeโ€”the results will come sooner than later. But for now, live your best days. You have already done your best, and we are all proud of you.

Destiny awaits.

You will claim your dot.

Congratulations on finishing strong, future paรฑeros and paรฑeras!

We are with you all the way.

11/09/2026

The (SC) has found a bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for spreading false information about the 2023 Bar Examinations on Facebook after stating that the said exams would be checked by means of artificial intelligence (AI).

In a ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฎ Decision, the SC ๐˜Œ๐˜ฏ ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค found Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt. The Court fined him PHP 30,000 and ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers.

On September 21, 2023, a post from the Facebook group and the account ๐˜›๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ถ ๐˜‹๐˜ช๐˜ป๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ claimed that the 2023 Bar Examinations would be โ€œ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฃ๐˜บ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ (๐˜ˆ๐˜).โ€ It also stated:

โ€œ๐˜ˆ๐˜“๐˜ž๐˜ˆ๐˜ ๐˜š ๐˜š๐˜›๐˜ˆ๐˜™๐˜› ๐˜ž๐˜๐˜›๐˜ ๐˜ ๐˜Œ๐˜š ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜•๐˜–.
๐˜ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด.โ€

As a result, the Office of the 2023 Bar Chair (BCO), headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, had to investigate the source of the post and determine its impact on the examinations. It also issued an advisory clarifying that the examinations would be checked by four human examiners for each subject, all of whom are experts in their respective fields.

But instead of removing the post, Dizon threatened to sue the Court and demanded a public apology โ€œwithin 24 hoursโ€, in a media interview. He also sent several emails to the SCโ€™s Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming that the advisory had a chilling effect on him. He denied spreading misinformation and asked the Court to issue a statement correcting the advisory.

After being directed by the SC to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for interfering with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations, Dizon admitted owning the Facebook account but denied claiming that AI would check the examinations, arguing that he used the words โ€œTO HELPโ€ in his post.

The SC was not convinced and held him liable under Rule 71, Section 3 of the ๐˜™๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ต, which punishes unlawful interference with court processes outside a courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law, as indirect contempt.

The SC held that Dizonโ€™s post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the SC, which exercises supervision over the legal profession. It caused confusion and alarm, forcing bar officials to divert their limited time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications, and responding to numerous inquiries.

The SC further noted Dizonโ€™s lack of remorse. Instead of acknowledging the harm caused by his post, he demanded an apology from the Court, threatened legal action, refused to take down the post, and sought a statement retracting the advisory.

The Court likewise warned Dizon from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law when he conducted bar review coaching sessions and authored several bar review materials used in the ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜“๐˜ข๐˜ธ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜‹๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ด training program. Dizon acknowledged that while he had passed the 2016 Bar Examinations, he had not taken the lawyerโ€™s oath, which is one of the requirements to practice law, because of pending criminal cases.

In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that Dizon must be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar examinations. However, he also emphasized the need to balance the Courtโ€™s power to punish for contempt with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172950

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-in-re-social-media-posts-of-edgar-s-dizon/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

10/09/2026

๐—ง๐—›๐—˜ ๐—–๐—ฅ๐—œ๐— ๐—œ๐—ก๐—”๐—Ÿ ๐—Ÿ๐—”๐—ช ๐—•๐—”๐—ฅ ๐—˜๐—ซ๐—”๐—  ๐—œ๐—ฆ ๐—ง๐—›๐—œ๐—ฆ ๐—ฆ๐—จ๐—ก๐——๐—”๐—ฌ.

With the September 9 examinations behind you, the final day of the 2026 Bar Examinations is now in sight.

Before taking the 10% Criminal Law examination on the morning of September 13, join ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ด๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—น๐—ผ ๐—•. ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ for a ๐—™๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—˜ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ-๐—ช๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ธ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ.

Use this focused session to revisit key Criminal Law principles, clarify difficult areas, sharpen your issue-spotting, and strengthen the clear, practical legal analysis expected in the Bar.

๐Ÿ“… ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿญ, ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฒ
โฐ ๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฃ๐— โ€“๐Ÿฒ:๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฃ๐— 
๐Ÿ“ ๐—Ÿ๐—œ๐—ฉ๐—˜ on the REX Education page
๐ŸŽŸ๏ธ ๐—™๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—˜ ๐—ข๐—ก๐—Ÿ๐—œ๐—ก๐—˜ ๐—ฆ๐—˜๐—ฆ๐—ฆ๐—œ๐—ข๐—ก

REGISTER HERE: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_K-9KnYRUSz-MXCu2-XSPiA

This is not the time to begin again. Focus on what matters, consolidate what you already know, and approach every question with discipline and clarity.

The final day will also include Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises in the afternoon. Pace yourself, protect your focus, and make these remaining review hours count.

Stay steady, future attorney. The Rex Education family is with you as you move through the final stretch.

๐Ÿ’ฏ
09/09/2026

๐Ÿ’ฏ

The 2026 Bar is a reminder: knowing the law is only half the battle. The real skill is spotting the issues quickly, cutting through the noise, and knowing exactly where to spend your time.

Read the facts strategically. Spot the issues. Prioritize. Answer. Donโ€™t let a complicated fact pattern steal your time. โš–๏ธ

08/09/2026

'TRICKY REMEDIAL LAW QUESTION '

This is a tricky Remedial Law question. Unless one has actually read the Supreme Court's decision, it is not easy to appreciate the legal issue involved.

As a general rule, issues, theories, and arguments not raised before the trial court or administrative agency cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The rule is rooted in due process and fair play, ensuring that the opposing party has a full opportunity to refute the issues raised and present the necessary evidence before the proper tribunal.

In this case, the controversy arose from an administrative proceeding. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Court of Appeals cannot cure the omission by remanding the case to the administrative agency simply to allow a party to raise issues or present evidence that should have been raised in the first instance.

Learn more in the comments section.

Address

Ermita
Manila
1000

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Verba Legis PH posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category