Yauder Law Office

19/08/2026

19/08/2026

KALIGTASAN MUNA SA PANAHON NG MASAMANG PANAHON

Sa panahon ng bagyo, malakas na pag-ulan at iba pang weather disturbances, maaaring suspindihin ng mga employer sa pribadong sektor ang trabaho upang mapangalagaan ang kaligtasan at kalusugan ng kanilang mga manggagawa.

Narito ang mga patakaran sa bayad:

🔹 Hindi nagtrabaho – Walang regular na sahod, maliban kung may mas paborableng company policy, practice, CBA, o paggamit ng accrued leave credits.
🔹 Nagtrabaho nang 6 oras o higit pa – Karapat-dapat sa buong regular pay.
🔹 Nagtrabaho nang mas mababa sa 6 oras – Proporsyonal na bayad batay sa aktuwal na oras ng trabaho.

Mahalaga: Ang manggagawang hindi pumasok o tumangging magtrabaho dahil sa napipintong panganib dulot ng masamang panahon o katulad na pangyayari ay hindi dapat patawan ng administrative sanction.

Para sa karagdagang impormasyon, basahin ang Labor Advisory No. 14, Series of 2026 – Suspension of Work in the Private Sector by Reason of Weather Disturbances and Similar Occurrences.

Unahin ang kaligtasan. Maging alerto, manatiling ligtas, at sumunod sa mga opisyal na abiso.

11/08/2026

Hindi ibig sabihin na nasa pampublikong lugar ka, nawawalan ka na ng RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Hindi ito nangangahulugang maari ka nang i-record at i-post sa social media nang walang batayan. Ayon sa NPC Advisory Opinion No. 2021-014 at 2018-051, hindi nawawala ang data subject rights mo kahit nasa public ka, at ang pagproseso ng personal data mo, tulad ng pag-record at pag-post, ay sakop pa rin ng mga probisyon ng Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173).

Magkaiba ang pag-RECORD sa pag-POST.

Sa pag-record sa public space, pwedeng kumuha ng litrato o video kung may sapat na batayan , gaya ng sa seguridad, dokumentasyon, balita, o pansariling gamit, halimbawa, kapag kinukunan ang isang kapamilya o kaibigan. Ang mahalaga, may lehitimong layunin, at hindi lumalampas dito ang kinukuha.

PERO ibang usapan na ang pag-post. Ang iyong mukha at pagkakakilanlan ay itinuturing na personal data sa ilalim ng DPA. Nangangailangan ito ng batayan sa ilalim ng batas. Maaring pahintulot (consent), o maari rin naming ibang batayan katulad ng legitimate interest, lalo na kung may kaugnayan sa publikong interes ang ipinost. May mga sitwasyon din na hindi sakop ng DPA, tulad ng purong personal na paggamit at ng lehitimong pamamahayag.

Tandaan:

1. Bagama’t inaasahan na mapagmasdan ka ng mga tao sa isang pampublikong lugar, may mga ibang implikasyon sa data privacy at sa inyong mga Karapatan kung makukuhanan ka ng video habang nasa public space at i-post ito online. Kapag online na ang mga litrato at video, maaring ito ay accessible na sa lahat ng tao na may access sa internet sa buong mundo.
2. Ang pagrecord at pag-post ay magkaibang processing activities. Ang ibig sabihin nito, ang pagkakaroon ng sapat na basis sa pag-record ay HINDI AUTOMATIC na nagbibigay ng basis para sa pag-post. Kailangan maglaan ng hiwalay at sapat na batayan para sa bawat isa.

(From the National Privacy Commission’s top comment in the post)

So eto na nga…

Navideohan ka na nag-jaywalking, tapos ginawang "educational content" at ipinost sa personal account nang walang consent. Ang sabi ng nag-upload, nasa public place naman daw kaya wala nang privacy at di na kelangan ng consent.

Totoo ba na kapag nasa pampublikong lugar, wala nang privacy at pwede nang i-record at i-post sa social media?

Hmm... answer in the comment section 👇

02/08/2026

The Yauder Law Office joined The FreeTime Project Philippines in its Free Legal Education and Legal Aid Clinic at Brgy. Tumana, Marikina City earlier today.

Through free legal seminars and legal consultations, the activity helped bring legal awareness and legal services closer to the community.

We thank The Freetime Project Philippines for the opportunity to be part of this meaningful activity! 🙏

18/07/2026

The Yauder Law Office will participate at The FreeTime Project Philippines’ Lakbay Hustisya at Brgy. Tumana, Marikina City. See you there!

Lakbay Hustisya: Access to Justice One Community at a Time ⚖️

The Freetime Project begins its Lakbay Hustisya series, bringing legal awareness and access to justice closer to communities through Free Legal Seminars and Free Legal Consultations.

📍 First Stop: Barangay Tumana, Marikina City
📅 August 2, 2026

Thank you to our volunteer lawyers who have already signed up to serve. We are still looking for five (5) volunteer lawyers to help conduct a Free Legal Seminar and provide Free Legal Consultations.

Because access to justice begins with access to information.

Interested in volunteering? Send us a message!

02/07/2026

“Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.”

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

30/06/2026

30/06/2026

Owning property is a significant investment. Ensure your investment is safe by conducting due diligence!

Check out this video for a guide on due diligence: https://fb.watch/vZ4m8IGRR2/?mibextid=v7YzmG

The Land Registration Authority (LRA) remains committed to 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗥𝗔 𝘄𝗲𝗯𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲: https://www.lra.gov.ph/

To secure a Certified True Copy of your Land Title, visit the nearest Registry of Deeds or request online via LRA eSerbisyo Portal at www.eserbisyo.lra.gov.ph
Stay informed, stay protected!

30/06/2026

30/06/2026

Ruling that Carpio was illegally dismissed, the SC reiterated that abandonment, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, requires proof of two elements: (1) the employee was absent without a valid reason; and (2) the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements.

In this case, although Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he tried to return to work and immediately challenged his dismissal by filing a complaint.

The SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages because his dismissal was made in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must instead pay him separation pay.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378.

(Originally published by the SC PIO)

The (SC) has reiterated that an employee's absence from work, by itself, is not enough to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) and Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Carpio claimed he was originally hired by Green Era Biotech but was later transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value. After he was absent from work at Green Era Biotech for eight straight days due to illness, Great Value issued him a notice to explain. He was warned that another similar violation would lead to an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.

Carpio was later absent from work for another nine consecutive days. Great Value issued him an AWOL notice, stating that his continued absences were considered serious misconduct and abandonment of work.

He later took another leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, when he returned to work the next day, he was barred from entering the workplace. A few days later, Carpio was informed he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Ruling that Carpio was illegally dismissed, the SC reiterated that abandonment, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, requires proof of two elements: (1) the employee was absent without a valid reason; and (2) the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements.

In this case, although Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he tried to return to work and immediately challenged his dismissal by filing a complaint.

The SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages because his dismissal was made in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must instead pay him separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378.

Read the full text of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383.

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