Yauder Law Office

09/09/2026

Electronic service of Notice of Dishonor is now allowed in BP 22 cases.

The (SC) has clarified the rules on serving notices of dishonor in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘉𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘓𝘢𝘸. The SC formally recognized electronic service as a valid mode of serving notice of dishonor, while requiring safeguards to ensure that service can be reliably proven in court.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 affirmed the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos for six counts of violating BP 22.

The spouses issued six checks to respondent Tire Star, Inc. as payment for car tires. All six checks were dishonored by the bank as the account they were drawn from had been closed.

The prosecution presented evidence that Tire Star’s messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spouses’ office, and that the spouses refused to receive it, instructed an employee instead to sign for it.

The spouses then claimed before the SC that they should be acquitted because they were not properly served with a notice of dishonor.

The SC rejected the spouses’ argument, emphasizing that an accused cannot defeat a BP 22 prosecution simply by denying receipt of the notice or refusing to accept it. Otherwise, issuers could easily evade liability by avoiding service.

To promote uniformity and reduce disputes, the SC clarified the acceptable modes of serving notices of dishonor.

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 remains the preferred mode. The notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, in the case of a business, to an authorized representative. If the issuer cannot be served at the office, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.

The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how service was made. When practicable, service should be documented through photographs or video recordings, subject to proper authentication in court.

If personal service is not practicable, the notice of dishonor may be sent by 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹, or where registry service is unavailable, by 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹. The person serving the notice must likewise execute an affidavit explaining why personal service could not be made and attach the supporting postal documents.

The SC also recognized 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲, ruling that a notice of dishonor may now be served through email as a primary mode of service when the issuer previously provided their email address. Electronic service may likewise be used through platforms such as 𝘝𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳, 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, or similar applications, provided it can be verified that the electronic account belongs to the issuer.

Electronic service may also be used when the issuer refuses to receive the notice, avoids service, or when personal service is otherwise impracticable. In such cases, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours after the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must state the dates and details of those failed attempts.

The sender must also execute an affidavit and preserve supporting evidence, such as screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, or chat histories., stressing that a simple denial of receipt is not enough to invalidate electronic service.

In all instances, to successfully dispute service, the issuer must show that it was physically impossible to have received the notice at the time and place it was served.

The spouses were fined a total of PHP 609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay Tire Star the same amount, plus interest.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that electronic service should not merely be a substitute but a primary mode of service consistent with contemporary means of communication and the Judiciary’s ongoing digital reforms.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172159.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171528.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171527.

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

09/09/2026

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!