KPE Legal Consultancy and Services

28/08/2025

📌 The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent. ☝🏽☺️

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Meliton’s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Meliton’s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ½ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agency’s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principal’s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the parties’ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agent’s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principal’s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Meliton’s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Meliton’s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessica’s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessica’s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Meliton’s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessica’s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

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

15/08/2025

📌 In any case of termination, the two (2) notice rule must be observed. First, a Notice to Explain to give the employee the opportunity to answer all allegations against him/her. And second, Notice of Decision formally informing him/her the result of the deliberation or corresponding sanction/s in case the allegations were proven to be true during and administrative hearing. BOTH must be complied with otherwise, the employer may be held liable for illegal termination ☝🏽😊

15/06/2025

📌 We cater SEC registration! ☺️

For more details and assistance, you may send us a private message.

16/05/2025

𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

𝐎𝐧 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The National Privacy Commission (NPC) received reports regarding the public display of the Posted Computerized Voters’ List (PCVL) on some of the polling sites in the country during the National and Local Elections Day on 12 May 2025. The PCVLs, which contain voters’ personal information, including their full names, photographs, and residential addresses, were reportedly posted in areas accessible to the general public, such as bulletin boards outside voting precincts.

Read more below or on our website: https://privacy.gov.ph/on-public-display-of-voters-personal-information/

16/05/2025

📌 “employment contract was perfected as soon as Aragones signed the job offer, maintaining that even if his start date was still three months away, it did not mean there was no employer-employee relationship.” ☝🏽☺️

The (SC) has reiterated that once a job offer is accepted, an employer-employee relationship is already formed. Employers cannot just claim redundancy to justify terminating workers – they must present clear proof that a valid redundancy program is in place.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division found that Alltech Biotechnology (Alltech) illegally dismissed Paolo Landayan Aragones (Aragones) for failing to prove there was redundancy in the company.

Alltech had offered Aragones the position of Swine Technical Manager - Pacific, with a monthly salary of PHP 140,000. He accepted the offer and resigned from his previous job.

Before Aragones’ start date, however, Alltech informed him that the position had been abolished due to a global restructuring. Alltech offered him the amount of PHP 140,000 as goodwill payment. Aragones then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The SC ruled that the employment contract was perfected as soon as Aragones signed the job offer. The delay in his start date merely postponed the obligations of Aragones to report for work, and of Alltech to pay his salary.

However, the SC emphasized that employers must provide solid evidence to justify terminating an employee due to redundancy, which Alltech failed to provide.

Alltech only submitted an affidavit from its Vice President stating that the company decided to shift from regional to local support to better respond to its customers’ needs.

The SC found the statement vague and unsupported by other documents. It did not explain how or why certain positions like Aragones’ were removed. It thus ordered Alltech to pay Aragones backwages and separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/38vp842u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/2tfywuhu.

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

09/04/2025

Quezon City – In a groundbreaking initiative aligned with the recent enactment of Republic Act No. 12021, or the Magna Carta for Seafarers, and in relation to Republic Act No. 10706, or the Seafarer’s Protection Act, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has launched a nationwide effort through the creation of NLRC Action Desks. These desks are tasked with receiving and acting upon reports of ambulance chasing and excessive legal fees charged to seafarers, in strict compliance with the provisions of the law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

The NLRC Action Desks were created to serve as accessible reporting mechanisms for seafarers and stakeholders seeking redress from unethical practices within the maritime labor sector.

Chairperson Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan expressed her full support for the establishment of the NLRC Action Desks, describing it as a concrete step toward safeguarding Filipino seafarers from the persistent issues of ambulance chasing and excessive legal fees. She emphasized that the NLRC, as a protector of labor rights, holds a crucial duty to provide maritime workers with a reliable and accessible venue where they can report and seek redress for exploitative practices.

As part of the Commission’s nationwide initiative, Action Desks have been strategically established across key regions to ensure accessibility and prompt response to reports.

For Luzon, the NLRC Action Desk will manage all reports from the Regional Arbitration Branches (RABs) within the region, as well as the 1st to 6th Divisions of the Commission. This desk will be housed in the Office of the Executive Clerk of Court, operating under the supervision of the Executive Clerk of Court IV.

In the Visayas, the Action Desk will cater to concerns originating from RABs in the region and the NLRC’s 7th Division. It will be located within the Office of the Executive Clerk of Court – 7th Division, functioning under the direction of the Executive Clerk of Court II.

Meanwhile, the Action Desk for Mindanao will receive and process reports from RABs and the 8th Division of the Commission. This desk will be housed in the Office of the Executive Clerk of Court – 8th Division, also under the supervision of an Executive Clerk of Court II.

By establishing these Action Desks, the Commission continues to demonstrate its dedication to protecting the welfare of seafarers while promoting ethical legal practices in line with the principles of justice, accountability, and professional integrity.

15/03/2025

📌 When is Habeas Corpus Used?

Illegal Confinement - The writ applies to cases of illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of their liberty.

Unlawful Custody - It also covers situations where the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the person entitled to it. ☝🏽☺️

LOOK: Petitioner Veronica “Kitty” Duterte, daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, asks the Supreme Court to compel the government to “produce the body of Rodrigo Duterte before this Honorable Court immediately.” | via Jane Bautista, Philippine Daily Inquirer

22/01/2025

Need legal advise regarding violence against women and children? Book your consultation today! 📝

PM us for more details 📨

The has reiterated that a psychological evaluation is not necessary to prove that psychological violence was committed under Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Court’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of an accused for psychological violence against his wife and children, sentencing him to up 8 years in prison and PHP 275,000 in fines and damages. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC emphasized that a psychological evaluation from an expert witness is not necessary to prove that the victim suffered. It is not a requirement under the law. The SC ruled that a victim’s testimony in court is enough to prove emotional anguish or mental suffering.

Here, the wife testified in detail her experience proving her mental and emotional anguish. Her husband had an extramarital relationship, left her and their children, and cohabited with another woman in a house right beside their own home, in full view of their children. The accused even flaunted his affair on social media.

Read the press release in full at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-psychological-evaluation-not-required-to-prove-psychological-violence-under-anti-vawc-act/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/270257-###270257-vs-people-of-the-philippines-and-aaa

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

21/01/2025

We provide assistance on notarization of documents! ☺️

03/01/2025

📌 Ito ay ipinagbabawal sa konsepto ng “pactum commissorium” kung saan ang collateral ay hindi maaaring mapunta or maging pag-aari awtomatiko ng nagpautang. ☝🏽☺️

Ipinaalala ng Korte Suprema na habang ang mga nagpapahiram ng pera ay maaaring makakuha ng mga ari-arian na ginagamit bilang loan collateral, ang pagmamay-ari ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong ilipat sa kanila, maliban kung may hiwalay na kasunduan.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, kinatigan ng First Division ng Korte Suprema ang paglipat ng pagmamay-ari ng lupang pag-aari ng Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation (Ruby Shelter) sa pinagkakautangan nito na sina Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) at Roberto L . Obiedo (Obiedo). Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang paglilipat na ito ay batay sa isang may bisang kasunduan at hindi lumalabag sa batas na nagbabawal sa awtomatikong paglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral.

Ang Ruby Shelter ay humiram ng pera kina Tan at Obiedo, gamit ang ilang mga ari-arian bilang collateral. Nang ang natitirang utang ay umabot sa PHP 95 milyon, ang mga partido ay pumirma sa isang Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) na ibenta ang mga ari-arian nito kina Tan at Obiedo bilang bayad sa utang.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang bisa ng MOA at sinabing kusang pumasok ang Ruby Shelter sa MOA na ibenta ang mga ari-arian kung hindi makapagbayad. Ipinaliwanag din ng Korte na ang MOA ay hindi bumubuo ng pactum commissorium o isang ipinagbabawal na kasunduan sa ilalim ng Article 2088 ng Civil Code. Ang probisyong ito ay nagsasaad na ang isang tagapagpahiram ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong makakuha ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Ang pactum commissorium ay nangyayari kapag (1) ang isang ari-arian ay ginamit bilang collateral para sa isang pautang; at (2) ang kasunduan sa pautang ay may kasamang probisyon na awtomatikong naglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral sa nagpapahiram kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/