M&PLaw Services

15/10/2025

15/10/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a marriage officiated by a solemnizing officer without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses honestly believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC’s Second Division dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage filed by a wife who claimed that the person who officiated her wedding was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

The couple was married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, with their marriage contract listing Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) as the solemnizing officer.

However, more than 20 years later, the wife’s lawyer claimed that the purported officiant in their wedding photos was not Judge De Gracia but Rosalio Florendo, a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This led the wife to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

The SC found that the wife failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority. The marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

The SC cited Article 3 of the Family Code (FC) which lists as one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage the authority of the solemnizing officer. Meanwhile, Article 7 of FC clothes incumbent judges within their jurisdiction with such authority. Marriage solemnized by a person without such authority is void under Articles 4 and 35(2) of FC unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized in which case, the marriage is still valid.

While the wife later alleged that the solemnizing officer was not Judge De Gracia, the SC found that she presented no evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.

The SC emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

06/04/2025

PRESS RELEASE | DOJ-BIR crackdown vs. Ever Bilena for tax evasion

On March 25, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed four (4) criminal Informations before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 33 against Ever Bilena Cosmetics, Inc. (“Ever Bilena”), a leading cosmetics company, and its responsible corporate officers Dioceldo S. Sy, President, and Miami S. Siytaoco, Treasurer, for tax evasion and failure to supply correct and accurate information in its tax returns. This is in relation to the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (“BIR”) intensified Run After Fake Transaction (“RAFT”) Program involving fake/fictitious receipts.

Based on the Investigation of the RAFT Task Force, Ever Bilena used and claimed benefits from the Ghost Receipts issued by Decarich Supertrade Inc., a ghost company. The use of ghost receipts had resulted to Ever Bilena’s over-stated expenses amounting to millions of pesos and lowered taxable income. Consequently, it failed to declare and pay the correct amount of tax due. Hence, on February 1, 2024, the BIR, headed by Commissioner Lumagui, filed a criminal complaint against Ever Bilena before the DOJ.

“This is an affirmative step which clearly conveys the government’s unwavering commitment to intensifying the prosecution of tax evasion cases under the Bagong Pilipinas governance where a reasonable certainty of conviction exists,” Secretary Remulla stressed.

“I thank Commissioner Lumagui for the BIR’s relentless efforts in our continuous pursuit for justice, specifically in the realm of enforcing our tax laws,” added Secretary Remulla.

The filing of this case is a result of DOJ’s own investigation finding evidence of reasonable certainty of conviction that the allegation of tax evasion against Ever Bilena is sufficient to warrant conviction.

Ever Bilena, a large cosmetic company, has to defend itself before the Quezon City Court as warrants of arrest will soon be issued against it and its responsible corporate officers.

06/04/2025

𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓: The 3rd Annual Social Dialogue between Women Workers United (WWU) and the Department of Labor and Employment - DOLE was held today, 04 April 2025, at the DOLE Building in Intramuros, Manila. The event was a joint initiative of the Bureau of Workers with Special Concerns (BWSC), led by Director Leilani M. Reynoso, and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), headed by Director Arturo Alfonso J. Herbosa.

The dialogue served as a platform for discussing key issues affecting women in the labor movement and other pressing labor-related concerns. The activity was chaired by Assistant Secretary Maria Consuelo S. Bacay, who also facilitated previous social dialogues during her tenure as BLR Director.

This year’s dialogue delved into the presentation of WWU of their 5-point Women Workers’ Agenda, which was launched in November 2024, and key labor issues of women workers. In turn, DOLE representatives provided updates on the Freedom of Association (FOA) Roadmap, the implementation of ILO Conventions 190 and 151, and the progress on the High-Level Tripartite Mission (HLTM) recommendations.

04/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

17/03/2025

The (SC) has emphasized that sheriffs, when serving the court’s writs and processes and implementing its orders, must perform their duties with the utmost care and diligence, as any mistake affects the administration of justice.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc dismissed Vicente S. Sicat, Jr. (Sicat) for repeatedly failing to properly perform his duties as Sheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga.

Sicat was ordered by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court to seize and sell, through a writ of ex*****on, the properties of an accused in an Anti-Bouncing Checks Law case, to satisfy a judgment. However, the complainant alleged that Sicat improperly submitted a Notice to Lift the Levy on Potts’ real properties to the Register of Deeds without a court order. This led to the cancellation of the levy, allowing the accused to transfer the property to another person.

The SC stressed that sheriffs must strictly adhere to procedural rules to ensure the proper enforcement of court orders. Any deviation from these procedures can undermine the administration of justice and warrants disciplinary action.

While Sicat’s failure to follow procedure made him liable for simple neglect of duty, which carries with it a penalty of suspension from office, the SC took note of Sicat’s long history of administrative infractions in his 40-year career in the Judiciary as it dismissed him from service.

The SC lamented that Sicat’s “deplorable track record in the Judiciary reveals a pattern of unwillingness to reform, deeming it worthy of the gravest penalty.”

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/h94s8rpv.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://tinyurl.com/3td5ejt4.

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

26/01/2025

The has affirmed that recruiting children for sexual exploitation is trafficking, even without the use of threats, force, or coercion.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division upheld the conviction of Jhona Galeseo Villaria and Lourdes Aralar Maghirang (accused) for 8 counts of qualified trafficking in persons. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, fined PHP 16 million, and ordered to pay each of the victims PHP 600,000 in damages.

The accused were arrested in 2016 by the Philippine National Police during an entrapment operation in a hotel, where they accepted marked money from the undercover police officers as payment for several female minors.

Trafficking occurs when individuals are recruited, transported, or transferred for exploitative purposes, including prostitution, forced labor, slavery, or the removal or sale of organs through threats or use of force, coercion, deception, abuse of power, or by offering money.

The Court clarified that under Section 3(a) of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, as amended, recruiting a child for sexual exploitation is enough to establish trafficking, regardless of whether threats, force, coercion, or deception were used.

In this case, the accused recruited minors and offered them for sexual activities in exchange for money. They took advantage of the victims’ youth and financial struggles to gain their consent.

Read the press release in full at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-threat-force-or-coercion-not-required-in-child-trafficking-cases/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259133-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jhona-galeseo-villaria-et-al/

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