Atty Marge Malihan

12/06/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1RxTpC6M2Q/?mibextid=wwXIfr

“NO VIDEO, NO REFUND” POLICY OF SOME ONLINE SELLERS NOT VALID UNDER THE CONSUMER ACT, SAYS DTI..

11/06/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JNBMeVeMK/?mibextid=wwXIfr

In 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐮𝐭 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐯. 𝐀𝐧𝐠, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟒𝟖, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝟑, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 the SC nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on a bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.
Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB, later substituted by Land Bank, and secured by a real estate mortgage, but the bank unilaterally imposed interest rates, making them void. When they allegedly defaulted, the bank foreclosed the property.

While lower courts agreed the interest was void, they disagreed on the foreclosure’s validity.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled (on reconsideration) that foreclosure was invalid because the debt amount was uncertain due to illegal interest. It held that, when a loan agreement contains interest rates that are unconscionable, unilaterally imposed, or potestative in character, the mortgagor cannot be considered in default for failing to pay such illegal interest, and any foreclosure proceedings based on such default are void. The creditor’s right to foreclose is conditioned upon a valid and demandable obligation, and where the interest stipulation is void, the debtor must first be given the opportunity to settle the correct amount before foreclosure can proceed.

07/06/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Tovuj42Lo/?mibextid=wwXIfr

SC Rules Lazada Riders Are Employees, Not Independent Contractors

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that delivery riders engaged by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. under so-called "Independent Contractor Agreements" were in fact regular employees entitled to the protection of labor laws.

### The Court likewise applied the "economic reality test" and found that the riders' services were integral to Lazada's business operations. While Lazada characterized itself as an online platform connecting buyers and sellers, the Court observed that its business model included the delivery of products, making the riders' work necessary and indispensable to its operations.- SC, Second Division, Per LOPEZ, J., J.

Read the full text in the comments.

03/06/2026

SC Acquits "Paluwagan" Admin; Mere Failure to Return Entrusted Funds Does Not Automatically Constitute Estafa

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the mere failure to return money entrusted to a person does not automatically amount to estafa. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused misappropriated or converted the funds for personal use or for a purpose different from that agreed upon.

“When the court finds that the source of obligation is in fact, a contract, as in a contract of loan, it takes a position completely inconsistent with the presence of estafa,” the Court stressed.

Read the full text in the comments.