Salomon Law Office

25/03/2026

📢 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: KASAMBAHAY LAW (RA 10361)
Are you a household worker or an employer? Understanding the Kasambahay Law protects the rights and responsibilities of both.

👩‍🍳 WHO IS A KASAMBAHAY?
Domestic worker or “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.

The term shall not include children who are under foster family arrangement, and are provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to education, i.e. “baon”, transportation, school projects and school activities. [Sec.4(d)]

⚖️ KEY RIGHTS OF KASAMBAHAY:
If you are a kasambahay, the law protects your dignity, safety, and well-being.
✔️ Minimum wage (varies by region)
✔️ Daily rest (8hrs) and weekly rest (24hrs) periods
✔️ SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG (subject to sharing of contributions, as applicable)
✔️ Humane treatment and respect for dignity

⚖️ EMPLOYER RIGHTS:
While the law protects kasambahays, employers are equally given rights to ensure fairness and order in the household.
✔️ To expect quality work and proper performance of agreed duties
✔️ To terminate employment for just causes (e.g., misconduct/willful disobedience, gross/habitual neglect of duties, inefficiency, fraud, breach of trust, prejudicial disease)
✔️ To terminate for authorized causes, with proper notice and payment when applicable

[Nothing in the law prevents an employer from granting benefits more favorable than those provided under the Kasambahay Law. The statute merely establishes the minimum standards, which employers are free to exceed.]

📍The content shared on this page is for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please seek the guidance of a lawyer of your own choice.

28/02/2026

03/02/2026

Not all property documents prove ownership. Know the difference between a land title and a tax declaration.
Disclaimer: Posts on this page are for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. Laws and their application may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. For proper guidance, please consult your lawyer.

29/01/2026

Art. 1318 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides,
"There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain, which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. "

28/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

27/01/2026

Congratulations on earning your Master of Laws (LL.M.) ✨🎓
Atty. Emmanuel K. Salomon!

Your dedication, discipline, and passion for the law have reached another remarkable milestone. This achievement is a testament to your perseverance and commitment to excellence.

Best wishes for continued distinction in your legal career. ⚖️

27/01/2026

The (SC) has dismissed an adultery case filed by the representative of a married man, reiterating that only the offended spouse may file the complaint.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division dismissed the adultery charge filed by Jin Chiba, through a representative, against his wife, Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and her co-accused Michael Llona. SC reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael.

Aurel’s husband, Jin, through his representative, filed a complaint for adultery and grave threats against the two.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it.

The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative.

The SC disagreed and reiterated that adultery is a private crime that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, citing Rule 110, Section 5, of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and Article 344 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC).

The SC explained that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

In this case, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

Because there is failure to meet the requirement under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and the RPC, the SC held that no valid complaint was filed and dismissed the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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

14/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has suspended the sentence of a child in conflict with the law (CICL), reaffirming the intent of Republic Act No. 9344, or the 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵, to promote the best interests and rehabilitation of the child.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the appeal of ###265302 (accused) and found him guilty of qualified r**e of a minor, imposing a penalty of 12 years to 14 years, eight months and one day in prison.

It remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to order the accused's confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility under Section 51 of the law.

The accused, who was 15 years old at the time of the incident, was charged with ra**ng his five-year-old playmate.

The RTC found ###265302 guilty of statutory r**e after he turned 18 years old. It imposed on him the penalty of imprisonment for eight years and one day to 14 years, eight months and one day, but it suspended his sentence, following Section 38 of RA 9344.

A few months later, the RTC issued an arrest warrant, and ###265302 was detained at the New Bilibid Prison. The Court of Appeals denied his appeal.

The SC affirmed ###265302’s conviction but clarified that the crime was qualified r**e and ordered the suspension of his sentence.

Section 40 of RA 9344 provides that when the CICL reaches 18 while under suspended sentence, the court may discharge them, order the ex*****on of their sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a period or until they reach the maximum age of 21 years old.

In this case, the accused, who was transferred to the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, is now 25 years old.

Nonetheless, the SC extended the suspension of his sentence to fulfill the law’s legislative intent, which prioritizes the child offender’s restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration into the community.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159175.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159085.

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

26/12/2025

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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