Antonio & Estomo Law Offices

03/09/2025

25/07/2025

The Results and List of Successful Examinees of the 2025 Shari’ah Special Bar Examinations (SSBE) will be officially released to the public in the afternoon of July 25, 2025.

The Office of the Chairperson, Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., has issued a Notice to the 2025 SSBE Examinees on the New Date of Release of Results for the 2025 SSBE.

Read the Notice in full at:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-SSBE-Notice-dated-July-24-2025-New-Date-of-Release-of-Results.pdf

06/07/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the salaries of public officials can be garnished—or legally collected—by the courts to pay off their debts. These salaries are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the salary of Atty. Fred L. Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, can be garnished to pay his debt to respondent Anna May F. Perez.

Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez PHP 308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.

Bagbagen attempted to stop the garnishment, arguing that his salaries should not be collected due to public policy reasons, and that these funds were still considered government property until spent.

The SC affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that once a public official’s salary is deposited in their personal bank account, it is no longer considered government money.

It emphasized that there is no law exempting public officials’ salaries from garnishment. Under Rule 39 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, salaries – whether in the public or private sector – can be garnished to settle debts.

An exception exists for manual laborers, whose wages are protected to ensure they can still support their families. The SC explained that manual laborers “usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.”

However, only up to four months’ worth of wages are exempt. Any amount beyond that can still be collected to pay debts.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/44u5fp2s.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pzbvsv9.

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

29/03/2025

Iginiit ng na hindi tamang ang mga kliyente ang magdusa sa mga pagkakamali ng kanilang mga abogado lalo na kung mapagkakaitan sila ng hustisya.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, pinagbigyan ng Third Division ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng isang grupo ng mga manggagawa laban sa pagsantabi ng Court of Appeals (CA) sa hiling nilang dagdag na panahon para maghain ng kanilang pleading matapos itong hindi magawa ng kanilang abogado.

Naghain sa Labor Arbiter at National Labor Relations Commissions ng kasong illegal dismissal laban sa kanilang employer ang mga manggagawa ngunit ito ay ibinasura kaya inakyat nila ito sa Court of Appeals (CA) kung saan may 60 na araw o hanggang Disyembre 10, 2022 para maghain sila ng petition for certiorari.

Sa kabila ng kanilang pakikipag-usap at pagbigay ng bayad sa abogado, nabigo itong maghain ng petisyon. Kaya muli silang humingi ng 30 araw o hanggang Enero 10, 2023 para makahanap ng bagong abogado at makapaghain ng kanilang petisyon.

Tinanggihan ng CA ang kanilang hiling at ibinasura ang kanilang petition na naisumite nila sa tulong ng bagong abogado noong Enero 10, 2023.

Sa pagpanig sa mga manggagawa, nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na sa kabila ng 60 na araw na deadline, maaari itong magbigay ng palugit kapag may mga matibay na dahilan.

Sa pangkalahatan, tali ang mga kliyente sa kilos ng kanilang abogado maliban kung ang pagpapabaya ng abogado ay lalabag sa due process o di kaya ay magdudulot ng pagkawala ng kalayaan o ari-arian ng kliyente.

Sa kasong ito, ang mga manggagawa na sumasahod lang ng minimum wage at limitado lang ang malalapitan para sa serbisyong legal ay tinalikuran ng kanilang abogado. Hindi sila agad makakahanap ng bagong abogado.

Dahil dito, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na dapat dinggin ng CA ang kanilang kaso, at idiniin ang prisipyo na ang batas ay dapat proteksyunan ang mga mahihina at walang kapangyarihan. Inutusan ng Korte Suprema ang CA na desisyunan ang kaso base sa merito nito.

Inutusan din ang Commission on Bar Discipline ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines para imbestigahan ang ginawa ng abogado para sa posibleng administratibong kaso na kahaharapin nito bilang miyembro ng Bar.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-clients-should-not-unfairly-suffer-for-their-lawyers-mistakes/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267580-catalino-e-fajardo-et-al-vs-san-miguel-foods-inc-and-nasario-sarceda-jr-operations-manager/

01/03/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) of a mortgaged property after finding that the bank failed to properly account for the borrowers’ loan payments.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled in favor of Carmelita Cruz and Vilma Low Tay (borrowers), who had taken out several loans from Metrobank using real property in Pasig City as collateral.

The borrowers argued that while they had paid a total of PHP 32.6 million for their loans, Metrobank only recorded PHP 20.5 million, leaving an unaccounted amount of PHP 12.14 million. They filed a Complaint for Accounting before the Marikina Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in their favor. Both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the SC upheld the trial court.

Metrobank, however, proceeded with the foreclosure of the real property before the Pasig City RTC, which ruled in favor of the borrowers when the latter contested the foreclosure sale. The CA reversed the Pasig RTC, prompting the borrowers to seek relief from the SC.

The SC annulled the foreclosure sale. It clarified that ordinarily, a lender’s failure to provide an accounting of loan payments is not a ground for annulling a foreclosure. However, in this case, the SC had already issued a final and executory ruling requiring Metrobank to provide a complete and accurate accounting of the borrowers’ payments.

Until this is resolved, foreclosure cannot proceed, said the SC, as doing so would contradict the its prior ruling.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-voids-banks-foreclosure-due-to-incomplete-loan-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/236605-carmelita-c-cruz-and-vilma-low-tay-et-al-vs-metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-et-al/.

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

30/08/2024

E Filing 🙏🙏👍👍🇵🇭🇵🇭

18/06/2024

Online Hearing with Col. Jess Mendez, Maj. Ivan Soriano & Maj. Domingo Resma

25/03/2024

SC Reminds Judges, Lawyers to Use Gender-Fair Language |

A judge and a prosecutor were called out by the Supreme Court for using non-gender-fair language in the course of an annulment case.

In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court’s Second Division took exception to the language used by a Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge and a prosecutor during court proceedings involving the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Aiko Yokogawa-Tan (Yokogawa-Tan).

While the Court reversed and set aside the lower courts’ rulings and declared Yokogawa-Tan’s marriage null and void after finding clear and convincing evidence that Tan was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations, the Court also took the opportunity to remind the judge and the prosecutor to be circumspect in their language.

The Court observed that non-gender-fair language was used by both the judge and the prosecutor in the case.

Approved by the Supreme Court En Banc in 2022, the Guidelines was a result of the Court’s efforts, led by its Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary or the CGRJ, to combat sexist language in the Judiciary.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reminds-judges-lawyers-to-use-gender-fair-language/

Read the full text of G.R. No. 254646, Yokogawa-Tan v. Tan (October 23, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254646-aiko-yokogawa-tan-vs-jonnell-tan-and-the-republic-of-the-philippines/

25/03/2024

SC: LGU Legal Officers May Not Represent Local Government Officials Before the Ombudsman |

Due to conflict of interest, legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the LGUs they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. as it reprimanded a provincial legal officer for unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the then Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

The Court found that there is no proof that the lawyer possessed an authority to practice law outside of his duties as provincial legal officer. Thus, his act of representing Gov. Degamo in the criminal and administrative cases against the latter constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

The lawyer’s argument that he was simply performing his official duties as provincial legal officer was also rejected by the Court, stressing its ruling in the 2016 case of Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, that a basic conflict of interest exists when a government lawyer represents another public official before the Ombudsman.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lgu-legal-officers-may-not-represent-local-government-officials-before-the-ombudsman/. Read A.C. No. 13219 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13219-in-re-g-r-nos-226935-228238-and-228325-vs-atty-richard-r-enojo/.

25/03/2024

SC: One-Year Appointment Ban on Losing Candidates Applies to Contracts of Service |

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional prohibition on the appointment to government positions within one year from the election applies to all losing candidates, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office where they are appointed.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court filed by Raul F. Macalino (Macalino). The petition challenged the rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the payment of Macalino’s wages and allowances as Legal Officer II of the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga.

In denying Macalino’s petition, the Court stressed that Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution is clear that those who lost in the election are prohibited from being appointed to any government position within one year of such election.

Section 94(b) of the LGC likewise states that except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election, within one year after such election, shall be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or in any of their subsidiaries.

The Court added that such prohibition is “a recognition of political will—it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid.”

The Court also rejected Macalino’s arguments that (1) the prohibition does not apply to contracts of service and (2) there was no violation because he was appointed as Legal Officer II in Mexico, Pampanga, and not in San Fernando City, Pampanga, where he ran and lost as vice mayor.

The Court stressed that both the Constitution and the LGC explicitly use the phrase “any office in the Government or any [GOCCs] or in any of their subsidiaries.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-one-year-appointment-ban-on-losing-candidates-applies-to-contracts-of-service/. Read G.R. No. 253199 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253199-raul-f-macalino-vs-commission-on-audit/.