Bautista-Mendioro Law Firm

25/09/2025

⚖️Get Legal Legal Help for Free! ⚖️

We are pleased to offer another session of FREE legal consultation. Join us at Bautista-Mendioro Law Firm via Google Meet!

📆When: September 26, 2025
⏰Time: 1:00pm
📍Where: Google Meet

Do not miss this chance to discover your rights under the law! We are here to empower you with the legal knowledge you deserve, prioritizing those who may struggle to afford legal representation.

Call us at 09763271026 or message us to secure your appointment today!

-MendioroLawFirm

Founded by Atty. Florbeth Bautista-Mendioro and guided by her experiences in private and public service, the firm is dedicated in providing top notch legal services with a genuine heart for our clients.

Atty. Ybet to her friends and peers has worked with top class companies notably Punongbayan & Araullo, and has served in the public realm in the Office of the Presidential Adviser to the Peace Process (OPAPP). She has been a keen observer of the financial world and a Certified Estate Planner and Certified Wealth Planner. She also gained a Data Privacy Certification.

Specializations include: civil including annulment, adoption, and estate law, labor, government finance and procurement law, real estate transactions & land titles, environmental law, taxation, corporate & regulatory compliance, among others.

11/09/2025

FROM SC FB PAGE

Nilinaw ng na dapat pagpasiyahan ng Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), dating Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), at hindi ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang mga alitan hinggil sa mga kontrata sa condominium.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinawalang-bisa ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang naging pasya ng RTC na may sibil na pananagutan sa isa't isa sina Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) at Sung Ha Jung (Sung) dahil sa isang kontrata ng pagbebenta na kinasasangkutan ng isang condominium unit.

Sa ilalim ng kontrata, pumayag si Cadungog, isang developer ng isang condominium building sa Cebu City, na ilipat ang unit kay Sung kapag nakumpleto na niya ang pagbabayad ng PHP 3.5 milyon. Nagbayad si Sung ng PHP 175,000 na paunang bayad, at nasundan ng PHP 3 milyon. Ang naiwang balanse ay PHP 258,950. Dahil sa hindi nabayarang halaga, tumanggi si Cadungog na ilipat ang unit.

Nagsampa si Sung ng reklamong kriminal laban kay Cadungog dahil sa paglabag sa Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 o ang Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree.

Pinawalang-sala ng RTC si Cadungog sa kasong kriminal ngunit iniutos pa rin sa kanya na ilipat ang unit kapag nabuo ang bayad ng presyo ng pagbili o ibalik ang halagang nabayaran na ni Sung. Kwinestiyon ni Cadungog ang desisyong ito at iginiit niyang walang hurisdiksyon ang RTC sa sibil na aspeto ng kanyang kaso na hawak dapat ng HLURB.

Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema pabor kay Cadungog at idineklara nito na walang bisa ang desisyon ng RTC sa usaping sibil ng kaso.
Ipinaliwanag nito na habang maaaring mapagpasyahan sa isang kasong kriminal ang pananagutang sibil, hindi ito nalalapat kapag ang pananagutan ay nagmula sa isang kontrata, tulad ng sa kasong ito.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na nag-ugat sa kanilang kontrata sa pagbebenta ang civil dispute nina Cadungog at Sung.
Dagdag pa ng Korte, sa ilalim ng PD 957, as amended, may eksklusibong hurisdiksyon ang HLURB (ngayon ay HSAC) sa mga kaso na kinasasangkutan ng kontraktwal at legal na mga obligasyon sa pagitan ng mga mamimili at mga developer ng mga proyekto sa real estate. May awtoridad ang HLURB sa mga ganitong kaso mula nang magsampa ng reklamo si Sung.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.
Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.
Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=820476573977172&set=a.112126301478873

Nilinaw ng na dapat pagpasiyahan ng Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), dating Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), at hindi ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang mga alitan hinggil sa mga kontrata sa condominium.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinawalang-bisa ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang naging pasya ng RTC na may sibil na pananagutan sa isa't isa sina Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) at Sung Ha Jung (Sung) dahil sa isang kontrata ng pagbebenta na kinasasangkutan ng isang condominium unit.

Sa ilalim ng kontrata, pumayag si Cadungog, isang developer ng isang condominium building sa Cebu City, na ilipat ang unit kay Sung kapag nakumpleto na niya ang pagbabayad ng PHP 3.5 milyon. Nagbayad si Sung ng PHP 175,000 na paunang bayad, at nasundan ng PHP 3 milyon. Ang naiwang balanse ay PHP 258,950. Dahil sa hindi nabayarang halaga, tumanggi si Cadungog na ilipat ang unit.

Nagsampa si Sung ng reklamong kriminal laban kay Cadungog dahil sa paglabag sa Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 o ang Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree.

Pinawalang-sala ng RTC si Cadungog sa kasong kriminal ngunit iniutos pa rin sa kanya na ilipat ang unit kapag nabuo ang bayad ng presyo ng pagbili o ibalik ang halagang nabayaran na ni Sung. Kwinestiyon ni Cadungog ang desisyong ito at iginiit niyang walang hurisdiksyon ang RTC sa sibil na aspeto ng kanyang kaso na hawak dapat ng HLURB.

Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema pabor kay Cadungog at idineklara nito na walang bisa ang desisyon ng RTC sa usaping sibil ng kaso.

Ipinaliwanag nito na habang maaaring mapagpasyahan sa isang kasong kriminal ang pananagutang sibil, hindi ito nalalapat kapag ang pananagutan ay nagmula sa isang kontrata, tulad ng sa kasong ito.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na nag-ugat sa kanilang kontrata sa pagbebenta ang civil dispute nina Cadungog at Sung.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, sa ilalim ng PD 957, as amended, may eksklusibong hurisdiksyon ang HLURB (ngayon ay HSAC) sa mga kaso na kinasasangkutan ng kontraktwal at legal na mga obligasyon sa pagitan ng mga mamimili at mga developer ng mga proyekto sa real estate. May awtoridad ang HLURB sa mga ganitong kaso mula nang magsampa ng reklamo si Sung.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

31/08/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BQEMWdYMn/?mibextid=wwXIfr

25/08/2025

Today, we honor the valor and sacrifice of our national heroes, men and women who gave of themselves so that we might inherit freedom, dignity, and nationhood.

Their courage endures not only in the pages of history, but in the quiet resolve of those who choose integrity over convenience, justice over silence, and service over self-interest. True heroism lives in the everyday, when we stand for what is right, protect the vulnerable, and contribute to the greater good of our people.

May their legacy continue to guide us, not just in remembrance, but in action.

(Image courtesy of the National Library of the Philippines)

15/08/2025

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1139893531523459&set=a.717714100408073

| The Supreme Court (SC) announced on Thursday the conduct of oral arguments on a petition regarding the court's policy on recognizing foreign divorces involving Filipino citizens.

In a statement, SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting said that the oral arguments on the case Melvin A. Baluyot v. Ma. Fe C. Antonio-Baluyot (G.R. No. 257575) is scheduled on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, at 2 p.m.

Ting explained that the high court decided to call for oral arguments in order to address the novel question of the case, which involves a Filipino national with dual citizenship who obtained a foreign divorce while abroad, subsequently acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization, and thereafter reacquired Philippine citizenship.

The current high court's jurisprudence dictates that in cases seeking recognition of foreign divorces, what governs is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree, not the nationality of the foreign spouse.

Meanwhile, the high court mouthpiece also confirmed that the Court has yet to reschedule oral arguments on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12116, or the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), and the Maharlika Investment Fund.

15/08/2025

From SC:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Ck6HVvh9m/

23/06/2025

Iginiit ng na ang isang kapwa may-ari (co-owner) ay dapat magbigay ng nakasulat na paunawa sa iba pang co-owner bago ibenta ang kanilang bahagi ng isang ari-arian. Pero, kung alam na ng ibang mga co-owner ang tungkol sa pagbebenta at nabigong gamitin ang kanilang karapatang tubusin ang bahaging naibenta sa loob ng 30 araw, hindi na kailangan ang nakasulat na paunawa.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, tinanggihan ng First Division ng Korte ang petisyon na inihain nina Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) at Rafael Azurin (Rafael) na bilhin muli ang isang bahagi ng lupang nakarehistro sa pangalan ni Carlito Chua (Chua).

Ang magkapatid na Antonio at Rafael at ang kanilang tiyahin na si Adelaida ay nagmamay-ari ng bahagi ng lupa sa Aparri, Cagayan. Ibinenta ni Adelaida ang kanyang bahagi ng lupa kay Chua, na nagparehistro nito at kalaunan ay nanalo sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) sa kasong inihain laban sa magkapatid.

Sinubukan nina Antonio at Rafael na tubusin ang lupain sa pamamagitan ng paghain ng complaint for legal redemption pero isinantabi ito ng RTC dahil ilang taon na ang nakalilipas. Kinatigan ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng RTC.

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang kanilang apela. Sa pangkalahatan, ang isang co-owner na gustong ibenta ang kanilang bahagi sa isang ikatlong partido ay dapat na magbigay ng nakasulat na abiso sa iba pang mga co-owner tungkol sa pagbebenta. Ang iba pang mga co-owner ay magkakaroon ng 30 araw mula sa pagtanggap ng paunawa para tubusin o bilhin muli ang bahaging naibenta na. Kung nabigo silang gawin ito sa loob ng nasabing panahon, mawawalan sila ng karapatang tubusin ang naibentang bahagi.

Paglilinaw ng Korte, bagama’t kailangan ang nakasulat na abiso sa mga co-owner, maaari itong iwaksi kung: (1) may hindi pangkaraniwang mga pangyayari ang nagpabatid sa mga co-owner tungkol sa pagbebenta; at (2) ang mga co-owner ay hindi gumawa ng aksyon o nagpabaya sa kanilang karapatan na tubusin ang ari-arian, isang sitwasyong tinutukoy sa batas bilang laches.

Nalaman ng Korte na alam nina Antonio at Rafael ang pagbebenta dahil sila ay aktwal na nagmamay-ari ng lupain at, samakatuwid, ay ipinaalam sa kanila ang tungkol sa survey na isinagawa dito. Bukod pa rito, natanggap nila ang legal na reklamo ni Chua para mabawi ang pagmamay-ari, na malinaw na nagpapakitang naibenta na ang lupa. Pero, naghintay sila ng higit sa anim na taon bago sinubukang tubusin ang ari-arian.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

10/03/2025

READ: Supreme Court Approves Rules on Electronic Notarization

The has taken an important step towards modernizing legal processes by approving the Rules on Electronic Notarization (E-Notarization Rules) – a significant reform that leverages technology to make notarial services more accessible and efficient nationwide.

Under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the E-Notarization Rules and the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers (Accreditation Guidelines). These rules introduce Electronic Notaries Public (ENPs), who are authorized to perform notarial acts for individuals located anywhere in the Philippines and, in certain cases, even abroad.

This expanded jurisdiction addresses a key limitation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules), where traditional notaries public were restricted to performing notarizations only within their territorial jurisdiction. By allowing ENPs to provide services across the country, the new rules ensure greater accessibility, particularly for those in remote or underserved areas.

The updated framework enables 3 forms of electronic notarization:
- In-Person Electronic Notarization (both principals and witnesses must be physically present)
- Remote Electronic Notarization (principals and witnesses may connect virtually to ENP via videoconferencing)
- Mixed In-Person and Remote

To enhance security, the E-Notarization Rules implements Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) such as facial recognition, biometrics, and one-time passwords, in compliance with regulations set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The integrity of the electronic notarial book, or the register showing the chronological record of electronic notarial acts, is also safeguarded against tampering. Additionally, all data stored in the ENFs are protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The E-Notarization Rules applies exclusively to electronic documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or Portable Document Format Archival (PDF/A). Paper documents with handwritten signatures, notarial wills, and depositions will continue to follow the 2004 Notarial Rules.

A part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), this initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s commitment to innovation and expanded access to justice by allowing notarization for electronic documents, including remote notarization through accredited software applications. This reform supplements the traditional mode of notarization under the 2004 Notarial Rules and marks a key milestone in the Court’s ongoing digital transformation.

The E-Notarization Rules takes effect 15 days after its publication on March 9, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://tinyurl.com/5e9e7h4a.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, Rules on Electronic Notarization, at https://tinyurl.com/55zvmbrf.

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

06/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

05/03/2025

The (SC) has held that a victim's youth and immaturity serve as strong indicators of the truthfulness and sincerity of their testimony regarding unlawful acts committed against them.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of Resty Laconsay (Laconsay) for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act after he molested a 14-year-old girl.

The victim, AAA, recounted that she was sleeping at home with her siblings when she woke up to find a person standing at her feet, holding a cellphone. The person pulled down her blanket, touched her foot, and caressed her leg up to her groin. AAA identified her assailant as Laconsay, their neighbor.

Laconsay denied the allegations, arguing that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent because she initially told her father that it was not Laconsay who molested her.

Holding that Laconsay committed Lascivious Conduct, the SC found AAA’s testimony credible in describing the lascivious acts committed against her and positively identifying Laconsay as her assailant. It emphasized that her youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity, “because of her relative vulnerability and the shame and embarrassment that would arise if the matter about which she testified were not true.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-youth-and-immaturity-strengthen-victims-credibility-in-molestation-case/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259861-resty-laconsay-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.

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

05/03/2025

Join Our Legal Team!

Are you a college graduate with a passion for law and a penchant for excellence? We are seeking for a Legal Assistant/Paralegal to join our team!

Requirements:
🎓 College graduate
😊 Pleasing personality
🧠 Willingness to learn

If you're ready to kickstart your legal career, send your resume to [email protected]/[email protected].

Send a message to learn more

02/03/2025

READ

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=665154936176004&set=a.112126301478873

The (SC) has ruled that security guards working under a broken period scheme must be paid overtime if their break is too short for personal use.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division ordered Seabren Security Agency (Seabren) to compensate security guards Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad (security guards) for the four-hour breaks or intervals they were required to spend at work beyond their regular duty hours.

Seabren hired the security guards and made them work 12-hour shifts. Their schedule required them to work four hours, take a four-hour break, and work another four hours.

When Seabren ignored their request for a salary increase and reassigned them to a different post, the security guards filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime pay.

Ruling in favor of the security guards, the Supreme Court found that they were able to show they worked more than eight hours and are thus entitled to overtime pay under the Labor Code.

The SC held that the broken period scheme implemented by Seabren was designed to circumvent labor laws and avoid overtime pay. “It was impractical and costly for minimum wage security guards to leave work, go home, and then come back on the same day,” said the SC.

Read the full text of the Press Release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-security-guards-in-broken-shift-scheme-entitled-to-overtime-pay/.

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261716-lorenzo-d-cambila-jr-et-al-vs-seabren-security-agency-et-al/.

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