Josol & Yap Law Offices

22/01/2026

31/12/2025

26/12/2025

Re-posting this new Supreme Court ruling as it is very relevant at this time when social media fraud is prevalent.

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/.

10/12/2025

JOSOL & YAP Law Offices is a DOLE-accredited service provider of compliance processing of Alien Employment Permits (AEP) in Palawan.

Securing a valid AEP is mandatory for foreign workers employed in the Philippines.

A legally compliant foreign workforce helps businesses operate smoothly and avoid heavy fines.

13/09/2025

28/08/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Meliton’s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Meliton’s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ½ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agency’s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principal’s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the parties’ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agent’s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principal’s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Meliton’s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Meliton’s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessica’s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessica’s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Meliton’s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessica’s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

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

20/08/2025

01/08/2025

The issue regarding ownership over the software could have been easily avoided by adding the appropriate provision in his employment contract.

The (SC) has upheld a company's decision to suspend an employee who blocked access to the software he created while working there.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division held that JGC Philippines, Inc., a design engineering and construction management company, validly placed one of its senior engineers, Santiago dJ. Sillano, under preventive suspension while investigating his actions.

Sillano developed several programs while working under JGC. When a dispute arose over who owned the software—Sillano claimed it was his, while JGC said it belonged to the company—Sillano activated security features that made the programs unusable.

JGC responded by preventively suspending Sillano. When Sillano refused to unlock the programs and turn over the source codes, JGC fired him for disobedience and filed a complaint against him before the National Labor Relations Commission for breach of his employment contract.

In response, Sillano sued JGC for illegal dismissal and suspension. He also filed a case before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which later ruled that he owned the software.

The SC agreed with the Court of Appeals, which ruled that while JGC was justified in suspending Sillano, its termination of Sillano’s employment was “devoid of substantial due process.”

Under the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, an employer can preventively suspend an employee without pay for up to 30 days if the employee’s presence poses a threat to the company or its property.

In this case, the SC found that JGC had good reason to suspend Sillano.

At that time, the company believed it owned the software, as the IPO had not yet ruled on this matter. Sillano’s action of blocking access to the software posed a threat to its property. Additionally, the suspension also complied with the 30-day limit provided under the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yd2enyea.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://tinyurl.com/5n87sfkc.

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

31/07/2025

A corporate secretary is tasked to be the record keeper and custodian of the stock and transfer book (STB) of a corporation. To enjoy your rights as a stockholder, it is important to ensure that your investment is duly recorded not only in the General Information Sheet but also in the STB. Our law office offers corporate secretarial retainer services, e.g. handling of the conduct of annual stockholders' and organizational meetings, drafting of board resolutions, STB record keeping, issuance of stock certificates, routine consultations.

Nilinaw ng na ang pagkakalista ng isang tao sa General Information Sheet (GIS) ng isang korporasyon ay hindi sapat para patunayan na siya ay isang stockholder.

Sa resolusyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, nagpasya ang Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na hindi mga stockholder ng LC Lopez at Conqueror sina Ma. Christina Patricia C. Lopez (Christina) at John Rusty Lito Lopez (John Rusty), kahit na nakalista sila sa GIS ng mga kumpanya na isinumite sa Securities and Exchange Commission.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa mga ginawang special stockholders’ meeting ng dalawang kumpanya para maghalal ng mga bagong board member. Nagpadala ng mga kinatawan sina Christina at John Rusty para makilahok, pero tinanggihan ito ng mga kumpanya dahil hindi mga rehistradong stockholder ang dalawang indibidwal. Nagpatuloy ang mga pagpupulong at nakapaghalal ng mga bagong direktor.

Kinuwestiyon nina Christina at John Rusty sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang isinagawang halalan, at iginiit na walang bisa ang mga pagpupulong dahil kulang ang mga ito sa korum, dulot ng hindi nila pagkakasama sa mga pulong. Pinaboran sila ng RTC na pinagbatayan ang GIS bilang patunay na sila ay mga stockholder.

Gayunpaman, binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng RTC, at binigyang-diin na ang kanilang mga pangalan ay hindi nakalista sa stock at transfer books ng mga kumpanya.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na ang stock at transfer book ay ang pangunahin at opisyal na talaan ng mga stockholder ng isang korporasyon. Ang isang tao ay dapat din magpakita ng stock certification na inisyu sa kanilang pangalan para patunayan na sila ang nagmamay-ari ng shares.

Batay sa Seksyon 62 ng Revised Corporation Code, walang bisa ang paglilipat ng shares – maliban sa pagitan ng mga partido – hangga’t hindi ito naitatala sa aklat ng kumpanya.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na ang pagkakalista sa GIS ay hindi nangangahulugang stockholder na ang isang tao, at ang stock at transfer book ang dapat sundin.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Press Release sa https://tinyurl.com/35m52bke.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/5n75bf7s.

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario sa https://tinyurl.com/a5jwrd4d.

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