Atty. Christopher John I. Aldueso

30/07/2026

30/07/2026

14/07/2026

28/06/2026

28/06/2026

Iginiit ng na hindi sapat ang pagliban o pag-absent sa trabaho para patunayan ang pag-abandona sa trabaho. Hindi rin ito magbibigay-katwiran sa pagtanggal ng isang mangagawa sa trabaho.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, idineklarang guilty ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) at Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) sa ilegal na pagtanggal sa production utility worker na si Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Sinabi ni Carpio na tinanggap siya ng Green Era Biotech pero inilipat kalaunan sa manpower service provider nito na Great Value. Matapos siyang lumiban sa trabaho sa Green Era Biotech sa loob ng walong sunod na araw dahil sa sakit, binigyan siya ng Great Value ng notice para magpaliwanag. Binalaan din siya na hahantong sa abiso ng absence without leave (AWOL) kapag may isa pang katulad na paglabag.

Lumiban ulit si Carpio sa trabaho ng siyam na magkakasunod na araw. Nagbigay ang Great Value sa kanya ng AWOL notice na nagsasaad na ang kanyang patuloy na pagliban ay itinuturing na serious misconduct at pag-abandona sa trabaho na parehong basehan para matanggal sa trabaho.

Nang maglaon, nag-leave ulit siya na may pahintulot ng kanyang bisor. Nang bumalik siya sa trabaho kinabukasan, pinagbawalan siyang pumasok sa lugar ng trabaho. Makalipas ang ilang araw, ipinaalam sa kanya ng kanyang foreman na hindi na siya maaaring mag-report sa trabaho dahil idineklara na siyang AWOL.

Nagsampa si Carpio ng reklamo para sa illegal dismissal.

Sa pagpasya na iligal ang pagkakatanggal kay Carpio, iginiit ng Korte Suprema na ang pag-abandona, o ang sinadya at hindi makatwirang pagtanggi ng isang empleyado na ipagpatuloy ang kanyang trabaho, ay nangangailangan ng patunay ng dalawang elemento: (1) lumiban ang empleyado nang walang wastong dahilan; at (2) malinaw na nilayon ng empleyado na wakasan ang relasyon ng employer-empleyado.

Sa mga ito, mas mahalaga ang pangalawang elemento at dapat ipakita sa pamamagitan ng mga aksyon ng empleyado. Dahil ang pag-abandona ay isang batayan para sa pagpapaalis, pinapasan ng employer ang pasanin na patunayan ang parehong elemento.

Sa kasong ito, bagama’t hindi awtorisado ang absence ni Carpio, walang nakitang ebidensiya ang Korte Suprema na balak niyang talikuran ang kanyang trabaho. Sa halip, sinubukan niyang bumalik sa trabaho at agad na kwinestiyon ang kanyang pagkatanggal sa trabaho sa paghain ng reklamo.

Inatas ng Korte Suprema na ibalik si Carpio pero sinabi nito na hindi siya karapat-dapat sa backwages dahil ginawa ang kanyang dismissal in good faith dahil na rin sa kanyang hindi awtorisadong pagliban. Kung hindi na posible ang muling pagbabalik, dapat na bayaran siya ng separation pay ng kumpanya.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383

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

06/06/2026

The will continue its oral arguments tomorrow, June 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., on the consolidated cases of:

•G.R. No. 271059 (Lagman v. Congress of the Philippines);
•G.R. No. 271347 (Pimentel v. Bersamin);
•G.R. No. E-02472 (Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc. v. House of Representatives); and
•G.R. No. E-04036 (Erice v. Senate)

Listen to the live audio stream:

YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/uvbYa1zDkQo?feature=share

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/18NcuBz7yu/

18/05/2026

⚠️ URGENT NOTICE FROM THE IBP NATIONAL OFFICE ⚠️

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reminds the public to always verify the credentials of anyone claiming to provide legal services or representing themselves as connected to any court or government agency.

We are officially warning the public regarding an individual using the name "Atty. Allyssa Ann Nordstrome Agustin." Please be informed that this individual is NOT authorized by, employed at, or affiliated with the government and legal offices she claims a connection to.

Protect yourself from unauthorized legal transactions and misrepresentation. Before paying any fees or sharing case details, it is your right to:
✅ Check the official Supreme Court Roll of Attorneys.
✅ Demand to see their Roll Number, IBP Number, and current MCLE compliance.
✅ Contact our National Office or your local IBP Chapter to confirm their standing.

Do not fall victim to individuals refusing to show proper identification. Report suspicious transactions and preserve your evidence.

Contact the IBP to verify legal credentials today:
📞 Helpdesk: 8634-4696 / 8634-4697
📱 Viber: 0919-095-5859
📧 Email: [email protected]

Mag-ingat. Mag-verify. Huwag basta magtiwala sa nagpapakilalang abogado. ⚖️

10/05/2026

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name, was marked "𝘕/𝘈" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.

In reversing the accused’s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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