Janing-Padua Law Office

13/03/2026

👇

Pinagtibay ng En Banc ng ang legalidad ng isang circular ng Department of Justice (DOJ) na nagtaas sa antas ng ebidensiyang kailangan sa mga preliminary investigation at inquest proceeding. Mula sa dating probable cause, kailangan na ngayon ang prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction (may makatwirang katiyakan na hahantong sa pagkakahatol ng may sala).

Nagpasya ang En Banc ng Korte na ang Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024, na naglalaman ng 2024 DOJ–National Prosecution Service Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceedings (DOJ Rules), ay isang lehitimong paggamit ng kapangyarihan ng DOJ sa pangangasiwa at pagpapatakbo ng mga prosesong pamprosekusyon.

Sa ilalim ng bagong pamantayan ng ebidensiya sa preliminary investigation at inquest na itinakda ng DOJ Rules, kailangang tiyakin ng mga piskal na ang ebidensiyang gagamitin para kasuhan ang isang tao ay sapat na nagpapatunay sa lahat ng elemento ng krimen at, dahil dito, may matibay na batayan para humantong sa hatol na pagkakasala.

Kinuwestiyon ni Atty. Hazel L. Meking sa Korte Suprema ang DOJ Rules, at iginiit na lumampas umano ang DOJ sa saklaw ng kapangyarihan nito at nakialam sa konstitusyunal na awtoridad ng Korte Suprema na magtakda ng mga tuntunin sa pleading, practice, at procedure sa lahat ng hukuman. Ayon sa kanya, sa bisa ng DOJ Rules ay tila binago ang Rule 112, Section 3(a) ng Rules of Criminal Procedure, na nagsasaad na probable cause ang kinakailangang antas ng ebidensiya sa mga preliminary investigation.

Hindi pinagbigyan ng Korte ang kanyang petisyon at muling pinagtibay ang naging pasya nito sa A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, kung saan kinilala nito ang kapangyarihan ng DOJ na maglabas ng sarili nitong mga tuntunin para sa mga preliminary investigation at inquest proceeding.

Ayon sa Korte, ang DOJ Rules ay sumasaklaw lamang sa paraan ng pagsasagawa ng preliminary investigation at inquest ng mga piskal, na itinuturing na mga tungkuling nasa ilalim ng ehekutibong sangay ng pamahalaan. Gayunman, hindi ito umaabot sa mga judicial proceeding, dahil nananatili sa Korte Suprema ang kapangyarihang magtakda ng mga tuntunin ng pamamaraan para sa mga ito.

Binanggit ng Korte na kinilala na nito noon pa na ang preliminary investigation ay nasa eksklusibong saklaw ng mga piskal, nang rebisahin nito ang Rules of Criminal Procedure noong 2005.

Noong 2024, sa pamamagitan ng A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, iniutos din ng Korte ang pagbasura sa mga probisyon ng Rule 112 na hindi naaayon sa DOJ Rules, para mapag-isa at maging magkatugma ang mga ito.

Nananatiling pinakamataas ang konstitusyunal na kapangyarihan ng Korte na magtakda ng mga tuntunin para sa mga judicial proceeding, gayundin ang kapangyarihan nitong itama ang grave abuse of discretion sa anumang tuntunin o hakbang ng prosekusyon na lumalabag sa mga karapatang itinatakda ng Konstitusyon.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

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

13/03/2026

📍 LODI at the EDSA Shrine — Today

Mga kababayan, may LODI (Lawyer of the Day Initiative) po tayo ngayon sa EDSA Shrine para sa LIBRENG legal consultation.

👉 Walk-in consultations.

📍 National Shrine of Mary, Queen of Peace (EDSA Shrine)
🕘 9:00 AM – 12:00 NN

Kung may alalahaning legal at nais ninyo ng payong legal mula sa isang abogado, halina po kayo. Narito kami upang makinig at tumulong.

📞 May tanong? Tumawag sa (02) 8631 0146

💙⚖️

10/03/2026

Isa kang inspirasyon, Atty. Obed de la Cruz. ⚖️

Nakulong ito mula nung 17 years old pa sya. Overstaying na talaga. First win for this week.

For more context: He was a minor when he committed the offense. His maximum imposed penalty was just supposed to be 40 years. This is why it is very clear that his years served with GCTA make it very clear that he has overstayed for a long time already.

Fellow lawyers, let's volunteer to our IBP chapters for ULAS compliance 😊

I volunteer through IBP Rizal-RSM Chapter ❤️

10/03/2026

Are you keen on Arts, particularly in Photography? Do you have a creative side?

Notice: Supreme Court Photo Contest

All contest entries must be submitted exclusively through the Philippine Judiciary Platform (PJP).

Create your PJP account early. Verification is required before you can log in and submit entries.
Create your account: https://portal.judiciary.gov.ph/Login

Deadline for PJP account creation:
March 30, 2026 | 1:00 PM

Once logged in, you may upload draft entries, write captions, and edit your entries. To finalize your submission, click the "Send" button.

Deadline for submission of entries:
March 31, 2026 | 11:59 PM

Full contest mechanics:
https://judiciaryph-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/ejzmijares_sc_judiciary_gov_ph/IgDhCp3BKAm2SrEKBJgsi4q3AQhq2uu0ejqn2rpqV84gMSo?e=jdzuIX

Good luck to all participants!

10/03/2026

Para sa ating mga kababaihan, this Women’s Month is about support, empowerment, at pag-alam ng ating mga karapatan.

Bilang bahagi ng IBP Rizal–RSM Chapter’s Women’s Month celebration, Her Story: Power, Purpose and Peace, inaanyayahan namin ang ating mga kababayan sa Marikina, lalo na sa Industrial Valley Complex (IVC) na makiisa sa Bayanihan Caravan: Justice for Her Initiative, sa pakikipagtulungan ng JCI Marikina Marikit at Barangay Industrial Valley Complex.

Magkakaroon ng lecture tungkol sa Domestic Abuse at Sexual Violence, learning session on Gender and Development (GAD), at FREE LEGAL CONSULTATIONS para sa mga kababaihan at pamilya na may nais ikonsulta o gustong mas maintindihan ang kanilang mga karapatan.

📅 March 14, 2026
🕘 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM
📍 3F Multipurpose Hall, Brgy. Industrial Valley Complex, Marikina City

Kung may tanong ka tungkol sa batas o may nais kang ikonsulta sa abogado, lapit lang kayo. Nandito kami para tumulong.

At para sa ating mga kapwa abogado, lalo na ang ating women lawyers, inaanyayahan din namin kayong mag-volunteer at maging bahagi ng inisyatibong ito.

📩 Mag-sign up sa: [email protected]

Sama-sama nating itaguyod ang mga komunidad kung saan ang mga kababaihan ay naririnig, nirerespeto, at napoprotektahan.

09/03/2026

Pinagtibay ng ang PHP 2-milyong multa na ipinataw sa Abacus Coal Exploration and Development Corporation (Abacus Coal) dahil hindi nito ganap na naisiwalat ang tunay na halaga ng mga ari-arian at dagdag na kapital nito sa audited financial statements (AFS).

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng Abacus Coal na kumukuwestiyon sa desisyon ng Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Pinagmulta ng SEC ang kumpanya matapos nitong matuklasan na may kulang o hindi isinamang mahahalagang impormasyon sa AFS.

Noong 2008, itinaas ng Abacus Coal ang capital stock nito mula PHP 20 milyon hanggang PHP 300 milyon matapos nitong makuha ang mga karapatan sa pagmimina ng karbon mula sa Abacus Consolidated Resources & Holdings, Inc., na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 2.7 bilyon. Gayunpaman, hindi nakasaad ang mga asset na ito sa Balance Sheet ng 2008 at 2009 AFS nito at ipinakita lamang sa Notes to the AFS.

Nang hingan ng paliwanag, sinabi ng kumpanya na dahil umano ito sa isang di-pagkakatugma sa pagitan ng mga pamantayan sa accounting at ng nakabinbing pag-apruba ng SEC sa pagtaas ng kapital nito.

Hindi tinanggap ng SEC ang paliwanag na ito at sinabi na ang pagkukulang ay naging dahilan para i-understate nito ang kabuuang asset na labag sa SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 08-09. Sinabi rin ng SEC na madaling makuha ang impormasyon dahil naaprubahan na noong Disyembre 2008 ang pagtaas ng kapital bago pa inilabas ang AFS.

Pinagtibay ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng SEC na nagsasabing hindi sapat ang mga pagsisiwalat lamang sa Notes para magbigay ng kumpletong larawan ng kalagayang pinansyal ng kumpanya.

Sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema at sinabi nito na nilabag ng Abacus Coal ang Rule 68 ng Securities Regulation Code (SRC) na nag-aatas sa mga korporasyon na isama sa kanilang balance sheet ang lahat ng intangible assets, kapital, at mga reserba. Nagreresulta sa mga materyal na kakulangan at maling pahayag ang hindi pagsisiwalat ng mga ito na maaaring patawan ng multa sa ilalim ng SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 08-09.

Sa ilalim ng Rule 68, itinuturing ang impormasyon na mahalaga kung maaaring makaapekto ang hindi pagsama o maling pagbanggit nito sa mga desisyong pang-ekonomiya base sa financial statements. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na nakakabawas sa pagkamapagtitiwalaan ng mga ulat pampinansyal ang pag-alis ng mga mahahalagang impormasyon.

Sa kasong ito, natuklasan ng Korte Suprema na mahahalaga at malalaking bagay ang saklaw ng understatement ng mga ari-arian dahil nakatulong dapat sana ang nawawalang impormasyon sa mga gumagamit at mga mamumuhunan na makagawa ng mga maalam na desisyong batay sa tumpak na datos pampinansyal.

Binigyang-diin din ng Korte Suprema na hindi lamang sapat na isama ang impormasyon sa Notes to the AFS dahil malinaw na hinihingi ng Rule 68 na direktang nakasaad sa Balance Sheet ang naturang impormasyon.

Binanggit din ng Korte Suprema na ang binagong AFS na kalaunang isinumite ng kumpanya ay hindi pa rin nakapagwasto sa mga kakulangan dahil patuloy nitong hindi isinama ang tinayang halaga ng mining rights na umaabot sa PHP 2.7 bilyon.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang pagkalkula ng SEC sa multa sa ilalim ng SEC MC No. 08-09 na nagpapataw ng multang katumbas ng 1/10 ng 1 porsiyento ng tinatayang halaga ng hindi isinamang halaga, na di lalagpas sa PHP 1 milyon bawat taon ng maling pahayag.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161713

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161705

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

09/03/2026

The (SC) has upheld the PHP 2-million fine imposed on Abacus Coal Exploration and Development Corporation (Abacus Coal) for failing to fully disclose in its Audited Financial Statements (AFS) the true value of its assets and additional capital.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied Abacus Coal’s petition questioning the ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC fined the company after finding it omitted important information from its AFS.

In 2008, Abacus Coal increased its capital stock from PHP 20 million to PHP 300 million after acquiring coal mining rights from Abacus Consolidated Resources & Holdings, Inc. worth PHP 2.7 billion. However, its 2008 and 2009 AFS did not reflect these assets in its Balance Sheet and showed them only in the Notes to the AFS.

When asked to explain, the company claimed the omission was due to a supposed conflict between accounting standards and the pending SEC approval of its capital increase.

The SEC rejected this explanation and held that the omission caused the company to understate its total assets, in violation of 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘊𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 (𝘔𝘊) 𝘕𝘰. 08-09. The SEC also pointed out that the information was readily available because the capital increase had already been approved in December 2008 before the AFS were issued.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC’s ruling, stating that disclosures in the Notes alone were not enough to provide a complete picture of the company’s financial condition.

The SC agreed. It held that Abacus Coal violated Rule 68 of the 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (SRC), which requires corporations to include in their balance sheets all intangible assets, capital, and reserves. Not disclosing these items results in material deficiencies and misstatements, which are subject to fines under 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘊 𝘕𝘰. 08-09.

Under Rule 68 of the SRC, information is considered material if omitting or misstating it could influence a user’s economic decisions based on the financial statements. The SC stressed that leaving out material information weakens the reliability of financial reports.

In this case, the SC found the understatement of assets significant and clearly material, as the missing information should have been disclosed to help users and future investors make informed decisions based on accurate financial data.

The SC emphasized that including the information in the Notes to the AFS was not enough because Rule 68 of the SRC clearly requires such information to appear directly in the Balance Sheet.

The SC also noted that the revised AFS the company later submitted still did not cure the deficiencies, as it continued to omit the appraised value of the mining rights amounting to PHP 2.7 billion.

The SC upheld the SEC’s computation of the penalty under 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘊 𝘕𝘰. 08-09, which imposes a fine equivalent to 1/10 of 1 percent of the appraised value of the omitted amount, subject to a maximum of PHP 1 million per year of misstatement.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161713

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161705

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

09/03/2026

📢 The application period for the Examinations closes today at 3:00 p.m.

Applicants are advised to complete and submit their requirements before the deadline. For more details, visit the 2026 Bar Microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/bar-2026/

The journey to the Bar lies ahead.

08/03/2026

Flexible Work Arrangement in the Judiciary is effective today, March 9, 2026, Monday. Please be guided accordingly.

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

08/03/2026