Atty. SM, CPA

05/12/2025

The Court held that in cases where a candidate is declared a nuisance candidate, the following are the corresponding effects on the kinds of votes reflected in the ballot:

•The votes clearly cast for the legitimate candidate are counted in favor of the legitimate candidate; and,
•The votes clearly cast for the nuisance candidate, whose certificate of candidacy is cancelled or not given due course, are considered stray votes and shall not be counted in favor of any other candidate.

The Court emphasized that the previous rule had no basis in law as the clear tenor of Sections 69 and 211 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a nuisance candidate is deemed to have never filed a certificate of candidacy and therefore the votes cast for such nuisance candidate are considered stray.

The has abandoned its earlier jurisprudence and clarified that votes clearly cast for a nuisance candidate, whose certificate of candidacy is cancelled or not given due course, shall be considered stray votes and shall not be counted in favor of any candidate.

The Decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, was rendered on the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Marcos “Macoy” Cabrera Amutan, who ran as Board Member of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan for the fifth district of Cavite in the 2022 elections.

Amutan was proclaimed one of the winners. However, after losing candidate Alvic Madlangsakay Poblete was declared a nuisance candidate, the votes cast for him were counted in favor of Francisco Paolo Poblete Crisostomo. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) then annulled Amutan’s proclamation and declared Crisostomo as one of the winning candidates.

The Court granted Amutan’s petition and declared invalid and annulled the assailed COMELEC Resolutions.

The Court held it was imperative to revisit its existing jurisprudence, where the prevailing doctrine on the treatment of votes for nuisance candidates in manual elections required that votes cast for the nuisance candidate are counted in favor of the legitimate candidate.

Under the automated election system (AES), the Court said that there will no longer be “vague votes” because the voting machines will base their count on the full names with aliases of each candidate, as shaded in the ballots.

Thus, the Court held that in cases where a candidate is declared a nuisance candidate, the following are the corresponding effects on the kinds of votes reflected in the ballot:

•The votes clearly cast for the legitimate candidate are counted in favor of the legitimate candidate; and,
•The votes clearly cast for the nuisance candidate, whose certificate of candidacy is cancelled or not given due course, are considered stray votes and shall not be counted in favor of any other candidate.

The Court emphasized that the previous rule had no basis in law as the clear tenor of Sections 69 and 211 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a nuisance candidate is deemed to have never filed a certificate of candidacy and therefore the votes cast for such nuisance candidate are considered stray.

Read the press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156725.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 266331 (Marcos Amutan v. Commission on Elections) will be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

05/12/2025

💜💜

The Office of the Chairperson will release the Results of the 2025 Bar Examinations in the afternoon of January 7, 2026. The Oath-Taking and Roll Signing Ceremonies of Successful Bar Examinees will be held on February 6, 2026.

Read the Notice here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-Bar-Notice-re-Release-of-Results.pdf

29/11/2025

The cheat code for getting what you want is being grateful for what you already have. It sounds simple, almost too simple, but gratitude quietly rewires your entire life. When you start appreciating what’s already in your hands, you stop moving from desperation and start moving from abundance. And life responds differently to someone who knows they’re already blessed, even while they’re hoping for more.

Gratitude turns ordinary days into answered prayers. It shifts your focus from what’s missing to what’s meaningful. It grounds you, humbles you, sharpens you. Because the truth is, you can’t receive more if you can’t recognize the value of what’s already yours.

The moment you start saying thank you, sincerely and consistently, you’ll notice things aligning. Opportunities appear. People stay. Peace grows. Doors open. Not because magic happened, but because you finally created room for it.

So yes, the real cheat code isn’t in chasing harder, it’s in seeing clearer. Appreciate what you have, and life will trust you with what you’ve been waiting for.

29/11/2025

Upholding the CA, the SC cited the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which provides that money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed before the LA, a rule similarly stated in RA 8042 or the 𝘔𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 for claims of overseas Filipino workers. Voluntary arbitrators, on the other hand, handle disputes involving CBAs, company policies, and 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 that 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 to them.

The (SC) has ruled that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over a labor dispute only when both parties clearly and mutually agree to it. One party’s agreement is not enough if the other consistently objects.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the panel of voluntary arbitrators lacked authority to resolve the monetary claims of Benjie Tandayag against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation. Instead, the jurisdiction over the dispute lies with the Labor Arbiter (LA).

Tandayag, a seafarer hired by the corporation for one of its vessels, suffered a work-related injury while on board the vessel, leaving him permanently disabled. There was no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between him and the corporation.

When the corporation refused to pay his disability and other related benefits, he filed a case with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, which referred it to a panel of voluntary arbitrators (panel).

The parties entered into a submission agreement to arbitrate before the panel. However, the corporation argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction over the monetary claims. The panel disagreed, stating that the corporation waived its right to contest the panel’s jurisdiction when it signed the submission agreement. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of Tandayag.

The corporation challenged this decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that the LA, not the voluntary arbitrators, has jurisdiction.

Upholding the CA, the SC cited the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which provides that money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed before the LA, a rule similarly stated in RA 8042 or the 𝘔𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 for claims of overseas Filipino workers. Voluntary arbitrators, on the other hand, handle disputes involving CBAs, company policies, and 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 that 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 to them.

In this case, there was no CBA, but Tandayag and the panel relied on the parties’ submission agreement.

However, records show that the corporation promptly and repeatedly objected to the voluntary arbitrators’ authority. In fact, it even asked that the jurisdiction issue be resolved and insisted that the case belonged to the LA.

The SC explained that the submission agreement did not mean the corporation accepted the voluntary arbitrators’ jurisdiction, since it clearly raised the issue from the start.

The SC added that while voluntary arbitration is encouraged, “𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳.” Submission to arbitration by one side is not enough if the other side consistently objects.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156011.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156005.

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

21/11/2025

A gentle reminder from Miss Universe Cote D’ Ivoire! 🫂

Stop shrinking yourself. Walk into every space with confidence, knowing you deserve to be there.

Own your story, your voice, and your presence — because who you are is more than enough.

20/11/2025

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The SC emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The has ruled that wealth acquired by a public officer during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed unlawfully acquired and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives.

The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation on General Ligot—who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period—to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

Its probe into General Ligot’s declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1982 to 2003, which did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, led to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. Also named in the petition were his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

The Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the properties worth PHP 102 million as well as deposits and investment funds amounting to PHP 53 million after finding that the same were unlawfully acquired.

The SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, noting that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by General Ligot. The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.

The SC held that these circumstances indicate that General Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The SC emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155660.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155651.

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

16/11/2025

14/11/2025

Article III, Section 4 of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society. These rights have two aspects: freedom from prior restraint or government censorship, and freedom from subsequent punishment. While these rights may be restricted, any regulation must be aligned with legitimate objectives.

In this case, simply inviting the vloggers as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression. The invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves. Congress, as part of its functions, only wanted to gather information for crafting laws, not to punish anyone for spreading “fake news” or to suppress speech.

The has ruled that a congressional inquiry on the spread of fake news online did not violate the right to free speech of vloggers invited as resource persons.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto S. Abines, Jr. 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. to prohibit the House of Representatives (House) from requiring them to attend legislative inquiries involving their social media posts.

In December 2024, Representative Robert Ace S. Barbers delivered two privilege speeches wherein he raised concerns about “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers” allegedly spreading online misinformation and launching coordinated attacks against public officials. This led the House Committees on Public Order and Safety; on Information and Communications Technology; and on Public Information (House Tri-Committee) to hold a joint inquiry.

The petitioners were invited to attend as resource speakers, which prompted them to question before the SC the validity of the hearings.

They argued that the inquiries violated their right to free speech, and that the House Tri-Committee humiliated and insulted the invited resource speakers. They claimed that the proceedings aimed to silence them and regulate their social media content, creating a chilling effect on free expression.

Disagreeing with the petitioners, the SC ruled that there was no violation of the vloggers’ right to free speech.

Article III, Section 4 of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society. These rights have two aspects: freedom from prior restraint or government censorship, and freedom from subsequent punishment. While these rights may be restricted, any regulation must be aligned with legitimate objectives.

In this case, simply inviting the vloggers as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression. The invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves. Congress, as part of its functions, only wanted to gather information for crafting laws, not to punish anyone for spreading “fake news” or to suppress speech.

The SC also ruled that Congress cannot be prevented from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries just because the topic involves speech. Congress has the power to enact laws penalizing forms of speech that are not protected under the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, such as those that create disorder or threaten society.

The SC said that neither did Rep. Barbers’ privilege speeches violate petitioners’ freedom of expression, as the same were not meant to silence or punish anyone. He delivered the speeches in his official capacity, addressing the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens.

The SC also emphasized that Congress has broad authority to regulate matters for the common good. In this case, the House acted within its power when it conducted an inquiry to find ways to address the spread of false or misleading information, which can undermine public trust and threaten social stability.

However, this power to conduct inquiries must be in aid of legislation, held in accordance with Congress’ duly published rules of procedure, and respectful of the rights of resource persons and witnesses.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155425.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155430.

14/11/2025

Get Chapter 1 of Atomic Habits for free at jamesclear.com/chapter-1

10/11/2025

I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.
- Nelson Mandela

At some point, we are all Mac Ortiz.

Mac Ortiz — a News5 cameraman — is now gaining praises online for courageously reporting live in Albay in the midst of Super Typhoon Uwan. No formal training, no polished delivery, no broadcaster voice — just presence, purpose, and pure grit.

And truth be told, we’ve all been there.

Walang sapat na experience, hindi sanay, hindi rin sigurado kung tama ‘yung ginagawa — pero pinipili pa rin nating humarap. We brave the storms, we take the hits, we rise to the moment and we show up.

Because sometimes, it’s not about perfection. Not even about how perfectly ready you are. It’s about showing up — kahit kinakabahan, kahit walang script, basta may puso. 🫀

Salamat sa tapang at serbisyo, Mac. ✨🌻

07/11/2025

Until I get there I won't give up.