Manuel-Cornejo & Gonzales Law Offices

01/08/2022

Supreme Court Provides Clarificatory Guidelines on Plea-Bargaining in Drugs Cases

The Supreme Court, during its En Banc deliberations, has issued Clarificatory Guidelines on Plea Bargaining in Drugs Cases, thus reaffirming the primacy and exclusivity of its rule-making power under the Constitution, and guaranteeing its precedence in governing over the plea bargaining process in drugs cases.

The guidelines shall serve to resolve the conflict between Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, which prohibits plea bargaining for illegal sale of dangerous drugs to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and the Court’s Resolution in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC adopting the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28879/.

15/07/2022

JUST IN:

Guidelines for Release of Certifications from the Office of the Bar Confidant

The delivery services and rates of Ninja Van Philippines for the Office of the Bar Confidant
OBC are indicated here.

11/07/2022

Heads up, Barristas!

📢 The deadline for the submission of applications to take the 2022 Bar Examinations has been extended from July 15, 2022 to August 15, 2022!

Read the notice in full at https://twitter.com/SCPh_PIO/status/1546290776409116672.

Concerns and queries regarding the application process may be directed to the 2022 Bar Exams Help Desk using the form at https://bit.ly/2022BarExamHelpDesk, or the OBC landline at (02) 8552-96-90 / (02) 8552-96-42.

08/07/2022

SC Adopts JIB Recommendation, Suspends Judge for Uttering Homophobic Slurs in Court
July 07, 2022

A trial court judge who made inappropriate remarks involving the s*xual orientation of litigants in his court has been suspended by the Supreme Court for work-related s*xual harassment.

In an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the High Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board and likewise found respondent Presiding Judge of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 26, administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge for his homophobic remarks, and for simple misconduct, after he imposed his religious beliefs in the conduct of his judicial functions.

In 2019, a complaint was filed by litigants Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita against respondent judge alleging that at a preliminary conference, the latter showed bias and partiality against the litigants and their s*xual orientation by persistently asking them if they are homos*xuals and telling them that homos*xuality is a “sin”:

“### pagka-bad[i]ng, tomboy, le***an, ayaw ng Diyos yun ###”

“So pag meron kang le***an relationship, paparusahan yung anak mo. Dengvaxia, di ba? [Kayo din] kasi may kasalanan kayo sa Diyos eh.”

The Court ruled that such remarks constitute homophobic slurs, “which have no place in our courts of law.” Thus, for issuing the inappropriate statements, respondent judge violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which imposes on judges the duty to ensure equal treatment of all before the courts and to understand diversity arising from race, s*x, religion, age, s*xual orientation, and social and economic status, among others.

In addition, respondent’s inappropriate remarks were found to be in violation of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 01-0940, or the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases, which applies to all officials and employees in government. Under CSC Resolution No. 01- 0940, work-related s*xual harassment may be committed where the acts might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation. Further, the same Rules classify degrading remarks or innuendoes towards one’s s*xual orientation as a less grave offense.

The Court also found that respondent judge, who admitted to having settled 101 cases using the Bible, allowed his religious beliefs to interfere with his judicial functions with the Judge’s attempts to make a connection between the litigants’ supposed s*xual orientation and the ejectment case they were involved in and his inclination to use Biblical passages and teachings to the case. As this gave the litigants the impression that the respondent was acting with partiality, the Court held that respondent judge failed to fulfill his duty to not only act with impartiality but to appear impartial at all times.

As “front-liners who serve as the visible representations of the judicial branch at the grassroots level,” judges must avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, stressed the Court. It also reminded judges that their actions should always be seen by the public as guided by the law and not by their personal or religious beliefs to avoid perception of “displays of religiosity as encroachment or interference with our system of justice.”

Respondent, who had previously been fined and warned for improper remarks made at a preliminary conference, was suspended for 30 days for committing the less grave offense of s*xual harassment. He was also fined in the amount of P50,000.00 for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge.

FULL TEXT of A.M. No. MTJ-22-007 dated March 9, 2022 at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28416

08/07/2022

SC: Anti-VAWC Law Protects Even Women in Illicit Relationships
July 7, 2022

The illicitness of a relationship a woman engages in does not diminish her dignity in any way. She will be protected just the same by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division upheld a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, over contentions that sought to straitjacket the text and spirit of the law.

The petitioner was a man against whom the PPO had been issued to prevent further acts of violence against the respondents—his longtime live- in partner, a woman, and their children. He was 47 and admittedly married when he met the respondent woman, then 20, in 1979.

Before the Court, the petitioner primarily argues that Republic Act No. 9262 cannot provide relief for the respondent woman, as she was only his paramour. For him, although the law’s protection extends to a woman with whom one has or had a s*xual or dating relationship, this should be interpreted to mean as a relationship without any legal impediment to marry each other. Otherwise, he says, the law would effectively tolerate adulterous relationships.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not make any distinction, neither should the courts, the Court corrected the petitioner’s mistaken notion. It said that the law “protects women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship”—including the respondent woman and their children.

The Court applied the same rule in rejecting the petitioner’s other contention: that since their children have attained the age of majority by the time the PPO was issued, this precludes the application of Republic Act No. 9262, which defines “children” as those below 18 years old, or older but incapable of taking care of themselves.

Citing Estacio v. Estacio, a similar case of violence against women and their children, the Court explained that neither Republic Act No. 9262 nor the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children distinguishes the age at which children are included in protection orders.

On both issues, the Court upheld the State policy of protecting women and children from violence and threats to their security and safety, declaring that it “will not interpret a provision of Republic Act No. 9262 as to make it powerless and futile.”

The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload the decision to the SC website once it receives an official copy from the Office of the Clerk Court Second Division. (G.R. No. 187175, Cabañez v. AAA)

08/07/2022

SC: Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Signed by Authorized Counsel Only is Valid
July 8, 2022

Verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping signed only by the duly authorized counsel and not by the parties can be considered substantially compliant, as required by the Rules of Court.

The requirement of attaching a validly signed verification and certification against non-forum shopping in intitatory pleadings is provided for by the Rules. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of the case.

In a 14-page Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Supreme Court reiterated its previous ruling in Altres v. Empleo that verifications may be signed by anyone with ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the pleading, while certifications of non-forum shopping may be signed by the parties’ counsel in justifiable circumstances, provided a Special Power of Attorney is executed on the parties’ behalf.

In 2018, a Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court by Ma. Luisa Annabelle A. Torres, Rodolfo A. Torres, Jr. and Richard A. Torres challenging a Court of Appeals’ ruling in a cancellation of land title case. The Republic of the Philippines sought its outright dismissal because the verification and certification of non- forum shopping was signed not by the petitioners, but by their counsel.

Under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a verification serves to attest (1) to the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading, (2) that the pleading was filed in good faith, and (3) that the allegations are supported by evidence. Without proper verification, the pleading shall be considered unsigned.

Section 6 under the same Rule, on the other hand, provides that a certification against forum shopping must be included in all initiatory pleadings, stating that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues, and causes of action. Failure to include the proper certification of non-forum shopping shall be cause for the dismissal of the case.

However, in Altres v. Empleo, the Court held that a verification is deemed substantially complied with “when one has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.”

The Court also noted in Altres v. Empleo that when the parties are unable to sign the certification of non-forum shopping for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the certification may be signed by the counsel designated by the parties through a Special Power of Attorney.

In the present case, the Court found that the counsel who signed the verification and certification was designated as the attorney-in-fact by the petitioners in an executed Special Power of Attorney. The Court also noted that the circumstances justify the authorization considering that the petitioners were all living and working abroad.

The Court cautioned against interpreting the rules on verification and forum shopping with “absolute literalness,” stressing that “[v]erification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation and that the pleading is in good faith ### [while] the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice.” While strict compliance is required, such that verification and certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or completely disregarded, the interpretation of the rules should not “subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives,” concluded the Court.

FULL TEXT of G.R. NO. 247490 dated July 5, 2022 at:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28414

06/07/2022

JUST IN.

The Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and his Lawyer’s Oath when he promised his client an antedated annulment of marriage ruling and failed to return the money paid for it.

More on this link:

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28365/

01/07/2022

TAX UPDATES!

Revenue Regulations No. 6-2022

The new BIR issuance removes the 5-year validity period on Permit to Use and/or receipts/invoices.

For full text, https://bit.ly/3yzTlny

21/06/2022

SC Issues Revised Domestic Adoption Guidelines |
Following the enactment of RA 11642, or the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines on the implications of the law on the Rule on Adoption.

In an En Banc Resolution, the Court adopted the recommendations of the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns, led by then Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.

RA 11642 took effect on January 28, 2022 with the goal of making domestic adoption proceedings simpler and less costly. The law also seeks to streamline alternative child care services.

Read A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated April 19, 2022 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28076/.

20/06/2022

In OCA Circular 106-2022, judges were encouraged to allow deaf parties and their sign language interpreters to appear during hearings via videoconferencing to avoid hampering the communicative function of the Filipino Sign Language (FSL) as a result of the in-court hearing requirement of wearing face masks.
This is in consideration of the nature of the FSL, a visual-spatial true language, which depends on linguistic or grammatical information not only in the hands, but also in all complex and coordinated movements of the face, head, and body called non-manual signs.

With masks on, deaf witnesses run the risk of experiencing great difficulty in understanding and being understood by the interpreter, which can cause a decrease in the effectiveness, accuracy, and speed of communication between them. The social distancing requirement also imposes an additional challenge since visual acuity is hampered by distances of one meter or greater.

Read the circular at https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/.../OCA-Circular-No.-106....

via Supreme Court PH

17/06/2022

SC: Photos, Messages from Facebook Messenger obtained by Private Individuals Admissible as Evidence

June 17, 2022

The Supreme Court has ruled that photos and messages obtained by private individuals from a Facebook messenger account are admissible as evidence in court.

In a 31-page decision penned by Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court sustained the conviction of the petitioner, Christian C. Cadajas, for violation of RA 9775, or the Anti-Child Po*******hy Act, rejecting the petitioner’s claim that the chat thread presented as evidence against him should be excluded since the same was obtained in violation of his right to privacy.

In 2016, petitioner, then 24 years old, started a romantic relationship with AAA, a 14-year old girl. AAA, using the cellphone of her mother, BBB, would converse with petitioner on Facebook Messenger. In one of their conversations, petitioner coaxed AAA to send photos of her private parts, to which AAA relented. BBB later discovered this conversation when AAA forgot to log out her Facebook account on her mother’s phone, prompting AAA to delete the messages on her account. BBB, however, forced AAA to open petitioner’s Facebook messenger account to get a copy of their conversation.

The Court held that because the Bill of Rights under the Constitution, which includes the right to privacy, was intended to protect citizens from government intrusions, the right to privacy and its consequent effects on the rules on admissibility of evidence cannot be invoked against private individuals.

In the case of petitioner, the Facebook Messenger chat thread was not obtained through the efforts of police officers or any State agent, but by AAA, a private individual who had access to the photos and conversations in the chat thread.

Source: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28056/