Diño Amurao Law Office

25/08/2026

The (SC) has ruled that Flying Risk Pay (FRP) under Republic Act No. (RA) 776, or 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘈𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, may be granted only to Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) personnel whose duties are directly related to flight operations.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 upheld the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of FRP paid to certain CAAP officials and employees whose duties were primarily managerial, administrative, or financial.

Under Section 30 of RA 776, CAAP-licensed airmen and other authorized personnel who are required to make regular and frequent aerial flights in connection with their duties may receive FRP equivalent to 50% of their salary, provided they complete at least four hours of flight time per month.

In 2011, CAAP granted FRP to officials and employees who met the four-hour monthly flight requirement. Some recipients, however, held managerial, administrative, and finance positions and traveled by air mainly to attend conferences, seminars, public hearings, inspections, and similar activities.

COA disallowed PHP 323,579.50 in FRP payments, finding that the benefit was intended for personnel whose duties involved aerial and flight operations.

The recipients argued that they were entitled to FRP because RA 776 covers not only “airmen” but also “other authorized personnel,” even if their duties were not directly related to flight operations.

The SC upheld the disallowance.

Citing RA 776, which defines an “airman” as a pilot, mechanic, flight radio operator, aircraft crew member, or a person responsible for inspecting, maintaining, or repairing aircraft,” the SC clarified that the phrase “other authorized personnel” refers to personnel who are required to perform regular and frequent aerial flights as part of their official duties.

The SC also cited the 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘭, which limits FRP to personnel whose duties are inherent in flight operations and excludes those who fly merely as passengers.

In this case, the recipient’s air travel was only incidental to their managerial, administrative, or financial duties. Their flights were for meetings, conferences, inspections, and other administrative activities, rather than for flight operations. As passengers, they were not entitled to FPR.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171845.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165944.

Read the full text of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa’s Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165939.

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

21/08/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sales agent’s promise to issue a Contract to Sell after payment of reservation fee is not an “advertisement” under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957, or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦, that would form part of developer’s warranties. However, the developer may still be required to refund a buyer if it fails to honor that promise.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ordered Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East) to refund the payments made by John Edrem Bautista (Bautista) after it failed to issue the promised Contract to Sell.

Bautista paid Empire East for a residential unit PHP 130,000, consisting of a PHP 20,000 reservation fee and PHP 110,000 in additional payments. He claimed he made the payments because Empire East’s sales agent promised to issue a Contract to Sell once he paid the reservation fee. When more than a year passed without the contract being issued, Bautista stopped making payments and demanded a refund.

The SC, agreeing with both the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) and the Court of Appeals which ruled in Bautista’s favor, held that Bautista was entitled to a refund but clarified that the sales agent’s promise did not fall under Section 19 of PD 957.

The SC clarified that Section 19, which mandates truthful and non-misleading advertisements and sales materials, applies only to materials intended for the general public, such as those in those in newspapers, radio, TV, or similar mass communication channels. It does not cover promises made by a sales agent to individual buyers.

The SC emphasized that buyers remain protected, as developers may still be held liable under their contractual obligations and other applicable laws.

The SC ordered Empire East to refund Bautista the PHP 130,000 with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the filing of the complaint in 2012, as well as to pay PHP 260,000 in exemplary damages, which courts award to discourage wrongful conduct and warn against similar actions.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171359.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/272556-1.pdf.

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

17/08/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang mga empleyado na ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ay may karapatan hindi lamang sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 kundi maging sa paghuhulog ng kanilang mga kontribusyon sa Social Security System (SSS).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, nagpasya ang Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nagpapatuloy ang obligasyon ng employer na maghulog ng kontribusyon ng kawani nito sa SSS sa loob ng panahong saklaw ng ilegal na pagkakatanggal sa kawani.

Apat na manggagawa ang ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ng Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC). Inatasan ng National Labor Relations Commission ang LSC na ibalik ang apat sa kanilang dating mga posisyon at bayaran sila ng buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 . Nang maging pinal na ang desisyon, hiniling ng mga empleyado sa LSC na ihulog ang kanilang mga kontribusyon sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 para maging kwalipikado sila sa mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro.

Tumanggi ang LSC at iginiit na sa ilalim ng 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997, natatapos ang obligasyon nitong maghulog ng mga kontribusyon sa SSS sa oras na matigil ang pagtatrabaho ng mga empleyado, anuman ang dahilan o legalidad ng kanilang pagkakatanggal sa trabaho.

Isinantabi ng Social Security Commission (SSC) ang posisyon ng LSC at inatasan itong bayaran ang mga nasabing kontribusyon. Ayon sa SSC, dahil ilegal ang pagkakatanggal sa mga empleyado, itinuturing na nagpatuloy ang relasyon ng employer at empleyado sa panahong hindi sila nakapagtrabaho dahil sa kanilang ilegal na pagkakatanggal.

Sa pagpapatibay na nanatiling obligado ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon ng mga empleyado sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 294 ng 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 ay may karapatan ang mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 at iba pang mga benepisyo.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, itinuturing na nagpapatuloy ang pagtatrabaho ng mga nasabing empleyado sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴. Dahil dito, may karapatan sila sa benepisyong dapat na naipagkaloob sa kanila sa panahong iyon.

Dahil nabigo ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon sa 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 ng mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho, pinanagot ito ng Korte Suprema sa pagbabayad ng tatlong porsiyentong multa bawat buwan sa mga naturang kontribusyon.

Basahin ang 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170676.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165713.

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

04/08/2026

Ngayong 𝐁𝐮𝐰𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚, ating pag-aralan ang iba’t ibang terminolohiya sa batas na nasusulat sa wikang banyaga na madalas nating mabasa o mapakinggan sa mga balita.

Kung napapakamot-ulo ka sa iba’t ibang terminong ginagamit sa loob ng korte o sa mga iba pang pagdinig, huwag kang mag-alala—hindi ka nag-iisa.

Hindi mo kailangang maging abogado para maunawaan ang mga ito. Tara, himayin natin ang ilan sa mga karaniwang salitang ginagamit ng mga hukuman, sa paraang simple at madaling maintindihan.

03/08/2026

07/07/2026

The (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 12079, which grants value-added tax (VAT) refunds on certain local purchases made by non-resident foreign tourists.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam challenging the validity of the law. RA No. 12079 introduced Section 112-A of the 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1997, establishing a VAT refund system for non-resident foreign tourists who purchase goods in the Philippines but are meant to be consumed outside the country.

The VAT refund applies to goods bought from duly accredited stores and taken out of the Philippines within 60 days from purchase. The value of the goods must be at least PHP 3,000 per transaction and Section 5 of the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations limits the refund to items intended for personal use.

Tayam argued that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it limits VAT refunds to foreign tourists and excludes Filipino citizens and residents.

In dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons. The Constitution permits different treatment for groups that are genuinely distinct, provided the classification is reasonable and related to the purpose of the law.

The SC found that RA 12079 validly distinguishes foreign tourists from Filipino citizens and residents. The classification is directly related to the law’s objective of promoting tourism and encouraging visitors to purchase local products. Rather than discriminate against Filipinos, the law grants a specific incentive to foreign tourists as part of the State’s effort to strengthen the tourism industry.

The SC also said the VAT refund system follows the basic rule of VAT that goods are taxed where they are consumed. Since the law requires foreign tourists to take the goods out of the Philippines within 60 days, the goods are considered to be consumed abroad and may qualify for a VAT refund. If the goods are consumed in the Philippines, they remain subject to Philippine VAT.

The SC also rejected claims that the law unfairly disadvantages foreigners with long-term visas. It explained that non-resident foreigners may still qualify for the VAT refund, even if they stay in the Philippines for an extended period, as long as they take the goods out of the country within 60 days and consume them abroad.

The SC added that VAT refund programs for foreign tourists are widely practiced around the world.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168521

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168497

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168502

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168507

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

27/06/2026

𝗜𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗔. 𝗜-𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗬 𝗔𝗡𝗚 𝗜𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗜𝗡 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘.

Mag-aapply ng trabaho? Magbubukas ng bank account? Mag-aapply ng loan? O may iba pang transaction na nangangailangan ng Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)?

I-verify muna ang inyong TIN gamit ang BIR's Online Registration and Update System (ORUS) o BIR Chatbot Revie.

Sa pamamagitan ng online TIN verification, mabilis ninyong makukumpirma kung valid at tama ang inyong TIN information nang hindi na kailangang pumunta sa Revenue District Office (RDO).

Visit ORUS: https://orus.bir.gov.ph/search/tinverification

27/06/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that an employee's absence from work, by itself, is not enough to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) and Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Carpio claimed he was originally hired by Green Era Biotech but was later transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value. After he was absent from work at Green Era Biotech for eight straight days due to illness, Great Value issued him a notice to explain. He was warned that another similar violation would lead to an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.

Carpio was later absent from work for another nine consecutive days. Great Value issued him an AWOL notice, stating that his continued absences were considered serious misconduct and abandonment of work.

He later took another leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, when he returned to work the next day, he was barred from entering the workplace. A few days later, Carpio was informed he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Ruling that Carpio was illegally dismissed, the SC reiterated that abandonment, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, requires proof of two elements: (1) the employee was absent without a valid reason; and (2) the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements.

In this case, although Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he tried to return to work and immediately challenged his dismissal by filing a complaint.

The SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages because his dismissal was made in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must instead pay him separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378.

Read the full text of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383.

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

25/06/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule that excluded secondary beneficiaries from receiving survivorship benefits of deceased members who had at least three but less than 15 years of service.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division declared Section 24.2.2 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 (𝘐𝘙𝘙) of Republic Act No. 8291, or 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵), 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 or beyond the GSIS’ rule-making authority.

As a result, the GSIS is barred from enforcing the provision to the extent that it conflicts with Section 21(c) of the law.

The case arose from the application of Petronilo B. Laroco (Laroco) for survivorship benefits following the death of his daughter, Cristie. She was a public school teacher with 13 years of government service and had paid GSIS premiums for 12 years. She died single and had no children.

The GSIS rejected the application. Under Section 24.2 of the IRR, Laroco was ineligible for survivorship benefits because he was not a primary beneficiary.

The GSIS held that secondary beneficiaries qualify for survivorship only if the deceased member had served at least 15 years in the government. Since Cristie had only 13 years of service, only her primary beneficiaries—such as her spouse or children—were entitled to survivorship benefits.

Ruling in Laroco’s favor, the SC pointed out that Section 24.2.2 of the IRR conflicts with the law because it adds a new requirement—limiting survivorship benefits for secondary beneficiaries only to cases where the deceased member served at least 15 years.

Under the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵, a secondary beneficiary is entitled to survivorship benefits if: (1) there is no primary beneficiary; (2) the secondary beneficiary meets the dependency requisites under the law; (3) the member was in government service at the time of their death; and (4) the member has rendered at least three years of service.

The SC stressed that although the GSIS had good intentions to address the “unequal situation” under the law, it cannot simply change the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵 through a mere administrative issuance.

The three-year government service requirement for survivorship benefit under Section 21 might be, as argued by the GSIS, unfair and disadvantageous to other members who are required to render at least 15 years of service before qualifying for pension, but this is what is provided in the law.

The SC remanded the case to the GSIS Committee on Claims for the computation of the benefits payable to Laroco.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167839.

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165811.

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

22/06/2026