Diño Amurao Law Office

28/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is not liable to pay interest or damages on funds it sequestered or took custody of. The PCGG’s duty is only to preserve the funds, not to make them grow.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division denied the petition of Palm Avenue Holding Co., Inc. and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation (“Palm Companies”) seeking interest on funds sequestered from them.

The PCGG sequestered shares of stock in Benguet Corporation registered under the Palm Companies in 1986 as part of the government’s effort to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth. It did so based on a letter identifying Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez as the shares’ beneficial owner.

The shares later earned income and were partly sold. The PCGG placed the proceeds in an escrow account and a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) account. The escrow funds earned over PHP 273 million in interest, while the CARP funds earned over PHP 4 million before being transferred to the CARP account. After their transfer to the CARP account, they stopped earning interest.

The Sandiganbayan later ordered the release of the funds, including the interest earned, to the Palm Companies pending its decision on whether the funds were ill-gotten.

Because the CARP account funds came without any interest, the Palm Companies moved to ask the Sandiganbayan to order the PCGG to pay interest at 12% per year, compounded until full payment. They argued that the PCGG should have kept the CARP funds in escrow instead of moving them.

The Sandiganbayan initially agreed and ordered the PCGG to pay 6% in interest but later reversed itself.

The SC affirmed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan as it denied for lack of merit the motion of the Palm Companies.

Under the law creating the PCGG, the Commission can sequester assets suspected to be ill-gotten while the courts are deciding whether they were unlawfully acquired. This prevents assets from being hidden, destroyed, or depleted while in government custody.

The SC explained that the PCGG’s role over sequestered property is limited to that of a caretaker, not an owner or manager. This duty is fulfilled when the sequestered assets are safeguarded, kept intact, and returned without loss, including any actual profits and interest earned while they were under sequestration.

The SC clarified that the PCGG has no duty to increase the value of the sequestered funds or generate profit for its owners. To impose this on the commission would unnecessarily burden the State’s resources and distract the PCGG from its main task of recovering ill-gotten wealth.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173942.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173926.

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

14/09/2026

Pinatawan ng ng indirect contempt ang isang bar review coach dahil sa pagpapakalat ng maling impormasyon tungkol sa 2023 Bar Examinations sa Facebook, matapos niyang sabihin na susuriin ang nasabing pagsusulit gamit ang artificial intelligence o AI.

Sa isang Per Curiam na Desisyon, idineklara ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema na may pananagutan si Edgar S. Dizon, administrador ng Facebook group na Bar Law for Dummies, dahil sa indirect contempt. Pinagmulta siya ng Korte ng PHP 30,000 at iniutos ang pag-alis ng kanyang pangalan sa listahan ng mga pumasa sa 2016 Bar Examinations.

Noong Setyembre 21, 2023, nag-viral ang isang post mula sa Facebook group at account na Tsidkenu Dizon na artificial intelligence (AI) umano ang sasala at magwawasto sa 2023 Bar Exams, kasabay ng payong:

“ALWAYS START WITH YES or NO.
Yan ang unang hahanapin ng AI Checking to sort out the correct answers.”

Dahil dito, kinailangang imbestigahan ng Office of the 2023 Bar Chair (BCO), sa pamumuno ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, ang pinagmulan ng post at alamin ang naging epekto nito sa pagsusulit. Naglabas din ito ng advisory na nililinaw na apat na human examiner para sa bawat subject ang susuri sa mga pagsusulit, na pawang eksperto sa kani-kanilang larangan.

Sa halip na alisin ang post, nagbanta pa si Dizon na magsasampa ng kaso laban sa Korte at hiniling nito na humingi ang Korte ng tawad sa loob ng 24 oras. Nagpadala rin siya ng ilang email sa Judiciary Public Assistance Section ng Korte Suprema na nagsasabing nagkaroon ng chilling effect sa kanya ang advisory. Itinanggi niyang nagpakalat siya ng maling impormasyon at hiniling sa Korte na maglabas ng pahayag na nagwawasto sa advisory.

Inamin ni Dizon na siya ang may-ari ng Facebook account matapos siyang atasan ng Korte na ipaliwanag kung bakit hindi siya dapat patawan ng indirect contempt dahil sa panghihimasok sa pagsasagawa ng 2023 Bar Examinations. Gayunman, itinanggi niyang sinabi niyang AI ang susuri sa mga pagsusulit, at iginiit na ginamit niya sa kanyang post ang mga salitang “TO HELP.”

Hindi nakumbinsi ang Korte at pinanagot si Dizon sa ilalim ng Rule 71, Section 3 ng Rules of Court, na nagpaparusa sa ilegal na panghihimasok sa mga proseso ng korte sa labas ng courtroom, mga gawaing nakasisira sa dangal ng mga hukuman o nagpapahina sa tiwala ng publiko sa pangangasiwa ng hustisya, at hindi awtorisadong pagsasagawa ng abogasya bilang indirect contempt.

Sinabi ng Korte na ang post ni Dizon ay makakaapekto sa integridad ng Bar Exams at ng Korte Suprema mismo na siyang nangangasiwa sa propesyon ng pag-aabogasya.

Napatunayan din na nagdulot ng kalituhan at pangamba ang maling impormasyon. Kinailangan ng mga opisyal ng Bar na ilaan ang kanilang limitadong oras at gamit sa pagtukoy sa pinagmulan ng post, pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga ahensiya ng pamahalaan, pagpapalabas ng mga paglilinaw, at pagtugon sa maraming katanungan.

Binalaan din ng Korte si Dizon laban sa hindi awtorisadong pagpapraktis ng abogasya dahil nagsagawa siya ng mga bar review coaching session at nagsulat ng ilang bar review materials kahit hindi siya abogado. Inamin ni Dizon na bagama’t pumasa siya sa 2016 Bar Examinations, hindi pa siya nanunumpa bilang abogado dahil sa mga nakabinbing kasong kriminal laban sa kanya.

Sa kanyang Separate Concurring Opinion, sumang-ayon si Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen na dapat parusahan si Dizon dahil sa pagsira sa integridad ng Bar Examinations. Gayunman, binigyang-diin din niya ang pangangailangang timbangin ang kapangyarihan ng Korte na magparusa sa contempt at ang karapatang konstitusyonal sa malayang pagpapahayag, kabilang ang lehitimong pagpuna sa mga hukuman.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172950.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-in-re-social-media-posts-of-edgar-s-dizon/.

Basahin ang Separate Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/.

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

01/09/2026

🎄HELLO, BER MONTHS!🎄

Let the longest and happiest Christmas season begin! ❤️✨🎄🎁

31/08/2026

Honoring the Champions of Our Nation 🇵🇭

30/08/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, acted on G.R. No. E-07950 (𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘸𝘢 [𝘒𝘈𝘔𝘈𝘕𝘎𝘎𝘈𝘎𝘈𝘞𝘈] 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺-𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. 𝘷. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘉𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩 154 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘨 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭.) by directing respondents Readycon Trading and Construction Corporation, R-II Builders, Inc., and Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federations, Inc. to comment on the petition for 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪 and prohibition filed by KAMANGGAGAWA Party-list and others within 10 days from receipt of notice.

The petition asks the SC to set aside the orders issued by the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of Pasig City and Navotas City in pending cases filed by respondents challenging 𝘞𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘖𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘕𝘰. 𝘕𝘊𝘙-27, which raised the minimum wage in the National Capital Region by PHP 85.

The Pasig City RTC had granted Readycon Trading and R-II Builders’ request for a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦 order (SQAO), a temporary restraining order, and a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of the National Capital Region (RTWPB–NCR) and the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) from implementing the wage hike. Meanwhile, the Navotas RTC had ordered a clarificatory hearing via videoconference on Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federation’s prayer for the issuance of an SQAO.

The petition also asks the SC to direct the RTCs to stop further proceedings in these cases.

The SC also directed the RTWPB-NCR and NWPC to submit their comments on the petition within 10 days from receipt of notice.

A copy of the available pleadings may be downloaded from the Current Cases section of the SC website: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171339

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