What are the opening hours?

Monday 8am - 6pm Tuesday 8am - 6pm Wednesday 8am - 6pm Thursday 8am - 6pm Friday 8am - 6pm Saturday 8am - 6pm

https://www.facebook.com/236809622841887/

D&D Law and Accounting Office

Home
Philippines
Tuguegarao City
D&D Law and Accounting Office

Directions

Law and Notarial Services
Accounting and Tax Services
Bookkeeping Services

01/09/2026

Commissioned Notary Public for and in the Province of Cagayan. Gratefully honored. ⚖️📜

04/04/2026

Happy Easter everyone! 🌅🙏💛

27/01/2026

ADULTERY CASES CAN BE FILED ONLY BY THE OFFENDED PARTY—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has junked an adultery case, noting that under the law, the offense is classified as a private crime and that only the offended spouse has the legal standing to initiate and file a criminal complaint.

In a 9-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and Michael Llona.

In 2022, Aurel’s husband, Jin Chiba through his authorized representative, Marvin Ayende filed a complaint affidavit charging Aurel Ann and Michael Llona of the crimes of adultery and grave threats before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasay City.

Following a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor found probable cause to indict Aurel and Michael of adultery and grave threats. As a result, they face grave threats and adultery complaints.

The lower court issued the corresponding warrant of arrest with a recommended PHP 36,000.00 bail against them. Subsequently, Aurel and Michael posted cash bonds for their provisional liberty.

Aurel filed a motion to dismiss before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) seeking the dismissal of the adultery case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the case cannot be prosecuted by a complete stranger even if aided by a special power of attorney, and the grave threats case in view of the alleged deprivation of due process.

The MeTC granted the petition and dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it. The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative. Dissatisfied, Aurel took a direct recourse before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the RTC decision, the high court cited Rule 110, Section 5, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which provides that adultery and concubinage are private crimes that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

It noted that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

The SC explained that in the case of Aurel, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

"Therefore, since no valid complaint for adultery was filed against Aurel and Michael, the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167 was correct in granting the motion to dismiss," the Supreme Court added.

02/01/2026

Happy Birthday to our wonderful lawyer, Atty. Raamah Elisha M. Dadhwal-Matammu!

May your year ahead be filled with continued professional triumphs. Your passion for the law and sharp insights continue to inspire us all. God bless! 😇

Love,

Your D&D Law and Accounting Office Family! 💛

31/12/2025

Wishing you and your loved ones a year filled with joy, love and endless happiness! May the year ahead bring clarity, progress, and positive outcomes!

Here’s to goals, growth, success and gratitude 🙌🙏

Happy New Year everyone! 🎆

27/12/2025

Belated Happy Birthday to our esteemed attorney, Atty. Jesa T. Dumocloy-Galay!

Wishing you continued growth, success, and fulfillment in the year ahead! God bless! 😇

Love,

Your D&D Law and Accounting Office Family! 💛

26/12/2025

RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the doctrine of res judicata, or the prohibition against being tried twice for the same offense, is also applicable in administrative cases against government officials.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division dismissed the administrative complaint against public school teacher Sheila Soliva, who had been accused of immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for allegedly contracting a marriage with a married man on the ground of res judicata.

Sheila Soliva entered into a marriage with Joemer Soliva in 1998 and subsequently had a child with him. But prior to the said marriage, Joemer already contracted two marriages, with Maria Lilane Soliva in 1980 and with Marissa Cabungcal in 1985. Marissa and Joemer had three children.

Marissa then filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for disgraceful and immoral conduct against Sheila. At that time, Sheila was a public school teacher.

In its decision, the CSC Regional Office VI found Sheila administratively liable and imposed the penalty of a one-year suspension. Then, Lilane filed a complaint with the Department of Education (DepEd) Regional Office VI for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

In 2013, the DepEd RO VI issued a ruling finding Sheila administratively liable and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service subject to the confirmation of the DepEd Secretary. Later on, the DepEd Secretary issued a resolution modifying the ruling and finding Sheila administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and meted a penalty of suspension for 1 year.

In 2014, the daughter of Joemer and Maria Lilane, Krystelle Rose Sarmen-Soliva, filed an administrative complaint against Sheila, who was at that time a head teacher, for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, alleging that Sheila continued to have an amorous relationship with her father, Joemar, despite her prior conviction for a similar administrative offense.

The CSC Regional Office VI found Sheila guilty anew of disgraceful and immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This paved the way for her to elevate the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA eventually ruled in Sheila's favor, emphasizing that Krystelle's complaint against her was based on the same set of facts as the previous cases filed by Marissa; hence, the present complaint is barred by prior judgement.

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, stressing that res judicata "precludes parties from relitigating issues actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment." It emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to administrative cases.

The highest bench underscored that the subject complaint of Krystelle, although anchored on the alleged continuous relationship that Shiela maintains with her father, Joemar, is just the same as the complaint previously filed by Marissa.

It held that Sheila had already been convicted of the similar offense of immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

"[Krystelle's] case is but a continuation of the previous cases where judgments were already rendered and penalties were already imposed upon and served by the respondent," the Supreme Court said.

"As a consequence of the finding that the complaint in the instant case should be dismissed due to res judicata," it added.

20/12/2025

DISCLOSURE OF BANK INFORMATION IN CYBERCRIME PROBES NOT A VIOLATION OF BANK SECRECY LAW—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that while bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act under Republic Act No. 10175 allows the disclosure of certain information if necessary in the investigation of cybercrimes.

In a 26-page decision authored by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division noted that while the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, it does not prevent the disclosure of basic identifying information when allowed by law.

The case stemmed from the report made by complainant Leonard Vendiola, who said he lost P10,000 to a phishing scam.

A caller posing as a bank employee convinced Vendiola to divulge his email credentials and a one-time password, allowing the illegal transfer of funds from his account to an EastWest account.

Vendiola reported the incident to the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group, which sought and obtained a court-issued WDCD directing EastWest to preserve and disclose data related to the recipient account.

EastWest countered the issuance of the warrant, emphasizing that the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not repeal the Bank Secrecy Law and that, as a financial institution, it should not be treated as a communications service provider subject to disclosure requirements.

In rejecting the bank's arguments, the high court held that the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, but it does not bar the disclosure of basic identifying information when such disclosure is expressly allowed by law.

It underscored that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, law enforcement agencies may, upon securing a court-issued warrant, require the disclosure of computer data that is necessary and relevant to the investigation of cybercrime offenses.

“Moreover, as a banking institution, petitioner undeniably processes and stores substantial amounts of computer data, both for its own operations and for its customers,” the Supreme Court said.

“Given that petitioner, by virtue of its function as a banking institution, processes and stores significant volumes of computerized data—both in its operational capacity and on behalf of its customers—it clearly meets the statutory definition of ‘service provider,’” it added.

The SC also drew clear lines on the scope of disclosure of bank information. It emphasized that while the Bank Secrecy Law continues to safeguard the confidentiality of deposits and specific financial histories, it does not prohibit the disclosure of identifying information when such disclosure is supported by a court-issued warrant.

It emphasized that the Cybercrime Prevention Act expressly authorizes law enforcement to obtain such data when necessary to investigate cyber offenses.

Address

MMCC Building, Zone 7, Enrile Boulevard, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City
3500

Opening Hours

Monday	8am - 6pm
Tuesday	8am - 6pm
Wednesday	8am - 6pm
Thursday	8am - 6pm
Friday	8am - 6pm
Saturday	8am - 6pm

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when D&D Law and Accounting Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Want your practice to be the top-listed law practice in Tuguegarao City?