Atty. Terence Valdehueza

Atty. Terence Valdehueza Official page of Atty. Terence Valdehueza: Providing legal updates and services.

Plus funny skits and memes, kay labad sa ulo ang balaod, so bawi nalang ta sa katawa!

Bag-ong batch nasab. Ato tan-awon kung mulahutay ba ni sila. ๐Ÿ˜…
22/06/2026

Bag-ong batch nasab. Ato tan-awon kung mulahutay ba ni sila. ๐Ÿ˜…

Reporting for duty for today's Lawyer of the Day Initiative (LODI). The Chapter will provide FREE legal aid services suc...
18/06/2026

Reporting for duty for today's Lawyer of the Day Initiative (LODI). The Chapter will provide FREE legal aid services such as legal consultation, simple document drafting and notarization, and document reviews.

Come and visit us at IBP Bukidnon Chapter Office, Brgy. 9, San Victores St., Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.

๐Ÿ“ https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQJNyz5SEYJEGkHo9?g_st=ic

Everyone is invited to avail of IBP Bukidnon Legal Aid this coming June 18, 2026, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM, at the IBP Bu...
17/06/2026

Everyone is invited to avail of IBP Bukidnon Legal Aid this coming June 18, 2026, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM, at the IBP Bukidnon Chapter Building, San Victores Street, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.

Google Map Pin Location๐Ÿ“: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jyGM6KZ8wtvNptcB8

I will be serving as the Lawyer of the Day and will be available for FREE legal aid services such as legal consultation, simple document drafting and notarization, and document reviews.

Please bring your relevant documents for proper review and assistance, and your valid and unexpired government issued ID for identification purposes.

12/06/2026

SC Clarifies Assumption of Risk Doctrine; Persons Who Voluntarily Engage in Risky Activities Assume Ordinary Risks

A person who voluntarily engages in an activity that naturally carries inherent risks may be deemed to have assumed those ordinary risks. Absent proof of negligence, breach of duty, or proximate causation, injury alone does not create liability.

Supreme Court, First Division
Marquez, J.
April 3, 2024

12/06/2026

SUPREME COURT: ACQUITTAL OF COMPONENT OFFENSE BARS FURTHER PROSECUTION UNDER DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that when one offense serves as a "necessary means" to commit a complex crime, a valid acquittal of the first offense bars any subsequent prosecution for the complex crime and its component offenses, citing the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division acquitted Marilyn Evalle of theft, ruling that prosecuting her again would violate the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy.

Evalle, an accountant for Tyco Development Corporation, was hit with two separate criminal charges a year apart. The first was for falsification of a commercial document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code lodged in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC).

The second was for theft through falsification of a commercial document lodged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Both cases stemmed from the exact same incident: the unauthorized encashment of a โ‚ฑ2 million company check using alleged forged signatures.

The MTCC acquitted Evalle of the falsification charge by granting a demurrer to evidence, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove forgery and relied on an unoffered photocopy of the check. However, the RTC found her guilty of the complex crime of theft through falsification.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) recognized that her MTCC acquittal barred a conviction for falsification due to double jeopardy, but it still upheld a conviction for simple theft, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of an 8-20 year prison term. This paved the way for her to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ultimately acquitting her for the crime of theft, the high court found that all elements of double jeopardy were met. It explained that Evalle's prior acquittal for falsification via a granted demurrer was final and executory.

The SC underscored that since falsification was alleged as the "necessary means" to execute the complex crime of theft, the prosecution was legally barred from using that same act to build a second case. Splitting a single act into separate prosecutions constitutes an oppressive practice that violates the constitutional right against double jeopardy.

It reiterated that when a component offense is a "necessary means" in the commission of a complex crime, the valid termination or dismissal of the case involving that offense prohibits any subsequent prosecution for the complex crime itself, as well as for its other component offenses.

The highest bench explained that to secure a conviction for a complex crime, the prosecution must prove both component felonies beyond a reasonable doubt. The State cannot split a single criminal act into multiple cases or alter its theory of prosecution to repeatedly place an accused on trial for the same underlying offense.

"The manner in which Evalle was prosecuted patently subjected her to an unjust and prejudicial ordeal. She was compelled to endure prolonged and successive criminal proceedings as the prosecution fractured a single act giving rise to the same offense into multiple cases, merely by recasting that act as an element of a complex crime or by shifting the theory of prosecution. This Court cannot, and will not, countenance such an oppressive practice," the Supreme Court said.

On behalf of Cupida-Legita Law Offices, we want to take a moment to express our sincere appreciation to our Bachelor of ...
11/06/2026

On behalf of Cupida-Legita Law Offices, we want to take a moment to express our sincere appreciation to our Bachelor of Science in Office Administration On-the-Job Training students from Central Mindanao University.

To Amor, Jacob, and Emarey: thank you for the hard work and dedication you showed during your exposure with us. As Bachelor of Science in Office Administration students, your organization, professionalism, and readiness to help made a real difference in our daily operations. We truly valued the reliable support you provided to our team.

It was a genuine pleasure having you in the office. We wish you the very best as you complete your degrees and begin your professional careers. You all have a bright future ahead!

10/06/2026

SUPREME COURT: EMPLOYERS MUST REMIT SSS CONTRIBUTIONS DURING PERIOD OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

The Supreme Court (SC) held that an employer's statutory duty to deduct and remit Social Security System (SSS) contributions does not cease during the period of an employee's illegal dismissal, as the employee is deemed to have never left employment and remains entitled to all rights, salaries, and benefits they would have received had they not been unjustly terminated.

In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals ordering Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC) to pay the SSS contributions of former employees Romeo Perrin Jr., Eduardo Candelario, Leonito Franco, and Rogelio Pabalan.

Perrin, Jr., et al. were employees of Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC) who were illegally dismissed in September 1995. After a prolonged legal battle, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled the dismissal illegal and ordered LSC to pay them backwages and separation pay.

After receiving their back wages and signing a standard "Satisfaction of Judgment" releasing LSC from future labor claims, Perrin et al. demanded that LSC remit their mandatory Social Security System (SSS) contributions for the 10-year period or from October 1995 to November 2005, when they were illegally dismissed so they could claim their retirement benefits.

LSC refused, arguing that under the law, the obligation to remit SSS contributions ceases upon separation from employment, whether legal or illegal. It added that the Social Security Commission (SSC) had no jurisdiction and the claim should have been filed with the labor arbiter.

The employer also contended that the claim was barred by res judicata and the signed quitclaim/satisfaction of judgment. The Social Security Commission (SSC) ruled in favor of Perrin et al. and ordered LSC to pay their SSS social security contributions amounting to PHP 248,174 and the 3% per month penalty imposed thereon amounting to PHP 1,302,702 computed as of July 31, 2015.

The Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the said ruling, noting that in contemplation of the law, an illegally dismissed employee is deemed to have never left his office, making the employer obligated to remit the employee's social security contributions. This prompted LSC to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ruling in favor of Perrin et al., the high court emphasized that LSC is legally obligated to pay the unremitted SSS contributions. It explained that under Sections 18, 19, and 22 of the Social Security Act of 1997, an employer has an obligation to deduct and withhold from its employees' wages and salaries the employees' share of the social security contributions and remit them, together with the employer's share, to the SSS.

In ruling that the herein employees are entitled to SSS benefits, the highest bench underscored that under Article 294 of the Labor Code, an employee who is illegally dismissed from employment is entitled to full backwages and other benefits.

As to the matter of jurisdiction, it cited the Social Security Act, which vested in the SSC the explicit and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving SSS coverage, benefits, and unremitted contributions, not the Labor Arbiter.

The prior illegal dismissal case dealt with employment termination, whereas the SSC case dealt with a statutory obligation to remit state insurance premiums.

LSC was ordered to pay PHP 248,174.00 in unremitted contributions, plus a mandatory 3% per month penalty for late payment amounting to PHP 1,302,702.75 (computed as of July 2015), without prejudice to further accruing penalties.

Keep safe everyone!
08/06/2026

Keep safe everyone!

The City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO) has announced the suspension of classes at all levels in both public and private schools effective immediately until further notice following the earthquake experienced today.

Likewise, work of teaching and non-teaching personnel in schools is suspended to allow for the conduct of safety assessments.

All School Heads and School Managers are directed to inspect and assess school buildings, classrooms, and other facilities for any possible damage or hazards before the resumption of classes and work.

The public is advised to remain vigilant as aftershocks are expected. Further announcements will be issued accordingly.

For emergencies, please call 09561352663.

Please be guided.

Official copy of the order: https://shorturl.at/BvL2K

Address

M. Roxas Street
Valencia
8709

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Friday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Saturday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm

Website

Alerts

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

Share

Category