Elago & Elago Law

14/11/2025

27/05/2025

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
27 May 2025

The Office of the Ombudsman-Area Office for Mindanao warns the public against fake orders, issuances, notices, advisories, and e-mail communications purportedly issued by the Office.

The public is also warned against individuals fraudulently representing themselves as Ombudsman employees. The Office only uses official communication channels for its orders, issuances, and other related documents. These may be verified by contacting (082) 221-3431 local 8110, [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

The Office also has the following social media accounts:
Website: ombudsman.gov.ph
Facebook: OmbudsmanPH
X:

The public is urged to be vigilant and to always verify the authenticity of any document, announcement, or issuance originating from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Kindly report suspicious communications, documents, or individuals to any of the foregoing official channels for proper investigation and appropriate action. # # #

20/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that letting customers listen to a short 20-second sample of a ringtone before buying it does not violate copyright laws.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that dismissed the complaint of the Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers (FILSCAP) against Wolfpac Communications, Inc. (Wolfpac) for copyright infringement and damages.

Wolfpac develops mobile phone apps and distributes them through partner networks such as Smart Communications, Inc.

FILSCAP, which collects royalties for songwriters and composers, objected to a Smart newspaper ad that allowed customers to preview ringback tones online before purchasing. FILSCAP claimed this required a license and payment of royalties.

The RTC ruled in Wolfpac’s favor, saying that the 20-second ringtone preview did not count as public performance. It also said the preview was allowed under the 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦, which permits limited use of copyrighted material without needing the owner’s permission.

Agreeing with the RTC, the SC held that copyright is violated when someone uses a protected work without permission in ways that go against the owner’s rights, such as performing, copying, or distributing it for profit. However, the 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 allows certain exceptions, including private performance done for free or use of the work for teaching, information, charity, or religious purposes.

There is also no copyright infringement if the use qualifies as fair use. This is determined by looking at the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the work; how much of the work is used; and the effect of the use on the value of the work.

In this case, the SC found that Wolfpac’s agreements with the composers did not specifically cover the use of song samples for previews. However, it ruled there was no copyright infringement because the previews qualified as fair use.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2fj325s3.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yepu9knx.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://tinyurl.com/4ssdecbf.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/mryxtbs8.

Read the Concurrence and Dissent of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://tinyurl.com/35a934ac.

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://tinyurl.com/4ewhewft/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://tinyurl.com/2a4vey4y.

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://tinyurl.com/5ffnm7wj.

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

27/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

11/04/2025

Please note that PSA Documents are now authenticated online through https://www.apostille.gov.ph/ using the e-apostille system. The Philippines acceded to the Apostille Convention in 2018 to make international transactions easier and more secure.

READ : Ipinababatid ng Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) na maaari nang magpa-Apostille ng mga sumusunod na dokumento mula sa Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) online at hindi na kinakailangang magtungo sa tanggapan ng DFA upang magsumite ng mga kinakailangang dokumento.

✅ Birth Certificate
✅ Marriage Certificate
✅ Advisory on Marriage
✅ Certificate of No Marriage Record (CENOMAR)

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/38yn2f26

21/03/2025

READ : New Philippine Passport Act Allows Reversion to Maiden Name

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/fwjdznd5

13/03/2025

26/02/2025

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:

There have been reports from lawyers around the country of emails from people impersonating Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. They may be scammers or agents from debt collection agencies. A case for Small Claims will NEVER be heard by the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court directly, but usually by lower level courts in your area. In case of doubt, you may check with the Office of the Clerk of Court in your local Hall of Justice for verification.

Debt collection in the Philippines, especially involving lending institutions like banks, is highly regulated activity to protect parties from unfair practices. These deceptive practices are not only fraudulent but ILLEGAL and goes against several debt collection laws such as the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394) and the Financial Consumer Protection Act (Republic Act No. 10870), among many others.

If you encounter emails like these, PLEASE REPORT IT.

25/02/2025

One of the most neglected assets in businesses are intellectual properties like copyrights, trademarks, and patents because intangible assets are hard to value. However, in an increasingly knowledge-based economy, IP registration can spell the difference between success and failure.