Bernabe Law

The Supreme Court has ruled that decades-long unjustified absence from the marital home may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-unjustified-absence-from-marital-home-considered-psychological-incapacity/

SC: Private Complainant in Criminal Case Cannot Challenge Grant of Bail, Acquittal of Accused - Supreme Court of the Philippines SC: Private Complainant in Criminal Case Cannot Challenge Grant of Bail, Acquittal of Accused May 20, 2024 The private complainant in a criminal case cannot question the grant of bail and acquittal in favor of the accused. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision p...

SC Disbars Lawyer Who Secured Fake Annulment Judgment for Client │

A lawyer received the ultimate penalty of disbarment for securing for a client an inauthentic judgment and certificate of finality supposedly declaring the nullity of the client’s marriage.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the Supreme Court found Atty. Emilio S. Paña, Jr. (Atty. Paña) guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and the Lawyer’s Oath, and accordingly ordered his disbarment from the practice of law.

The administrative complaint against Atty. Paña arose after Melody H. Santos (Melody) sought the lawyer’s assistance for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage.

The Court sustained the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and ruled that Atty. Paña deserves to be disbarred for his transgressions.

Section 1, Canon II of the CPRA expressly prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Section 2 of the same Canon further forbids lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, to the discredit of the legal profession.

Falsification of court documents, in particular, has been pronounced by the Court as an offense amounting to unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. It has the effect of lessening the confidence of the public in the legal system and committing such offense exhibits one’s inability to discharge his or her duties as a member of the bar.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-disbars-lawyer-who-secured-fake-annulment-judgment-for-client/

Thank you, NU Clark! ❤️

⚖️ Meet Atty. Jason Bernabe, one of the competent faculty members of the Political Science Department at NU Clark.

NU Clark proudly stands as the ONLY UNIVERSITY in Pampanga, offering the Bachelor of Arts in Political Science program.

**APPLICATION FOR AY 2024-2025 (College and SHS) IS ONGOING**

Register Online to RESERVE YOUR SLOT by clicking the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/3dj3f8yd

Apply now at NU Clark!

From Justice Marquez:

Keep in mind that lawyers are meant to solve problems for others, not to create them.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to pay a man who won a Lotto 6/42 draw, but whose ticket was partially blackened with a flat iron.

In a 17-page Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the PCSO which sought to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas in Civil Case No. 5353. The said RTC Decision ordered the PCSO to pay respondent Antonio F. Mendoza (Mendoza) the amount of P12,391,600.00 as payment for the Lotto 6/42 jackpot prize.

The Supreme Court, in deciding in Mendoza’s favor, held that the PCSO Amended Games and Rules and Regulations for the Lotto 6/42 (PCSO Rules), which provides the rights and obligations of both the sweepstakes office and bettors such as Mendoza, are ambiguous and susceptible to two reasonable alternative interpretations.

The Court reviewed the nature of the game of lotto as a game of chance duly authorized under Republic Act No. 1169, as amended. Citing Article I of the PCSO Rules, the Court noted that there is no reference to a “winning ticket” in the said rules. At most, a ticket was only defined by the PCSO Rules as “produced by a terminal confirming the selection made by the customer.”

“Stated otherwise, the ticket is only proof of the fact that the bettor selected the winning ticket combination,” held the Court, as it found that the CA did not err in finding that it is the act of selecting the winning combination that entitles a bettor to the corresponding prize.

The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the fact that Mendoza bet in the eventual winning numbers of the lotto were clearly established. Noting that both the RTC and the CA characterized the pieces of evidence presented by Mendoza as secondary evidence, the Court explained that secondary evidence may be resorted to when the original document is unavailable.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-to-pcso-pay-p12-39m-to-lotto-winner-with-partially-burned-ticket/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257849-philippine-charity-sweepstakes-office-vs-antonio-f-mendoza/.

Happy National Family Week!

📣 Be advised of the following work suspension for September 25, 2023, in In line with the observance of National Family Week under Proclamation No. 60 s. 1992.

Courts and offices may be reached through their official hotlines and email addresses found at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/court-locator/.

SC Recalls Entry of Judgment Convicting Accused After Negligent Lawyer Fails to Appeal |

To deprive an accused, who relied in good faith on his or her counsel, the right to appeal is a violation of the right to due process.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Third Division in a Decision, penned by Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, granting the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Rodrigo O. Conche and recalling the Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Court also directed the CA to give due course to Conche’s appeal and elevate the records of the case for this purpose.

The Court, in granting Conche’s petition, stressed that the accused’s right to be heard, expressly provided in the Constitution, is critical to protecting the right to due process. The Court also held that while the right to appeal is merely statutory, it is nevertheless an essential part of our judicial system, and thus must be afforded to every party. The Court further ruled that even if a judgment had become final executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself/herself and counsel.

In the present case, the Court found that the lawyer’s gross negligence and misrepresentations denied Conche his right to due process, specifically his rights to appeal and to be assisted by effective counsel.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recalls-entry-of-judgment-convicting-accused-after-negligent-lawyer-fails-to-appeal/.

Source: Supreme Court Public Information Office

The Supreme Court disbars newly appointed Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Larry Gadon by a unanimous vote.

Fingers crossed for those who have yet to settle their estate taxes

Senate OKs bill extending estate tax amnesty till 2025 MANILA, Philippines — The Senate approved on Monday a bill pushing back the deadline to avail of estate tax amnesty by another two years. All 24 senators voted in favor of Senate Bill 2219,

LTO to launch digital driver's license The Land Transportation Office (LTO) on Monday said it is set to launch an electronic version of driver’s licenses amid the shortage in plastic cards.

Congratulations to our new lawyers! Stay grounded and maintain the integrity of our noble profession.

SC: Notice and Hearing are Required for LRT/MRT Fare Increase |

Any increase in the fares for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines 1 and 2 and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 require prior notice and hearing to be valid.

While the fare increase took effect only on December 20, 2014, the Court held that the previous public consultations substantially served the purpose of the hearing requirement under the law, as the proposed fare structure was retained and the original basis and purpose for the proposed hike remained the same. notice for the public consultation scheduled on December 12, 2013.0 per kilometer of distance traveled.

In dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court ruled that prior notice and hearing are required in the fixing of rates by administrative agencies.

The Court clarified that while under the 1964 case of Vigan Electric Light Company v. Public Service Commission, no notice and hearing are required in the administrative agencies’ exercise of quasi-legislative functions, this rule does not apply when there is a law that expressly requires notice and hearing.

In the case of fixing rates, while this is considered a quasi-legislative function, the Administrative Code of 1987 expressly requires that there be prior notice and hearing in rate-fixing, with the notice to be published at least two weeks before the hearing. Hence, such requirements must be complied with for any increase in LRT and MRT fares to be valid.

The Court also found that the DOTC substantially complied with the notice and hearing requirements for D.O. 2014-014. The agency published a Notice of Public Consultation on January 20 and 27, 2011 in two newspapers. On February 4 and 5, 2011, the public consultations were held. In 2013, the DOTC published anew a notice for the public consultation scheduled on December 12, 2013.

While the fare increase took effect only on December 20, 2014, the Court held that the previous public consultations substantially serve the purpose of the hearing requirement under the law, as the proposed fare structure was retained and the original basis and purpose for the proposed hike remained the same.

On the issue of whether the DOTC and the LTRA have the power to increase LRT and MRT fares, the Court held that it is well-established in jurisprudence that the rate-fixing power of administrative agencies is a valid delegation of legislative power in response to the growing complexity of society, the multiplication of government regulation subjects, and the increased difficulty of administering laws.

Any increase in the fares for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines 1 and 2 and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 requires prior notice and hearing to be valid.

The Supreme Court, in its recent pronouncement, declares Marital Infidelity as Psychological Violence under VAWC.

Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office on Twitter “READ: SC: Marital Infidelity is Psychological Violence under VAWC https://t.co/GN7DKNVslm”

Entrego, JRS and LBC join Ninjavan as SC Accredited Courier Service Provider |

Pursuant to OCA Circular No. 42-2023 and OCA Circular No. 42-2023, LBC, Entrego, and JRS are now Supreme Court accredited private couriers. Aside from Ninjavan, litigants can now choose to submit required documents, such as pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other documents to the court, or provide a copy of such to other parties in a case, through LBC, Entrego, or JRS.

Note that for documents sent through the court-accredited courier, the “date of mailing” will be considered as the “date of filing” of the document. Service will be deemed complete upon actual receipt of the document by the addressee or after at least two attempts to deliver by the courier service, or upon the expiration of five calendar days after the first attempt to deliver, whichever is earlier. And to prove filing or service, the person who brought the pleading or paper to the courier must execute an affidavit of service, together with the courier’s official receipt or document tracking number.

Read both Circulars athttps://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/OCA-Circular-No.-42-2023.pdf and https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/OCA-Circular-No.-54-2023.pdf.

SC: Abusive Mothers can be Offenders under VAWC Law; Fathers can File Case on Behalf of Abused Children |

Mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, granting the Petition for Certiorari filed by Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter. The petition challenged the ruling of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) which had dismissed Knutson’s petition under Republic Act 9262, or the VAWC Act, for the issuance of Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina Knutson (Rosalina), the mother of his daughter. The High Court also granted a permanent protection order in favor of the daughter.

In granting Knutson’s petition, the Supreme Court ruled that while the VAWC Act excludes men as victims, this does not mean the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”

The Court held that Section 9(b) of the VAWC Act explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. This provision was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules as well as in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Children, the Court said.

The Court further explained that the law speaks in clear language when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. The law did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders, held the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32979/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32898/. The following Separate Dissenting and Concurring Opinions may be found at:

-Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo’s Separate Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32920/
-Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Separate Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32916/
-Associate Justice Benjamin S. Caguioa’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32923/
-Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier’s Concurring Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32926/
-Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32930/
-Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32934/

For applicants, kindly email your CVs 📩

Goodluck to all who are taking the Bar Exams!

SC: Naturalization Does not Apply to Dual Citizens by Birth |

The Supreme Court has held that Filipinos born to one Filipino parent and one foreign parent are considered dual citizens by birth and not by naturalization, regardless of subsequent acts performed to confirm the foreign citizenship.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait, and annulled and set aside the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc Resolution dated September 23, 2021 which denied Gana-Carait’s Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution dated February 27, 2019. The said COMELEC resolutions denied the petition to disqualify Gana-Carait as a candidate for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Lone District of Biñan, Laguna for the May 2019 elections, but granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel her certificate of candidacy.

In setting aside COMELEC’s cancellation of a Certificate of Candidacy, the Court held that Gana-Carait, who was born to a Filipino father and an American mother, is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization, and is thus not covered by the provisions of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act requiring candidates who are dual citizens by naturalization to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to renounce their foreign citizenships in order to become eligible for elective office. As a dual citizen by birth, Gana-Carait is considered a Filipino qualified to run for public office.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/29129/.

We hope everyone is fine. Remember the drill guys: Duck. Cover. Hold.

Earthquake Information No.1
Date and Time: 27 July 2022 - 10:29 AM
Magnitude = 3.4
Depth = 003 km
Location = 17.60°N, 120.55°E - 011 km S 80° W of Tayum (Abra)

https://earthquake.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/2022_Earthquake_Information/July/2022_0727_0229_B1.html

SC Accredits Ninja Van as Courier Service Provider |

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo hands over the certificate of accreditation to Ninja Van Philippines as an accredited courier service provider on June 27, 2022 at the Dignitaries’ Lounge. With the Chief Justice are Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (4th from right), Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez (3rd from right), Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino (2nd from right), and Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Maria Carina M. Cunanan (extreme right).

Joining the Court officials are (from left) Ms. Nikki Pimentel, Head of Corporate Sales; Atty. Claro Ortiz, Head of Legal; Ms. Sabina Lopez- Vergara, Chief Commercial Officer, and Mr. Jose Alvin Perez, Chief Operating Officer of Ninja Van Philippines.

Also present during the event are (not in photo) Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Technology Officer Atty. Jed Sherwin G. Uy and Atty. Nicole Vilches-Mallari of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

The Supreme Court has accredited Ninja Van Philippines which services the litigants may avail of for the timely filing and service of pleadings and other court documents. In his message, Chief Justice Gesmundo stressed the need for litigants, lawyers, and the court to strictly observe the periods provided in the Rules of Court and other court issuances relative to the speedy disposition of cases. The Chief Justice said that he looks forward to Ninja Van Philippines’ accreditation to support the Court’s strategic plan by ensuring timely and efficient services to the Judiciary.

Ninja Van is currently the only court-accredited private courier in the Philippines.

Good day, everyone!

For appointments/consultations, you may call or text +63960 5606513. You may also visit our office at Ameluz Building, 92 Sto. Entierro St., Sto. Cristo, Angeles City, Pampanga.