Moya Law Firm

Just another bright and sunny day at the Moya Law Firm. Moya Law Firm

𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝐍𝐎. 𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏, 𝐬. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒

𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐀 𝐎𝐅 𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐎 𝐒𝐄𝐀𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐑𝐒

Visit the Official Gazette website: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/bwVdAd

SC issues TRO vs. COMELEC reso allowing public appointive official to stay in office after being named party-list nominee

The Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of a COMELEC resolution which allows public appointive officials to continue holding office even after being nominated as a party-list representative.

The TRO is directed at section 11 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11045.

The Court said that all parties are required to observe the status quo that public appointive officials are deemed resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy.

The petition was filed by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal.

COMELEC is required to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice.

A copy of the available pleadings may be downloaded from the Public Pleadings section of the Supreme Court website at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/public-pleadings/.

Read the press briefer at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/press-briefer-10-01-2024/

The Supreme Court has ruled that buyers of defective brand-new motor vehicles may choose to enforce their rights under any available law.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., ruled that Republic Act No. 10642 or the Philippine Lemon Law (Lemon Law), which applies to brand-new vehicles, is not an exclusive remedy.

The Lemon Law allows the manufacturer, distributor or dealer at least four separate repair attempts before replacing the defective vehicle. On the other hand, the Consumer Act, which applies to durable and non-durable consumer products in general, gives the supplier 30 days to correct the defective product.

The Court ruled there is nothing that prevents a consumer from availing of the remedies under the Consumer Act or any other law if the subject of the complaint is a brand-new vehicle.

The Lemon Law is an alternative remedy granted to the consumer who is free to choose to enforce their rights under any applicable law.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lemon-law-not-exclusive-remedy-for-defective-brand-new-vehicles/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254978-79-department-of-trade-and-industry-vs-toyota-balintawak-inc-and-toyota-motor-phils-corp/

The Digital TIN ID is a VALID GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID

This is a reminder to all concerned that the Digital TIN ID is a valid government-issued ID and can be used as a identification documents of taxpayers for transactions with government and private institutions.

Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 120-2023 states the following:

xx

1. The Digital TIN ID shall serve as reference for the Taxpayer Identification Number of the taxpayer. It shall be honored and accepted as a valid government-issued identification document of the taxpayers for their transaction in government agencies and institutions, local government units, employers, banks, financial institutions and other relying parties, subject to authentication and verification.

xx

The authenticity of the Digital TIN ID can be verified online through the ORUS just by scanning the Quick Response (QR) Code appearing in the Digital TIN ID using a mobile device camera.

xx

For more information on the use and acceptance of the Digital TIN ID, please refer to RMC No. 120-2023 posted on the BIR website, or click this link: https://tinyurl.com/3jr3hhbx

Are you having trouble with Electronic Filing? Check this out.

Here’s the full text of the FAQs:
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 272-2024
https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OCA-Circular-No.-272-2024.pdf

You may also check the full guidelines (A.M No. 10-3-7-SC & A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC):
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 265-2024
https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OCA-Circular-No.-265-2024.pdf

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/

From September 1 to December 1, 2024, first-level and second-level courts all over the country will slowly transition to electronic filing for civil cases.

By September 1, 2024 all civil filings must include electronic versions of hard copies, or else the courts will not act on them.

Note the three S’s after the physical filing of civil pleadings in first- and second- level courts:

Step 1: SCAN each pleading, with annexes, or convert them to Portable Document Format (PDF).

Step 2: SAVE as separate files following these filename formats:
– [Pleading]-[Docket No.].pdf
– [Annex A]-[Pleading]-[Docket No.].pdf

Step 3: SEND via email:
– Subject: [Docket No.], [Case Title-Pleading Title]
– Body: (a) Primary manner of filing; (b) Filing date; (c) Docket number; (d) Case Title; (e) Filing Party; (f) Contact Numbers; (g) Other e-mail addresses; and (h) Titles of attachments.
– Send to the court’s official email address within 24 hours from the primary filing.
– Cc: all counsel and their law firms.
– Retain copy of transmittal email.

For more information, visit the eFiling microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/electronic-filing/.

What are the requirements under the eFiling Guidelines for civil cases?

Download a copy of the checklist of requirements for litigants and counsels at the eFiling microsite at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/electronic-filing/

The Supreme Court has ruled that in determining whether marital infidelity caused psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, criminal intent is presumed in the act of marital infidelity.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-criminal-intent-to-cause-anguish-presumed-in-marital-infidelity-under-anti-vawc-act/

The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines.

The Court ruled that Filipinos who were previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, does not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse's national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse.

The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage.

The Court also clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 157-2022-A, the OCA’s compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements of proving foreign divorce laws under the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognition-of-divorce-not-limited-to-those-decreed-by-foreign-courts/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/249238-republic-of-the-philippines-vs-ruby-cuevas-ng-a-k-a-ruby-ng-sono/

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 136-2021

TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF
THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

RE: PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE CONTAINING
SEXUAL ABUSE PHOTOGRAPHS AND RECORDINGS

Our Paralegal team just got stronger and we are still looking for an Associate Lawyer to join our Firm.

Please send qualified applicants to [email protected] or message 09178123922. Thank you!

Calling all Highly Skilled Associate Lawyers and Paralegal staff in Bacolod City! Rare chance as the Moya Law Firm expands and opens up for hiring!

All applications due on April 30, 2024 via WhatsApp 09178123922 or [email protected].

Moya Law Firm at Room 103 Boston finance Building, 6th Street Lacson, Bacolod City

SC: Persons Convicted of Heinous Crimes Still Entitled to Good Conduct Time Allowance |

In G.R. No. 249027 and G.R. No. 249155 (Guinto et al., v. Department of Justice; Inmates of New Bilibid Prison, et al. v. Department of Justice), the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, found that the Department of Justice (DOJ), in enacting its 2019 Implementing Rules and Regulations (2019 IRR), exceeded its power of subordinate legislation when it excluded persons convicted of heinous crimes from the benefits of Republic Act (RA) No. 10592, or the New Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law.

In finding the assailed provisions of the 2019 IRR invalid, the En Banc held that when R.A. No. 10592 amended Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code(RPC), it used the connecting conjunction “or” to express that (1) “any offender qualified for credit imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC,” and in the alternative (2) “any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention center in any other local jail” may avail of the benefits granted by R.A. No. 10592.

Thus, the 2019 IRR expanded the scope of R.A. No. 10592 when it excluded recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons deprived of liberty convicted of heinous crimes from earning GCTA credits when the law itself did not do so.

The Court ruled that Article 97 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, is clear that any convicted prisoner is entitled to GCTA as long as the prisoner is in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center, or any other local jail.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-persons-convicted-of-heinous-crimes-still-entitled-to-good-conduct-time-allowance/

Please note that hearings will still be from 8:30-12 and 2-4. Thanks.

RTC Clerk Dismissed for Demanding Money in Exchange for Release of Certificate │

The Supreme Court has meted out on a clerk of the Butuan City Regional Trail Court (RTC) the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service for gross misconduct.

The case stemmed from a letter-complaint from a person under the nom de plume “Danilo D. Divinagracia” (complainant) who accused Michael Vincent L. Ozon (Ozon), Clerk III of Branch 1, RTC, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, of asking for the amount of PHP 25,000.00 in exchange for the release of the certificate of finality of the former’s case for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Upon investigation by Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo (Executive Judge Calo), it was revealed that at one time, a litigant came crying to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court because the certificate of finality in her case had not yet been issued after repeatedly visiting the court despite giving Ozon PHP 500.00 for its release.

Thereafter, Executive Judge Calo obtained sworn statements from two private individuals who revealed that respondent offered “facilitation services” in declaration of nullity cases. They stated that instead of the usual number of months it would take for processing the service of the decision and the corresponding return card, Ozon would expedite the same process into merely three days by sending the decisions via private courier to the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) in exchange for PHP 5,000.00.

The Court, in a Per Curiam Decision, ruled that Ozon’s bare denial is self-serving and a weak defense vis-à-vis the RTC Branch Clerk of Court’s positive testimony which corroborated complainant’s allegation that Ozon demanded money from litigants for the release of certificates of finality.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtc-clerk-dismissed-for-demanding-money-in-exchange-for-release-of-certificate/

SC Affirms Xerox Business’ Solidary Liability as Employer in Sexual Harassment Case |

The Supreme Court has upheld the solidary liability of an employer for unpaid salary and payment of damages resulting from sexual harassment, for its failure to prevent the commission of acts of sexual harassment as well as for its failure to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of the acts complained of.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division affirmed the May 31, 2019 Decision and the November 23, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding that Xerox Business Services Philippines, Inc. (Xerox Services) constructively dismissed an employee (complainant) in relation to a sexual harassment case.

In denying the petition, the Court took note that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA all ruled that while complainant did not cease to be employed, she was still constructively dismissed due to the hostile, offensive, and intimidating work environment perpetrated by Xerox Business.

The Court did affirm the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Xerox Business was remiss in its duty to prevent or deter commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for resolution, settlement, or prosecution of said acts, as mandated by Section 4 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7877, or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. It thus upheld the ruling that Xerox Business was solidary liable with Dela Peña for payment of damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment, pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7877.

On the proper amount of damages, the Court first highlighted that the essence of sexual harassment is not the violation of the sexuality of the offended party, but the offender’s abuse of power. This abuse of power, the Court said, comes from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from the workplace should the latter refuse the superior’s advances.

Sustaining the CA on the modification of the awards of damages, the Court ruled that reducing the amount of moral damages to PHP 100,000.00 and exemplary damages to PHP 50,000.00 was supported not only by the records of the case, but also by prevailing jurisprudence.

Read more at link in bio.

SC Acquits Accused in Drug Case for Law Enforcers’ Failure to Comply with Mandatory Witness Rule │

Without the insulating presence of the mandatory witnesses during the seizure and marking of evidence in warrantless drug arrests, the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the integrity and credibility of the seized items, casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, granting the appeal of Gerald Flores (Flores) and Harrold Francisco (Francisco) who challenged their conviction by the lower court for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen (Truelen), were charged in 2016 for the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Quezon City Police Department (QCPD).

The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody Form and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form accomplished by the arresting officers. At the bottom of the latter form, appear the names and signatures of the following insulating witnesses: Jun E. Tobias (Tobias), a senior reporter for the media outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press identification card of Tobias was also attached. However, no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 found the accused guilty, noting that the validity of the buy-bust operation was not affected by the fact that there was no preparatory coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity absent any showing of ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the accused.

The RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petition from Flores and Francisco. As to Truelen, his criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death while in detention.

In granting Flores and Francisco’s appeal, the Court stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory insulating witness rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation, to be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel or representative, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-acquits-accused-in-drug-case-for-law-enforcers-failure-to-comply-with-mandatory-witness-rule/.

SC Suspends Judge for Undue Delay in Rendering Decision in Criminal Case │

No judge can choose to prolong, on his own, the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in a Per Curiam Decision ordering the suspension of Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr., (Judge Noel) Presiding Judge, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC), General Santos City, South Cotabato for Gross Neglect of Duty in his capacity as Assisting Judge (Justice on Wheels), Alabel, Sarangani Province.

The Court cited Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution, which imposed on lower courts the duty to decide or resolve cases or matters within three months. Further, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. This is reiterated in Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which requires judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.

The Court further stressed that if judges do not possess efficiency and dedication in the prompt disposition of cases, delay is inevitable, to the prejudice of litigants. Judges must hence be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in discharging their obligation to administer justice promptly.

Thus, under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, the offense of Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order is considered Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Section 14(d), or Simple Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Section 15(d), depending on the seriousness of the act committed.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-suspends-judge-for-undue-delay-in-rendering-decision-in-criminal-case/.

Per Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 58-2023, Application for TIN card requires the personal appearance of the concerned taxpayer. No authorized representative shall be allowed to secure TIN card on behalf of the taxpayer.

In emergency or valid cases, a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) (including a government-issued ID of the representative and taxpayer), stating the reason for nonappearance and relationship with the authorized representative (e.g. related within the first degree of consanguinity and affinity, with proof presented) shall be presented to the Revenue District Officer or Assistant Revenue District Officer, for approval.

Read the full text here: https://bit.ly/RMC582023