Atty. Arvidsson Monterde

SC to MERALCO: Prior Written Notice at Least 48 Hours Before Disconnection is Indispensable

Affirming the rights of consumers, the Supreme Court has denied the petition of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) assailing a Court of Appeals (CA) Decision which affirmed that the electric firm violated R.A. 7832, or the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994, for cutting off the electricity supply of a consumer without prior notice.

In denying MERALCO’s petition for review on certiorari, the Court ruled that before Meralco can disconnect the electric service of a consumer on grounds cited under Section 4(a) of RA 7832, there must be prior written notice to the consumer to disconnect. The Court emphasized that the said prior written notice must be given at least 48 hours prior to the disconnection, pursuant to due process requirements. Thus, the act of MERALCO in cutting off the respondent’s electricity on the same day the disconnection notice was given to the consumer was violative of due process requirements, said the Court.

The Court further held that MERALCO is presumed to be in bad faith for its failure to follow the due notice requirement under R.A. 7832 during the disconnection of the Yu’s electric service.

Hence, it denied MERALCO’s Petition for Review on Certiorari, and affirmed the Decision dated November 26, 2020 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 111808, as follows: the award of temperate damages is reduced to P50,000; the award of moral damages is deleted for lack of basis; and the award of exemplary damages is reduced to P100,000. The Court ordered that the rest of the CA ruling stands.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-to-meralco-prior-written-notice-at-least-48-hours-before-disconnection-is-indispensable/.

Supreme Court Commends Naga City RTC, Executive Judge for Initiative in Monitoring Notarial Violations |

In an En Banc Resolution, the Supreme Court gave commendation to the Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur (RTC Naga City) and Executive Judge Pablo Cabillan Formaran III for their initiative in creating Task Force Honesto Notario.

The Task Force, created under Office Memorandum No. PCF-2023-001 issued by Executive Judge Formaran, aims to efficiently and effectively supervise and monitor the activities of all duly commissioned notaries public within the administrative jurisdiction of RTC Naga City. The Task Force is empowered to monitor and immediately report to the Executive Judge any violation of the Rules committed by duly commissioned notaries public in Naga City. The sheriffs of the Office of the Clerk of Court are likewise authorized to inspect the notarial register of a notary public at any time, consistent with Section 4, Rule VI of the Rules.

The Supreme Court also directed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to develop a similar program to monitor and implement the Rules in all trial courts nationwide and to to instruct all Executive Judges to implement the same initiative within their respective administrative jurisdictions.

According to data from the Office of the Bar Confidant, of the 124 disciplinary actions meted against lawyers in 2022, 20 or 16% involve suspensions from notarial practice.

Read A.M. No. 23-03-17-RTC in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/23-03-17-rtc-re-commendation-on-the-initiative-of-regional-trial-court-naga-city-camarines-sur-relative-to-the-creation-of-task-force-honesto-notario-seeking-to-monitor-the-commissioned-notaries-p/

𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙄𝘿𝙄𝙏𝙔 𝙊𝙁 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝙈𝙄𝙎𝙎𝘼𝙇 𝙊𝙁 𝙀𝙈𝙋𝙇𝙊𝙔𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏

It is settled that 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. Substantive due process requires that the dismissal must be pursuant to either a just or an authorized cause under Articles 297, 298, or 299 (formerly Articles 282, 283, and 284) of the Labor Code. Procedural due process, on the other hand, mandates that the employer must observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be effected. (𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮 𝘃. 𝗧𝗼𝘆𝗼𝘁𝗮 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝘄, 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟮𝟭𝟰𝟯𝟵𝟵, 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟲)

In termination cases, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝗽𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲. 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹. (𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗜𝗻𝗰. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗵 𝗠𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘃. 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗰𝗮, 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟵𝟭𝟯𝟭𝟬. 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟭𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟴)

𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐒𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐔𝐒𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓

In a 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right, however, would be dependent not only on the grantor's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that obviously are yet to be later firmed up.

In 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭, it is simply a contract by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time.

Thus, it is clear that an option contract is entirely different and distinct from a right of first refusal in that in the former, the option granted to the offeree is for a 𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 and at a 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞. Lacking these two essential requisites, what is involved is only a right of first refusal. (𝐓𝐮𝐚𝐳𝐨𝐧 𝐯. 𝐃𝐞𝐥 𝐑𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨-𝐒𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐳, 𝐞𝐭. 𝐚𝐥., 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟏𝟔𝟖𝟑𝟐𝟓, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟎𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟎)

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥

The rule is that a sale made in violation of a right of first refusal is valid. However, it may be rescinded, or may be the subject of an action for specific performance. The prevailing doctrine, therefore, is that a right of first refusal means identity of terms and conditions to be offered to the grantee and all other prospective buyers and𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝, 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞. (𝐓𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯. 𝐅𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟏𝟒𝟎𝟏𝟖𝟐. 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟏𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟓)

NASIRA BA O NAWALA ANG INYONG TITULO?

Narito ang PROSESO at HAKBANG upang makakuha ng panibagong kopya nito:

Sa pagsasaayos ng titulo ng lupa na nasira o nawala, kailangang tignan kung ang nasira o nawala ba ay ang kopya ng may-ari o kopya sa Registry of Deeds.

Kung ang nawala ay kopya sa Registry of Deeds, ang tawag sa prosesong ito ay Reconstitution.

Kung ang nawala ay kopya ng may-ari ngunit may kopya sa Registry of Deeds, ang tawag dito ay Reissuance, na kung saan ay kailangan magsumite ng may-ari o ng kanyang kinatawan ng “Affidavit of Loss” sa Registry of Deeds na nakakasakop sa kanyang lupain.

Sa dalawang proseso na ito, parehas na kailangan dumaan sa korte upang isaayos ang nasira o nawalang titulo. Ang may-ari o kanyang kinatawan ay dapat na magsumite ng petisyon sa korte kalakip ang mga patunay o ebidensya. Matapos ang pagsusumite ng petisyon magpapatawag ng pagdinig (hearing) ang korte na kung saan magsasalita ang may-ari o kinatawan, maging ang ibang testigo upang patunayan pa ang nasabing petisyon. Matapos nito ay mag-aantay ng desisyon sa korte at ng “Certificate of Finality” na kung saan ang dalawang legal na dokumento na ito ay dadalhin sa Registry of Deeds na nakakasakop sa inyong lupain upang kayo ay isyuhan ng bagong titulo.

Ang parehong nabanggit na proseso ay maaaring tumagal ng isang taon o higit pa depende sa dami ng hawak na kaso ng korte na dumidinig sa inyong petisyon.

Maging maingat tayo sa pagsunod sa tamang proseso at iwasan ang mga taong nag-aalok ng shortcut o madaliang proseso ng hindi dumadaan sa tamang proseso dahil maaari itong maging dahilan ng mas malaking problema, gugulan ng mas malaking halaga, at panahon.

Cybersecurity Tips of the week!
What is "ONE RING" PHONE SCAM?

Siz, may add-to-cart ka na naman bang item? Bago mag-place ng order, sundan ang mga Online Shopping Tips na ito!

For more Consumer tips, visit www.dti.gov.ph/konsyumer/consumer-education

ICYMI: The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) was published in the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin on 14 May 2023, and shall take effect 15 calendar days after publication.

The CPRA (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC) is part of the Supreme Court’s plan to update the 34-year-old Code of Professional Responsibility and craft a modern, relevant, and responsive guide for lawyers’ conduct.

Get a copy of the approved and published CPRA at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/22-09-01-sc-code-of-professional-responsibility-and-accountability/.

Lower Income Tax Rates for Individuals in 2023

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

𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗣 𝗖𝗬𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗦
𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗨𝗦 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗠 𝗖𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡!

Kung kayo ay may mga reklamo, katanungan, at suhestiyon maaari kayong direktang makipag-ugnayan aming official page gamit ang messenger o tumawag sa aming mga hotlines:

Hotline number: (02) 723-0401 (loc 7491)
Viber/WhatsApp Numbers: 0966-627-1257/0968-867-4302
page: https://www.facebook.com/anticybercrimegroup
Twitter: https://twitter.com/pnp_acg
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anti_cybercrime_group/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCblrJAOXTU-gXiMZN17XFug








“It’s not about us… It’s about the Filipino people we swore to serve and protect.”

Cybersecurity Tips of the week!
What is CREDENTIAL DUMPING ATTACK?

BEWARE OF GCASH PHISHING MODUS

Kung kayo ay may mga reklamo, katanungan, at suhestiyon maaari kayong direktang makipag-ugnayan aming official page gamit ang messenger o tumawag sa aming mga hotlines:

Hotline number: (02) 723-0401 (loc 7491)
Viber/WhatsApp Numbers: 0966-627-1257/0968-867-4302
page: https://www.facebook.com/anticybercrimegroup
Twitter: https://twitter.com/pnp_acg
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anti_cybercrime_group/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCblrJAOXTU-gXiMZN17XFug








“It’s not about us… It’s about the Filipino people we swore to serve and protect.”

Kung ikaw ay nakabili ng defective na produkto, there's three things you can ask for - Repair, Replace, or Refund!

Para sa ibang consumer complaints, makipag-ugnayan lamang sa .ConsumerCare o mag-email sa [email protected]

FILE AND PAY YOUR 2022 AITR ANYWHERE

Per Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 32-2023, taxpayers may file their 2022 Income Tax Return (ITR) and pay the taxes due thereon to any Authorized Agent Bank (AAB) or BIR Revenue Collection Officer nearest them without the imposition of penalties for wrong venue filing.

Click here to read the full RMC: https://bit.ly/FilePayAnywhere2023

ANO BA ANG 𝐄𝐉𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓?

Ejectment ang tawag sa legal na proseso ng pagpapaalis sa mabilis na paraan laban sa isa o marami na walang karapatan upang aktwal na umukupa sa lupain.

Ang ejectment ay may dalawang uri, ito ay maaring "𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦" na kung saan ang iligal na paghawak ng lupain ay sa pamamagitan ng 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆, 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒈𝒚, 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒔, 𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 at ang “𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟” kung ang naguukupa sa lupain ay nawalan na ng pahintulot o karapatan upang patuloy na magukupa dito (𝒌𝒂𝒅𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒚 𝒔𝒂 𝒎𝒈𝒂 𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒑𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒏𝒂 𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊 𝒏𝒂 𝒏𝒂𝒌𝒂𝒃𝒂𝒚𝒂𝒅 𝒂𝒕 𝒏𝒂𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒂𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏 𝒏𝒈 𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒎𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒚-𝒂𝒓𝒊).

Sa prosesong ito, hindi muna tinitignan ng korte kung sino ang aktwal na nagmamay-ari ng lupa, ang tanging tinitignan dito ay kung sino ang may karapatan upang aktwal na umukupa ng lupain. Titignan lamang ng korte ang pagmamay-ari ng lupain kung hindi matukoy kung sino sa dalawang panig ang dapat na magukupa ng nasabing lupain.

Ang magandang halimbawa ay sa pagitan ng nagpapaupa at nangungupahan na kung saan ang nasabing pagupa ay naipakita sa korte. Sa ganitong kalagayan, hindi maaaring ikatwiran ng nangungupahan na hindi pagmamay-ari ng nagpapaupa ang nasabing paupahan dahil sa pagpasok sa kontrata ng pagupa, kinilala ng nangungupahan ang karapatan ng nagpapaupa at sa oras na siya ay hindi makasunod sa kasunduan, gaya ng pagtaliwas sa pagbayad sa upa, ang nagpapaupa ay maaaring magkaso ng ejectment laban sa nangungupahan upang siya ay legal na mapaalis na may karampatang dagdag na danyos dahil sa pagdaan ng nagpapaupa sa korte.

Bago magsimula sa kasong ejectment, kailangan dumaan muna sa ilang legal na proseso bago idulog sa korte. Kailangan ay magpadala ng sulat na nagsasabi na boluntaryong umalis sa lupain ang maghahabla sa ihahabla. Kung ang pinadalhan ng sulat ay hindi sumunod, kailangan idaan sa barangay na nakakasakop sa inyong lupain ang reklamo na kung saan kayo ay paghaharapin. Matapos ang ilang pagdinig at walang pagkakaayos, kayo ay iisyuhan ng ❞𝑪𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏❞ o Katunayan ng Pagdulog, upang pormal na maisampa sa korte ang inyong kaso. Sa kasong “ejectment” marapat na ito ay maisampa sa korte sa loob ng 𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒂𝒐𝒏 mula sa pagkatangap ng sulat upang boluntaryong umalis. At ang lugar at korte na pagsasampahan ng kaso ay ang mga Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court na nakakasakop sainyong bayan o siyudad.

Matapos maisampa sa korte, magpapadala ng sulat ang korte sa inihahabla at siya ay bibigyan ng ilang araw upang sumagot sa reklamo. Matapos nito ay ipapatawag ang dalawang panig para sa tinatawag na ❞𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆❞ kung saan obligado ang parehas na panig na dumalo. Isasangguni din sa mediation sa Philippine Mediation Center ang inyong kaso kung saan ay susubukan pagayusin ang dalawang panig at sa tinatawag na Judicial Dispute Resolution. Maaari ding mag-utos ang korte sa dalawang panig upang magsumite ng ❞𝑷𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒂𝒑𝒆𝒓❞ na kung saan ay pagbabatayan ng korte sa paggawa ng desisyon kung kinakailangan. Sa loob ng ❞𝟑𝟎 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬❞ matapos matanggap ang report sa mediation, ang korte ay maglalabas ng kanyang desisyon.

Mangyari na dumaan sa legal na proseso dahil ang hindi pagdaan sa proseso ay maaaring mag dulot ng mas malaking problema, pera, at panahon.

SC: Senior Citizens Discount on Funeral and Burial Services Includes Interment Services |

Interment services are covered by the 20% discount on funeral and burial expenses provided by the Senior Citizens Act and its amending laws.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda that granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines and set aside the January 18, 2018 and October 22, 2018 Resolutions of Branch 17 of the Cagayan de Oro City Regional Trial Court (RTC), which excluded interment services from the coverage of the statutorily mandated senior citizen discount on “funeral and burial services.”

The Supreme Court, in ruling that interment services are covered by the provision of RA 7432, as amended by RA 9257 and RA 9994, which grants a 20% discount on the funeral and burial services for the death of senior citizens, emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act is a law created to grant a bundle of benefits in favor of senior citizens or those at least 60 years old, giving flesh to the declared policy of motivating senior citizens to contribute to nation building and encouraging their families and communities to reaffirm the Filipino tradition of caring for the senior citizens.

The Court said that based on the definition of the term “burial” as it is commonly understood, “burial service” pertains to any service offered or provided in connection with the final disposition, entombment, or interment of human remains. It held that it follows that burial services necessarily include interment services, such as digging the land for the deceased person’s grave, its concreting, and other services being done during the actual burial.

The Court maintained that this interpretation was in keeping with the policies and objectives of the law, particularly of RA 9994 which echoes Section 4, Article XV of the Constitution declaring that it is the duty of the family to take care of its elderly members while the state may design programs of social security for them.

The Court found that the exclusion by the RTC of interment services from the coverage of the 20% senior citizen discount is not provided under the law, and that the IRR, which does not explicitly exclude interment services, cannot be interpreted to support the lower court’s Resolution. It stressed that a law cannot be amended by a mere regulation, and the administrative agency issuing the regulation may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the law it administers.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-senior-citizens-discount-on-funeral-and-burial-services-includes-interment-services/.

SC Declares Void CBA Proviso Setting Lower Mandatory Retirement Age for Female Cabin Attendants |

On January 10, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc unanimously declared unconstitutional Section 144(A) of the 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement between Philippine Airlines, Inc. and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines. Section 144(A) of the Agreement, pe***ng the compulsory retirement age of female cabin attendants at 55 years old and male cabin attendants at 60 years old, was deemed void for lack of basis, discriminating against women, and being contrary to laws, international convention, and public policy.

In finding merit in the January 11, 2019 Petition filed by female cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines, Inc. in G.R. No. 243259 (Halagueña, et al. v. Philippine Airlines Inc.), the Court, speaking through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, emphasized the fundamental equality of women and men before the law which is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Magna Carta of Women, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The Court held that considering the constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure, respondent Philippine Airlines Inc. failed to provide a reasonable basis for differentiating compulsory retirement age based on s*x. It found insufficient proof to support the conclusion that female cabin attendants between 55 to 59 years old did not have the “necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules” unlike their male counterparts.

The Court ruled that petitioners were denied employment opportunity at an age “not young enough to seek for a new job but not old enough to be considered retired.” This deprived them of benefits attached to employment, such as income and medical benefits, five years earlier than their male counterpart, without any factual basis. Aside from being repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and international convention, the Court found that the compulsory retirement provision in Section 144(A) of the Agreement was not voluntarily agreed upon by petitioners.

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurred in the opinion. Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Japar B. Dimaampao took no part, while Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was on wellness leave.

SC: Marital Infidelity is Psychological Violence under VAWC – Supreme Court of the Philippines The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) of a man who cohabited with another woman and impregnated the same while his wife was working abroad.

Start the week with some from American Technology Executive, Sheryl Kara Sandberg.

Cybersecurity Tips of the week!
What is INSIDER THREATS IN CYBER SECURITY?

BEWARE! ⚠️

The Securities and Exchange Commission Philippines has warned the public against investing in entities that lack proper registration with the Commission and the necessary licenses to offer to and receive from the public investments.

If you come across such entities, please report them to the SEC’s Enforcement and Investor Protection Department at (02) 584-6337.

The SEC regularly posts advisories on entities soliciting investments from the public without the necessary licenses. To view previous and future advisories issued by the Commission, VISIT: https://www.sec.gov.ph/investors-education-and-information/advisories/ .tab=0

To receive on-the-go updates on the Philippine economy, JOIN the DOF Viber community: https://vb.me/dofcommunity

BASAHIN | Ginagawa ang barangay assembly dalawang beses o higit pa sa loob ng isang taon upang mapag-usapan ang mga aktibidad ng barangay, mga suliranin ng barangay na kinakailangang tutukan at iresolba, pati na ang mga gastusin at badyet nito.

Nakatakdang magsagawa ng barangay assembly ang lahat ng barangay sa bansa para sa unang semestre ng taong 2023 sa kahit anong petsa basta papatak ng Sabado o Linggo ng Marso.

Maaaring makita ang mga materyal na may kaugnayan sa Barangay Assemly sa https://bit.ly/1stSemBAD2023.

Basahin ang DILG memo on the Conduct of Barangay Assembly for the 1st Semester of Calendar Year (CY) 2023 sa https://bit.ly/BrgyAssembly2023.

Basahin ang Local Government Code of 1991 para sa karagdagang kaalaman https://bit.ly/LocalGovernmentCode.

Maling size ba ang napili mo? Nagbago ng isip? O kaya nakahanap ng mas murang kapalit? Hindi ‘yan sakop ng 3Rs: Repair, Replace, Refund.

Tanging dahil lamang sa good will ng tindahan maaaring ibalik o i-refund ang produktong hindi depektibo.

Para sa ibang consumer complaints, makipag-ugnayan lamang sa .ConsumerCare o mag-email sa [email protected]

On this day in 2019, the Expanded Maternity Leave was passed into law. This legislation gave working mothers 105 days, instead of the previous 60, of paid maternity leave as well as an option to extend for an additional 30 days without pay. It likewise grants a woman the option to allocate up to seven days of paid maternity leave to her child’s father or an alternate care giver. Under this law, those who qualify as solo parents under the Republic Act 8972 can also avail of additional 15 days of paid maternity leave.

Learn more about the Expanded Maternity Leave Law!

For the full FAQs, visit this link: https://pcw.gov.ph/faq-republic-act-11210/

Magkaiba ang presyo na nasa price tag at ang presyo na babayaran sa cashier? Bawal 'yan!

Ayon sa Consumer Act of the Philippines, Article 81: Price Tag Requirement, ang dapat lamang bayaran ng mamimili ay ang presyong mas mababa.

Maging wais na Konsyumer at alamin ang inyong karapatan! Basahin ang Article 81 o ang Price Tag Requirement sa bit.ly/DTIConsumerAct