Moya Law Firm

11/06/2026

The Moya Law Firm
We are the legacy of a Legend
A tribute to our founder, Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr.

29/05/2026

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMC’s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMC’s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employees’ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

17/05/2026

17/05/2026

📣 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is suspending until December 31, 2026 the imposition of monthly penalties in the late or non-filing of reportorial requirements, as it seeks to reduce transaction costs and promote the ease of doing business.

In its meeting on May 5, the Commission En Banc approved the suspension of penalties imposed for every month of delay for the late or non-filing of reportorial requirements, as provided under SEC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 2024 (MC 6).

“As we celebrate the Ease of Doing Business month this May, the SEC reaffirms its commitment to foster a robust and responsive business environment,” SEC Chairperson Francis Lim said.

“By suspending the compounding monthly penalties, we are providing corporations an opportunity to get back their good standing without the burden of mounting transaction costs, as part of our goal of pushing corporations toward full compliance and sustainable growth,” he added.

The suspension will apply to corporations with pending monitoring applications. Corporations that have received final assessments but have not yet settled payment will be issued updated assessments excluding the per month of delay components.

Read the full memorandum circular here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/mc-2026/sec-mc-no-16-series-of-2026suspension-of-the-per-month-of-delay-penalty-for-late-and-non-filing-of-reportorial-requirements-under-sec-memorandum-circular-no-6-series-of-2024/

Read the full press release here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/pr-2026/sec-suspends-monthly-penalties-for-late-non-filing-of-reports/

07/04/2026

Just Compensation Must Be Fixed at Time of Taking; Courts Cannot “Currentize” Valuation

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot arbitrarily modify the DAR valuation formula in fixing just compensation. Judicial discretion exists, but it must be exercised strictly within the framework of the law.

The case involved the acquisition by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) of a 6.0004-hectare coconut land owned by the spouses Cortez under agrarian reform. The taking occurred in 2002 when title was transferred to the Republic. LBP initially valued the land at about ₱106,542.98 based on DAR AO No. 5, Series of 1998. The landowners rejected the valuation, leading to court proceedings.

The Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, increased the valuation to ₱397,958.41. Although it used the DAR formula, it altered the reckoning dates and instead applied 2009 production data to “update” the valuation, citing inflation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed.

It held that just compensation must be determined at the time of taking, not at a later date chosen by the court. Here, the taking was in 2002. Thus, the applicable law and valuation parameters were those in force at that time, particularly DAR AO No. 5, Series of 1998. The RTC’s use of 2009 data was improper.

The Court stressed that while determination of just compensation is a judicial function, courts are not free to disregard the DAR formula. These formulas implement Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 and have the force of law. Any deviation must be supported by evidence and a clear, reasoned explanation. The RTC’s reliance on inflation alone was insufficient.

The Court further clarified that concerns about the erosion of value due to delay are addressed not by altering valuation, but by imposing legal interest. Interest compensates for the delay in payment and preserves the real value of compensation without violating the statutory method.

Finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, the Court set aside the rulings and remanded the case for proper determination of just compensation in accordance with the law and DAR guidelines.

Courts must fix just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of taking and in accordance with the DAR-prescribed formula. Deviation is allowed only when justified by evidence—not by general claims such as inflation.

Aspiring lawyers and bar takers are encouraged to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s Third Division ruling—find the link in the comments.

07/04/2026

Inordinate Delay Violates Right to Speedy Disposition; Nearly Eight-Year Inaction Warrants Dismissal

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Supreme Court ruled that an almost eight-year delay in resolving an administrative case constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, warranting outright dismissal.

The case involved Joan V. Alarilla, then Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, who was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman with grave misconduct and serious dishonesty for allegedly approving disbursements for non-existent goods and services.

Aspiring lawyers and bar takers are encouraged to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s Third Division ruling—link in the comments.

07/04/2026

Acquittal via Demurrer to Evidence is Final; Only the OSG May Assail It

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Gaerlan, the Supreme Court reiterated that an acquittal—particularly one resulting from a granted demurrer to evidence—is immediately final and cannot be challenged by private parties. Only the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), may question it, and even then, only under exceptional circumstances.

Aspiring lawyers and bar takers are encouraged to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s Third Division ruling—link in the comments.

07/04/2026

ATTN EMPLOYERS: Reports on RETRENCHMENT, PERMANENT CLOSURE, LIST OF AFFECTED AND DISPLACED WORKERS SHALL BE SUBMITTED STARTING MARCH 31, 2026 THROUGH THE FOLLOWING LINK or the QR CODE BELOW:

For establishment's labor and employment reports on Work Accident Illness Report, 13th Month Pay, Telecommuting, Flexible Work Arrangements, Movie and Television Production, Annual Establishment Reports on Wages, and Labor Inspection Forms: https://reports.dole.gov.ph

For retrenchment, permanent and temporary closure including list of affected or displaced workers: https://tinyurl.com/DOLEJobDisplacementForm

31/03/2026

The En Banc has approved the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary, marking a significant step toward modernizing court operations and improving the administration of justice through new technologies.

In a Resolution dated February 18, 2026, in A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, the SC issued a comprehensive guide on the responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence in the judicial system, based on three ethical principles: fairness, accountability, and transparency. These principles support “the ethical and responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence tools in the Judiciary” and “reinforce the public’s faith and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.”

The Framework was developed by a working group chaired by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Rodil V. Zalameda as vice chairpersons. It was created with the help of other members of the Judiciary, subject matter experts, lawyers, and the academe, and further refined through consultations with the SC En Banc, the SC’s Management Information Systems Office, and the Office of the Chief Attorney. It also draws from global best practices, including the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Governance Framework on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the ASEAN Judiciaries and UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals, ensuring alignment with international standards.

A key feature of the Framework is the use of the term “human-centered augmented intelligence,” which emphasizes that technology must remain centered on humans and should only support, not replace, human reason and judgment.

Read the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162306.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-11-28-sc-re-proposed-governance-framework-on-the-use-of-human-centered-augmented-intelligence-in-the-judiciary-2/

31/03/2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Proper Basis for Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action

To remove the confusion created by prior rulings, the Court categorically clarified the governing rule; at the pleading stage, courts determine only the sufficiency of allegations, not the truth of evidence.

Read the full text in the comment.