Atty. Clenntroy Vicka Guzman-Magbual

04/06/2026

ADVISORY: We will be closed this Friday and Saturday. (June 5 & 6, 2026) We’ll be back and ready to serve you again on Monday! Thank you for understanding.

27/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: UNILATERAL WORKDAYS REDUCTION AMOUNTS TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and a worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a 29-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found a textile manufacturing company liable for constructively dismissing seven of its workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent.

Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) hired the petitioners in 2017 as production workers. Initially working six days a week, their schedules were later reduced to only two to three days a week due to the company’s alleged lack of raw materials.

FMC claimed that they held a meeting with production supervisors and staff to discuss the shortage of raw materials and the implementation of a work rotation schedule. During the meeting, the workers reportedly agreed to the temporary work rotation plan.

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 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 the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

"We find that apart from its noncompliance with the notice requirement under DOLE Department Order No. 2, Series of 2009, FMC also failed to observe the other requisites for the valid adoption of flexible work arrangements, rendering FMC's implementation of rotation of workers' schedule and reduction of work days unlawful." the Supreme Court said.

It 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 for workers' rights.

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

"Constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely;
when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee." the Supreme Court said.

It ordered the FMC to pay the workers full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and all other benefits accruing to them from the time of their dismissal up to the finality of the Decision, separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, and attorney's fees.

24/05/2026

"MARRIAGE, IN ITS TRUEST FORM, MUST BE A SANCTUARY, A SPACE OF MUTUAL LOVE, RESPECT, CARE, AND EMOTIONAL SAFETY"

The Supreme Court (SC), speaking through Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, stressed that while marriage remains the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution that the State is duty-bound to protect, courts cannot ignore the realities faced by individuals trapped in unions with psychologically incapacitated spouses.

This came after the SC Third Division declared a marriage null and void on the ground of the husband's psychological incapacity, citing his abusive and possessive behavior toward his wife, coupled with his lack of direction and ambition in life.

The highest bench underscored that marriage, in its truest form, must serve as a sanctuary marked by mutual respect, care, and emotional safety. It emphasized that marriage should never become a chain that binds a person to a relationship that is fundamentally flawed and emotionally damaging.

While recognizing that the ideal is for individuals to choose wisely in love and commitment, the Court acknowledged that human beings are not infallible and can make mistakes in choosing their life partners.

10/02/2026

🏳️‍🌈

19/12/2025

VAWC PROSECUTION AND EVENTUAL CONVICTION MAY STILL PROCEED DESPITE COMPLAINANT'S DEATH—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is a public offense that may be initiated by anyone with personal knowledge, even after the complainant’s death.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division affirmed the criminal conviction of a husband for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 after he entered into an illicit relationship with another woman that bore a child and for abandoning his family.

The complaint was filed in 2006, when the complainant alleged that she suffered mental torture from various acts of the accused, such as maintaining illicit relations with a paramour with whom he sired a child and abandoning his family.

In 2017, the complainant died during the pendency of the case. But despite this, the prosecution still pursued the case and presented the son of the complainant and accused, who testified that his mother was shot to death by his father when he was still in Grade 3.

He also narrated that his father abandoned them for his mistress. He added that he saw his father and the woman naked. Meanwhile, the accused denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant filed a case against him because he refused to give her P2 million as capital for her business.

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused and his mistress of violation of Sec. 5(i) of R.A. 9262, or the VAWC Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the husband but acquitted the mistress on the ground that only those who had a sexual or dating relationship with the victim may be held liable under the VAWC Act.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

It clarified that VAWC seeks to penalize not the occurrence of marital infidelity but the psychological violence from the accused's act of unfaithfulness, the abandonment of his family, and the utter disregard of the feelings of his wife and children, which resulted in the mental and emotional sufferings.

The highest bench underscored that since violation of the VAWC Act is a public crime, its prosecution can still proceed despite the death of the complainant. It noted that any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving its commission can initiate the filing of cases.

The SC noted that public crime is different from private crimes, such as adultery and concubinage, which may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

"Even if the complainant is absent or can no longer give a testimony, the criminal proceedings may still proceed, so long as there are other witnesses with personal knowledge and supporting pieces of evidence to support the prosecution's theory," the Supreme Court said.

"Despite her death, [the victim's] mental and emotional anguish may still be established by (1) the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution and (2) testimonies of the other witnesses," it added.

The SC sentenced the accused to a penalty of up to eight years imprisonment and ordered him to pay the victim's heirs PHP 100,000 as a fine and PHP 25,000 as moral damages.

21/09/2025

A person may be detained only for 12, 18, or 36 hours without charges under the Revised Penal Code, or up to 14 days—extendable by 10 more days—under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Read more in the comment section.

11/08/2025

20/07/2025

When seeking legal advice or notarial service, please bring all necessary documents, multiple copies if possible, and present to the lawyer concerned. This will allow the lawyer to assess the situation and give proper advice without any delay.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Send a message to learn more

04/07/2025

We have moved to a new office address at: Brgy. 2 Garreta, Badoc, Ilocos Norte• 1st Floor• Triplets Building• Please refer to the photos below.

25/05/2025

We are closed on Monday to Wednesday, May 26 to 28, 2025.
Thank you.