De Luna & Macadaeg Law Office

De Luna & Macadaeg Law Office Legal and Notarial Services

Our office will resume on April 6, 2026 (Monday).
24/03/2026

Our office will resume on April 6, 2026 (Monday).

In observance of the holy week, we will be closed on March 27-March 31,2024 [Wednesday to Sunday]. We will resume office...
26/03/2024

In observance of the holy week, we will be closed on March 27-March 31,2024 [Wednesday to Sunday]. We will resume office on April 1, 2024 [Monday].

May you have a meaningful holy week and may this season bring you closer to the Lord.

23/02/2024

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.

Merry Christmas Everyone! 🎄🎁🎅
24/12/2023

Merry Christmas Everyone! 🎄🎁🎅

04/12/2023

A notice is hereby given to the public that the 4th Revision of Zonal Values of Real Properties of Baguio City will take effect on December 10, 2023, which is 15 days from the date of its publication as stipulated in RMO 31-2019.

Please be guided accordingly.

14/10/2023

SC: Theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome Can Help in Determining Credibility of Child R**e Victims |

“We may have to adjust our perspective and try to see things from the eyes of child victims. Actions which we commonly see as strange and inconsistent to the norm may actually be seen by victims as the only expected recourse or way out for them.”

Thus held the Court’s First Division, in a Decision penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, which dismissed the appeal by accused ###. The Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting ### with three counts of Qualified R**e.

The Court also dismissed the arguments of ### challenging the testimonies of the victims for being “illogical” or contrary to “normal behavior.”

### argued that AAA should have shouted or made some noise when she was being r***d since her siblings were sleeping in the same room, and that AAA should have avoided being left alone with ###. As for BBB, ### insisted that during the second incident of r**e, BBB should have already known that ### had ill intentions when she was told by ###, who was then only in his underwear, to enter the house. According to ###, the normal human reaction would be to run away instead of following him.

The Court found ###’s arguments unacceptable, underscoring that ### is “in no place to question the responses of AAA and BBB to the traumatic stimuli he himself created.”

The Court proceeded to apply the theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) as a model for understanding why the behavior of children who have been sexually abused may seem strange to adults.

Under CSAAS, there are five stages:
(1) The first stage, described as ‘secrecy,’ was explained in terms of both what an abuser does and why the child keeps the matter secret because of embarrassment or shame, ‘sometimes enforced’ by the adult telling the child to keep it secret or suggesting negative consequences if it is revealed.
(2) The second stage is ‘helplessness’ or the absence of power a child has in a relationship with a parental figure or trusted adult.
(3) The third stage is ‘entrapment’ and ‘accommodation’ which happen when the child fails to seek protection.
(4) The stage of ‘delayed disclosure’ which was opined to have the tendency to be delayed because of the child’s fear, shame, or emotional confusion.
(5) The final stage called ‘retraction,’ which was said to involve the child’s denial that the abuse has occurred.

The High Court noted that select courts in the United States admit expert testimony on CSAAS for a limited purpose of “disabusing the mind of common misconceptions it might have about how child victims react to sexual abuse. It is often used to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness when the abuser suggests that the child’s conduct is inconsistent with the testimony about molestation.”

The Court also held that countless in**stuous r**e cases come before the courts and the defense often attacks the credibility of the victims based on their ‘inconsistent’ responses to what is ‘normal.’ “This is not only diabolical but absurd as well,’ held the Court, adding, “There is a need to correct our minds that these are not actually strange nor inconsistent but the normal course of action on the part of children who are victims of sexual abuse.”

The Court further ruled that “individual differences dictate that there is no singular response when a person encounters a certain situation, especially when involving an extremely traumatic experience such as r**e committed by one’s own father.”

As to AAA and BBB’s “silence”, the Court held that r**e victims’ actions are oftentimes influenced by fear rather than by reason, with the perpetrator hoping to build a climate of extreme psychological terror that numbs the victim into silence and submissiveness. “[I]ncestuous r**e further magnifies this terror, for the perpetrator in these cases, such as the victim’s father, is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, in in**st, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, magnifying the sense of helplessness and the degree of fear.”

The Court thus imposed on ### the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay AAA PhP600,000 and BBB PhP300,000 in damages.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-theory-on-child-sexual-abuse-accommodation-syndrome-can-help-in-determining-credibility-of-child-r**e-victims/.
Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263227-people-of-the-philippines-vs-###/.

10/10/2023

SC: BDO Negligent for Allowing Unauthorized Withdrawals |

Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence, along with high standards of integrity and performance in view of its significant role in commercial transactions.

Thus underscored the Supreme Court’s Third Division in a 19-page Decision, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, denying the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), Vivian Duldulao, and Christine T. Nakanishi. The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found the petitioners liable to Liza A. Seastres, a depositor in BDO.

In ruling for Seastres, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s factual findings that BDO totally failed to comply with its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in taking care of Seastres’ bank accounts. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in jurisprudence that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

In the case of BDO, the Court said that BDO was duty bound to exercise the highest degree of diligence in handling Seastres’ bank accounts and in ascertaining that the signatures in the subject withdrawal slips and manager’s checks were made by Seastres and not by anybody else.

However, the Court found that BDO failed to comply with its own rules and regulations regarding withdrawals made through a representative.
As established during trial, BDO’s own rules and regulations require all withdrawals to be made by the depositor by properly filing out a withdrawal slip. Further, withdrawals made by a person other than the depositor him/herself may be allowed only upon the depositor’s written authorization to be verified by the bank teller.

However, in the case of Seastres, BDO allowed Benaje to personally transact the unauthorized withdrawals without confirming from Seastres the authority of Benaje. The Court noted that the alleged written authorization in favor of Benaje is limited to deposits, inquiries, pick-ups, and printouts on behalf of Seastres. The same authorization did not authorize Benaje to make any withdrawals.

The Supreme Court thus ruled that BDO is solely liable to Seastres for over PhP8,000,000.00 in actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and cost of suit, to earn legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-bdo-negligent-for-allowing-unauthorized-withdrawals/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-banco-de-oro-universal-bank-inc-vivian-duldulao-and-christine-nakanishi-vs-liza-a-seastres-and-annabelle-n-benaje/. Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-dissenting-opinion-justice-samuel-h-gaerlan/.

02/10/2023

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/.

Address

Units 1&4, Basement 2, BBCCC Bldg. I, No. 56 Cooperative St. , Assumption Road , Lower General Luna Brgy
Baguio City
2600

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+63746610821

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when De Luna & Macadaeg Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to De Luna & Macadaeg Law Office:

Share