A&A Law Office

25/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is not liable to pay interest or damages on funds it sequestered or took custody of. The PCGG’s duty is only to preserve the funds, not to make them grow.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division denied the petition of Palm Avenue Holding Co., Inc. and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation (“Palm Companies”) seeking interest on funds sequestered from them.

The PCGG sequestered shares of stock in Benguet Corporation registered under the Palm Companies in 1986 as part of the government’s effort to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth. It did so based on a letter identifying Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez as the shares’ beneficial owner.

The shares later earned income and were partly sold. The PCGG placed the proceeds in an escrow account and a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) account. The escrow funds earned over PHP 273 million in interest, while the CARP funds earned over PHP 4 million before being transferred to the CARP account. After their transfer to the CARP account, they stopped earning interest.

The Sandiganbayan later ordered the release of the funds, including the interest earned, to the Palm Companies pending its decision on whether the funds were ill-gotten.

Because the CARP account funds came without any interest, the Palm Companies moved to ask the Sandiganbayan to order the PCGG to pay interest at 12% per year, compounded until full payment. They argued that the PCGG should have kept the CARP funds in escrow instead of moving them.

The Sandiganbayan initially agreed and ordered the PCGG to pay 6% in interest but later reversed itself.

The SC affirmed the ruling of the Sandiganbayan as it denied for lack of merit the motion of the Palm Companies.

Under the law creating the PCGG, the Commission can sequester assets suspected to be ill-gotten while the courts are deciding whether they were unlawfully acquired. This prevents assets from being hidden, destroyed, or depleted while in government custody.

The SC explained that the PCGG’s role over sequestered property is limited to that of a caretaker, not an owner or manager. This duty is fulfilled when the sequestered assets are safeguarded, kept intact, and returned without loss, including any actual profits and interest earned while they were under sequestration.

The SC clarified that the PCGG has no duty to increase the value of the sequestered funds or generate profit for its owners. To impose this on the commission would unnecessarily burden the State’s resources and distract the PCGG from its main task of recovering ill-gotten wealth.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173942.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173926.

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

25/09/2026

22/09/2026

22/09/2026

The has reiterated that what Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004, criminalizes is not marital infidelity by itself but the psychological violence that goes with it causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, which penalizes the act of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child.

Married in 1999, the husband and wife’s marital problems began in 2009, when the husband started coming home late and grew distant from his family. In January 2010, the husband sent his wife text messages saying he would no longer return home, wanted to start a new life alone, and intended to seek the nullity of their marriage. The wife later discovered that her husband was living with another woman.

The husband was charged with psychological violence before the Regional Trial Court. During trial, the wife claimed that her husband’s actions caused her severe mental and emotional suffering, and loss of self-esteem and dignity. She said she experienced depression and attempted to take her own life several times.

The psychologist who evaluated the wife found signs of depression, including feelings of inferiority, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and problems relating with others. The psychologist linked these emotional difficulties to the wife’s conflict with her husband and his abandonment of the family for another woman.

The SC affirmed in full the finding that the husband is guilty of psychological violence under the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, sentencing the husband to up to eight years in prison and ordering him to pay a PHP 100,000 fine and PHP 30,000 in moral damages to his wife. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC explained that, depending on the circumstances, an extramarital relationship may or may not cause mental or emotional anguish to the wife. Infidelity may be one of the acts through which psychological violence is committed, but the resulting mental or emotional suffering must still be proven.

In this case, the SC held that the wife’s testimony, psychological evaluation, and other witness testimonies sufficiently proved that her husband’s acts caused her mental and emotional suffering.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173362.

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268619-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168031.

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

15/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that appearing intoxicated, smelling of alcohol, or being found near empty liquor bottles is not, by itself, enough to establish a violation of the election liquor ban.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam (Omandam), ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he consumed alcohol during the prohibited period as stated under Section 261(dd)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), or the “COMELEC liquor ban.”

Omandam was arrested on the eve of the elections after police responded to reports of rowdiness. Arresting officers said he appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice, and moved groggily. The police also recovered two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum near the scene.

The SC explained that the OEC prohibits the taking of intoxicating liquor during the election liquor ban, which covers the day before the election and election day. The prosecution has to prove that the accused actually consumed alcohol during that period.

In this case, however, none of the arresting officers saw Omandam drinking. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence.

While circumstantial evidence may support a conviction, the SC stressed that the circumstances taken together must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and rule out any reasonable explanation of innocence.

The SC found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard. It based its case solely on observations of Omandam’s appearance and other unsupported circumstances.

The SC noted that the offense is not typically committed in secret and could have been easily verified through readily available means, such as field sobriety, breath analyzer, or chemical tests. However, the police did not conduct any of these, nor did they take photographs or videos to document Omandam’s alleged intoxication.

Although two empty liquor bottles were recovered, the police did not examine them for fingerprints or conduct forensic tests to determine whether Omandam handled them.

The SC ruled that these omissions undermined the accuracy and fairness of the investigation. Taken together, they cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173139

Read the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173133

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

14/09/2026

𝗕𝗜𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗦 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), under Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza, has issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 97-2026 removing the Value-Added Tax (VAT) on the allowable system loss charge within the cap approved by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). Issued on September 14, 2026, the Circular recognizes the charge as a government-mandated pass-through cost excluded from gross sales for VAT purposes, with the exclusion to apply prospectively in accordance with the effectivity of ERC Resolution No. 26, Series of 2026.

Commissioner Mendoza said the issuance delivers on the BIR’s earlier commitment to act once the necessary regulatory basis was in place, in line with President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s directive to pursue measures that can provide practical relief to consumers.

“Every peso saved by consumers counts. This may be one part of a broader effort to bring down electricity costs, but it is relief that can be implemented under existing law. While Congress continues to consider wider reforms on electricity charges and taxes, the BIR is acting on the measures within its authority that can reduce the burden on consumers,” Commissioner Mendoza said.

RMC No. 97-2026 circularizes ERC Resolution No. 26, Series of 2026 and formally recognizes the allowable system loss charge within the ERC-approved cap as a government-mandated charge excluded from gross sales for VAT purposes. It is therefore not subject to output VAT and creditable withholding on VAT. The exclusion does not extend to income tax and the corresponding creditable withholding tax.

For VAT purposes, the allowable system loss charge must be separately identified in the billing statement, invoice, or similar document. Generation companies, the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), distribution utilities, electric cooperatives, and other affected taxpayers must also ensure proper billing, accounting, reporting, and separate identification of the charge in accordance with applicable ERC rules and tax regulations.

“For consumers, the practical effect is straightforward: once the new rules become effective, VAT will no longer be imposed on the allowable system loss portion of the electricity bill. That means a lower amount will be passed on to consumers on covered billings and transactions,” Commissioner Mendoza said.

The issuance builds on earlier BIR action on government-mandated electricity charges. Under RMC No. 60-2026, the BIR had already clarified the tax treatment of the Lifeline Subsidy, Green Energy Auction Allowance, and other specified government-mandated charges. RMC No. 97-2026 continues this approach by extending the VAT treatment to the allowable system loss charge.

“President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr and Finance Secretary Frederick Go have consistently emphasized that our reforms should translate into benefits that people can actually feel. This is the kind of reform we want to keep pursuing at the BIR: focused, lawful, and practical. No single measure will solve the entire cost of electricity, but where the tax rules allow us to reduce what consumers have to pay, we at the BIR will act,” Commissioner Mendoza said.

Read the full RMC No. 97-2026 here:https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RMC%20No.%2097-2026_redacted.pdf

14/09/2026

14/09/2026

Nilinaw ng na hindi nito puwedeng disiplinahin ang isang empleyado ng lokal na pamahalaan na itinalaga sa mga mababang hukuman nang walang kaukulang pag-apruba. Gayunman, maaari pa rin siyang mapatawan ng 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙩.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Maria Filomena D. Singh, inatasan ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang Executive Judge ng Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ng Baguio City na simulan ang contempt proceedings laban kay Juliet L. Corpuz (Corpuz), isang dating empleyado ng Pamahalaang Lungsod ng Baguio na itinalaga sa MTCC nang walang pag-apruba ng Korte Suprema.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa isang reklamong inihain ni “Mr. Abenes,” na nadiskubreng hindi nairehistro sa local civil registrar ang kanyang kasal na isinagawa sa MTCC.

Ayon kay Abenes, hindi nairehistro ni Corpuz ang kanyang kasal kahit tumanggap ito ng PHP 500 na bayad para sa pagpaparehistro. Nang hilingin niyang asikasuhin ni Corpuz ang pagpaparehistro, ipinaliwanag nitong hindi niya ito magawa dahil suspendido siya sa kanyang tungkulin noong panahong iyon. Sa halip, hiniling ni Corpuz na magbayad siya ng PHP 5,000 para makapaghanda ito ng panibagong marriage certificate kahit walang 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚.

Nang magbanta si Abenes na magsampa ng reklamo, iginiit ni Corpuz na walang hurisdiksyon ang Korte sa kanya dahil kawani siya ng Pamahalaang Lungsod ng Baguio na pansamantalang itinalaga lamang sa MTCC.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang mga natuklasan ng 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (𝗢𝗖𝗔) at 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 (𝗝𝗜𝗕) na nakagawa si Corpuz ng mga gawaing nakasira sa imahe at reputasyon ng mga hukuman. Gayunman, hindi ito sumang-ayon sa rekomendasyong patawan si Corpuz ng administratibong parusa.

Sa ilalim ng AC No. 28-2008, may administratibong pangangasiwa ang Korte Suprema sa mga 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚, mga indibidwal na kawani at sinasahuran ng lokal na pamahalaan (LGU), na itinalaga sa mga 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩- o 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙-𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 para tumulong sa pangangasiwa ng katarungan habang sila ay nasa panahon ng kanilang pagtatalaga o 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙡.

Pero bago sila maitalaga sa mga hukuman na ito, kailangan muna nilang kumuha ng pahintulot mula sa Korte Suprema sa pamamagitan ng OCA. Dahil kinakailangan ang naturang pag-apruba, itinuturing na walang bisa ang anumang pagtatalaga na isinagawa nang walang pahintulot nito.

Sa kaso ni Corpuz, hindi puwedeng magpataw ang Korte Suprema ng administratibong multa dahil walang bisa ang kanyang pagkakatalaga. Dahil dito, hindi nagkaroon ang Korte ng kapangyarihang administratibo na mangasiwa o magsagawa ng 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 laban sa kanya. Gayunman, taglay ng Korte ang likas na kapangyarihang magpataw ng 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙩 laban sa isang tao dahil sa anumang asal o kilos na nakahahadlang, nakasasagabal, o nakasisira sa maayos na pangangasiwa ng hustisya.

Bagama’t empleyado si Corpuz ng Pamahalaang Lungsod ng Baguio, sa MTCC niya ginagampanan ang kanyang mga tungkulin at sa paningin ng publiko ay itinuturing siyang kawani ng korte. Dahil dito, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang kanyang mga ginawa ay nakasira hindi lamang sa reputasyon ng MTCC na kanyang pinagsilbihan, kundi pati na rin sa buong Hudikatura.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte na ang mga kawaning pinopondohan ng lokal na pamahalaan ay nasa ilalim ng administratibong pangangasiwa ng kanilang mga LGU. Dahil hindi na konektado si Corpuz sa Pamahalaang Lungsod ng Baguio, wala nang praktikal na layunin ang pagsasangguni rito ng kasong administratibo. Sa halip, inatasan ng Korte Suprema ang Executive Judge ng MTCC na simulan ang 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 laban kay Corpuz at alamin kung dapat din siyang pagbawalan na muling matanggap sa serbisyo sa Hudikatura sa hinaharap.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-locally-funded-employees-not-under-court-discipline-without-approved-detail-but-may-be-cited-for-contempt/

Basahin ang kabuuan ng 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐲𝐨𝐧 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168019

Sumunod sa 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 ng 𝐒𝐂 𝐏𝐈𝐎: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/

10/09/2026

A Notice of Dishonor is a written notice informing the drawer of a check that the check was dishonored or was not paid by the bank. It gives the drawer an opportunity to pay the amount of the check or make arrangements for its full payment.

In B.P. Blg. 22, commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law, proof of the drawer’s receipt of the Notice of Dishonor is important. It is not enough to show that the check was dishonored. The prosecution must also establish that the drawer received the notice and was given the opportunity to comply with the law.

A Notice of Dishonor may be served through personal service, registered mail, or, under circumstances recognized by the Supreme Court, electronic means such as email, Viber, Facebook Messenger, or other comparable digital communication platforms. When electronic service is used, the required proof and documentation must be properly established.

Below is a simple information guide explaining what a Notice of Dishonor is, how it may be served, when electronic service may be used, what proof is required, and the five (5) banking-day period given to the drawer under B.P. Blg. 22.

For inquiries or other legal concerns, contact us through our page or visit our office at Unit 201 Alcema Building, No. 167 Upper Bonifacio St., Barangay Honeymoon, Baguio City.