Raguindin, Wanget, Nerez Law Office

Raguindin, Wanget, Nerez Law Office Raguindin, Wanget, Nerez Law Office is a Law Firm in Baguio City offering legal and notarial services

Congratulations, Atty. Edward Danielle Cruz!We are truly proud to celebrate your achievement in earning your Master of L...
29/10/2025

Congratulations, Atty. Edward Danielle Cruz!

We are truly proud to celebrate your achievement in earning your Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree. This milestone is a reflection of your hard work, perseverance, and commitment to becoming a better lawyer and advocate.

Your dedication to continuous learning inspires all of us in the firm. We’ve seen the long hours, the balance between work and study, and the genuine passion you bring to the practice of law. You’ve shown that excellence is not just a goal but a habit.

Congratulations once again, Atty. Ed! We’re honored to have you as part of our team, and we look forward to seeing you reach even greater heights in your legal journey.

Congratulations Atty. Michael Re*****on A. Nerez on your appointment! We are proud of you!
24/06/2025

Congratulations Atty. Michael Re*****on A. Nerez on your appointment! We are proud of you!

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

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

04/04/2025

Join us once again via Zoom and Facebook for another batch of FREE webinars on the Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) Filing and Payment on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, Thursday, April 10, 2025, and Friday, April 11, 2025 . Scan the QR Code or click the link/s below to pre-register on Zoom on the following dates:

Date: April 8, 2025
For Employees Earning Purely Compensation Income and Mixed Income Earners
Pre-register here: https://tinyurl.com/4vf8p7xc

Date: April 10, 2025
For Self-Employed Individuals/Professionals
Pre-register here: https://tinyurl.com/43c9xwby

Date: April 11, 2025
For Partnerships and Corporations
Pre-register here: https://tinyurl.com/35xu9n4b

04/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

03/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that companies issuing registered securities must use only certified public accountants (CPAs) accredited by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for independent audits of their annual financial statements.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC En Banc granted the SEC’s Second Motion for Reconsideration, reversing its previous ruling and declaring valid and not unconstitutional Rule 68, paragraph 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Securities Regulation Code (RA No. 8799) and SEC Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2009.

These rules require CPAs serving as external auditors for corporations issuing registered securities to obtain SEC accreditation.

The SEC, which regulates the corporate sector and securities industry, issued the accreditation rule as a quality control measure for external auditors.

However, 1Accountants Party List, Inc., an organization of CPAs, challenged this requirement, arguing that it restricted CPAs’ right to practice their profession under the Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004 (RA No. 9298).

In its June 21, 2022 Decision, the SC ruled that the SEC’s authority applied only to corporations, not individual CPAs. However, after reconsideration, the SC found merit in the SEC’s arguments and reversed its earlier decision.

The SC held that the Accountancy Act does not limit regulation of the practice of accountancy to the Professional Regulatory Board of Accountancy. The Securities Regulation Code and the Revised Corporation Code give the SEC powers to implement the State policy to protect investors, ensure full and fair disclosure of securities, and minimize insider trading, which harms the free market.

This accreditation requirement is not a regulation of the accountancy profession but the specific activity of auditing. Thus, CPAs engaged merely for bookkeeping or other non-audit services are not required to be accredited by the SEC.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2fy8xat9.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yw5ne3ak.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/8ahnravu.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://tinyurl.com/4t87dvsa.

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

Address

Baguio City
2600

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+639569744522

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Raguindin, Wanget, Nerez 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 Raguindin, Wanget, Nerez Law Office:

Shortcuts

Share

Category