Mayam-o Law Office

07/02/2026

An E-Consultation Service provides a convenient way to access professional legal guidance and thorough document review from anywhere. Each session is conducted with utmost confidentiality, professionalism, and ethical care, delivering clear, reliable advice tailored to your legal needs.

Mayam-o Law Office ⚖️

07/11/2025

⚠️PUBLIC NOTICE⚠️

We’d like to inform the public that Mayam-o Law Office has not notarized or acknowledged any contract or document authorizing Lenymar Dollente Molina to sell, mortgage, or deal any property on behalf of anyone.

If you encounter any documents or transactions that appear to bear our lawyer’s signature and seem suspicious, please don’t hesitate to contact our office directly so we can verify them for you.

Let’s all stay alert and help protect one another from possible fraud.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation!

— Mayam-o Law Office

22/07/2025

In light of the government’s suspension of work due to inclement weather, the law office will also be closed tomorrow, Wednesday (July 23, 2025) and will resume operations on Thursday (July 24, 2025). Our online services will remain available during this time. Thank you for your understanding, and please stay safe.

21/07/2025

𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗦 | 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲

This ordinance prohibits excessive and unnecessary noise from audio devices in residential areas and public streets between 10:00 PM and 5:00 AM. This includes using videokes or karaokes, which are allowed until midnight only if a permit is secured from the Punong Barangay and the volume is kept at acceptable levels.

The ordinance also prohibits loud noises within 200 meters of schools, places of worship, and hospitals.

Penalty is from Php 1,000 to Php 5,000 and may be imprisoned up to 6 months.

🎨 Ronnie Jay Tuzon (UNP - PIO intern)

15/07/2025

Happy Cordillera Day!
Office is open today until 4:00pm

𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐃𝐚𝐲! 🌄✨

Let’s come together in celebration of the rich heritage and diverse cultures of the Cordillera Administrative Region. This year’s theme, "𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒓𝒂," reflects our continuing journey toward a more inclusive and empowered Cordilleras.

As we honor our region’s vibrant past and dynamic present, may we renew our collective commitment to building a progressive future for all Cordillerans.

𝙏𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧, 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙘𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙-𝙞𝙣-𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙚.

06/07/2025

Mayam-o Law Office is located at Room 2, 3rd floor, Rillera Building, Dagohoy Street, Baguio City. In between Centermall and Baguio Central University.

06/07/2025

Nagpasya ang na ang isang acknowledgment receipt ay hindi maituturing na kontrata ng pagbebenta maliban kung malinaw na ipinapakita nito na may intensyon ang nagbebenta na ilipat ang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian sa bumibili.

Sa desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, sinabi ng Third Division ng Korte na ang kasunduan sa pagitan nina Virgilio B. Chavez at iba pa (pamilya Chavez) at mag-asawang Joselito at Adriana Gopez (mag-asawang Gopez) ay isang kontrata para ibenta (contract to sell) at hindi isang kontrata ng pagbebenta (contract of sale).

Kasama sa kaso ang dalawang ari-arian na minana ng pamilya Chavez na napagkasunduan nilang ibenta sa mag-asawa sa halagang PHP 31.5 milyon. Kinailangang magbayad ang mag-asawa ng PHP 5 milyon bilang downpayment at ihanda ang mga kinakailangang dokumento, kabilang ang kontrata sa pagbebenta.

Unang nagbayad ang mag-asawang Gopez ng PHP 200,000 na may nakasulat sa acknowledgment receipt na mga katagang "earnest money." Ang resibo na ito ang tanging patunay ng kanilang kasunduan.

Nang maglaon, kinansela ng pamilya Chavez ang kasunduan dahil hindi nabayaran ng mag-asawang Gopez ang buong paunang bayad at naantala ang mga papeles. Sinabi rin nila na dahil malaki ang pagbabago sa draft contract to sell sa agreement terms at inalis ang PHP 5 milyon na downpayment, nanatili itong hindi napipirmahan.

Nagsampa ng kaso ang mag-asawa sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para pilitin ang pamilya Chavez na ituloy ang pagbebenta dahil nakapagbayad na sila ng PHP 1.5 milyon at hindi nila kasalanan ang mga pagkaantala.

Ibinasura ng RTC ang kaso at sinabing ang mga partido ay pumasok sa isang contract to sell at hindi contract of sale. Dahil hindi buo ang downpayment, walang karapatan ang mag-asawang Gopez na hingin ang transfer of ownership.

Pero binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng RTC at sinabing naglalaman ang acknowledgement receipt ng lahat ng elemento ng isang sale contract. Dagdag pa nito, hindi binanggit sa resibo na mananatili ang pagmamay-ari sa nagbebenta hanggang sa mabuo ang bayad.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang transaksyon ay isang contract to sell. Paliwanag ng Korte, hindi pa pumapayag ang nagbebenta na ilipat ang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian sa pamamagitan ng nasabing kontrata. Nangangako lamang ang nagbebenta na tutuparin ang kanilang usapan na ibenta ang mga ari-arian at ilipat ang titulo sa bumibili pagkatapos mabuo ang bayad ng presyo ng pagbili. Kung hindi ito mangyayari, walang magiging obligasyon ang nagbenta at mapapanatili niya ang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian.

Malinaw naman sa isang contract of sale na nagpapakita ng layunin ng nagbebenta na ilipat ang pagmamay-ari sa bumibili.

Sa kasong ito, hindi kasama sa acknowledgement receipt ang anumang pangako na ilipat ang pagmamay-ari. Ipinakita lamang nito na kailangan ng mag-asawa na matugunan ang mga kondisyon: ang pagbabayad ng presyo ng pagbili at paghahanda ng kontrata sa pagbebenta, deed of sale, at pag-areglo ng ari-arian.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/3zfynpbc.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/4hvfm3ze.

Bashin ang Concurring Opinion ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://tinyurl.com/msysydyb.

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

05/07/2025

What is overtime pay?

05/07/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the salaries of public officials can be garnished—or legally collected—by the courts to pay off their debts. These salaries are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the salary of Atty. Fred L. Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, can be garnished to pay his debt to respondent Anna May F. Perez.

Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez PHP 308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.

Bagbagen attempted to stop the garnishment, arguing that his salaries should not be collected due to public policy reasons, and that these funds were still considered government property until spent.

The SC affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that once a public official’s salary is deposited in their personal bank account, it is no longer considered government money.

It emphasized that there is no law exempting public officials’ salaries from garnishment. Under Rule 39 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, salaries – whether in the public or private sector – can be garnished to settle debts.

An exception exists for manual laborers, whose wages are protected to ensure they can still support their families. The SC explained that manual laborers “usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.”

However, only up to four months’ worth of wages are exempt. Any amount beyond that can still be collected to pay debts.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/44u5fp2s.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pzbvsv9.

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