What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm Saturday 9am - 5pm Sunday 1pm - 5pm

https://www.facebook.com/131316553409486/

Sokoken Law Office, AE 177 Western Buyagan, Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet (2026)

24/07/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that the loss or non-presentation of ransom money in court does not prevent a conviction for kidnapping for ransom, so long as the prosecution is able to prove that ransom was demanded for the victim’s release.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of Jose Olbato, PO3 Clayton Patingan, and others (the accused), except for SPO4 Romeo Ayson who died during the pendency of the appeal, for kidnapping for ransom.

PO3 Patingan and SPO4 Ayson flagged Genevieve Ong Sy (Sy) while she was on board her car and, together with the other accused, forcibly took her and detained her in a house. They demanded PHP 50 million from her father in exchange for her release. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to PHP 500,000.

Acting under police surveillance, Sy’s family driver delivered marked ransom money to the accused. The police then rescued Sy, arrested the accused, and recovered the marked money.

The Regional Trial Court found that the accused worked together to kidnap and detain Sy for ransom. It rejected their defenses of denial and alibi. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Before the SC, the accused argued that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to present the ransom money in court after it was allegedly lost while in police custody.

The SC disagreed and explained that kidnapping for ransom is committed when a private individual illegally kidnaps, detains, or deprives another of liberty for the purpose of demanding ransom.

The SC stressed that actual payment or receipt of the ransom money is not important to prove the crime.

In this case, the SC found that the prosecution proved that ransom was demanded, negotiated, and delivered. Sy’s father testified that the kidnappers called him repeatedly, demanding PHP 50 million for his daughter’s release, later reducing the amount to PHP 500,000 after negotiations. Evidence also showed that the ransom money was delivered and received during the police operation.

The SC emphasized that the failure to present the ransom money in court did not disprove that ransom had been demanded and paid since the evidence clearly established both.

The accused were sentenced to 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 or up to 40 years in prison. They were also ordered to pay the victim PHP 300,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169311

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/276833-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jose-olbato-y-aurella-et-al/

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

14/07/2026

The (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 12079, which grants value-added tax (VAT) refunds on certain local purchases made by non-resident foreign tourists.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam challenging the validity of the law. RA No. 12079 introduced Section 112-A of the 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1997, establishing a VAT refund system for non-resident foreign tourists who purchase goods in the Philippines but are meant to be consumed outside the country.

The VAT refund applies to goods bought from duly accredited stores and taken out of the Philippines within 60 days from purchase. The value of the goods must be at least PHP 3,000 per transaction and Section 5 of the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations limits the refund to items intended for personal use.

Tayam argued that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it limits VAT refunds to foreign tourists and excludes Filipino citizens and residents.

In dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons. The Constitution permits different treatment for groups that are genuinely distinct, provided the classification is reasonable and related to the purpose of the law.

The SC found that RA 12079 validly distinguishes foreign tourists from Filipino citizens and residents. The classification is directly related to the law’s objective of promoting tourism and encouraging visitors to purchase local products. Rather than discriminate against Filipinos, the law grants a specific incentive to foreign tourists as part of the State’s effort to strengthen the tourism industry.

The SC also said the VAT refund system follows the basic rule of VAT that goods are taxed where they are consumed. Since the law requires foreign tourists to take the goods out of the Philippines within 60 days, the goods are considered to be consumed abroad and may qualify for a VAT refund. If the goods are consumed in the Philippines, they remain subject to Philippine VAT.

The SC also rejected claims that the law unfairly disadvantages foreigners with long-term visas. It explained that non-resident foreigners may still qualify for the VAT refund, even if they stay in the Philippines for an extended period, as long as they take the goods out of the country within 60 days and consume them abroad.

The SC added that VAT refund programs for foreign tourists are widely practiced around the world.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168521

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168497

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168502

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168507

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

12/07/2026

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS TWO MEN OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING; LAYS DOWN STANDARD FOR PROVING ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN ILLEGAL GAMBLING OPERATIONS

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men previously convicted of illegal gambling after ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they actually participated in a game of cara y cruz.

According to the Court, arresting officers must not merely testify that they saw persons gathered around a gambling activity. They must clearly and specifically testify on the details of the gambling operation, including: (1) the particular gambling game being played; (2) the identity of the person administering or facilitating the bets; x x x

-LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
February 03, 2025

Learn more in the comments section.

26/06/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that an employee's absence from work, by itself, is not enough to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) and Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Carpio claimed he was originally hired by Green Era Biotech but was later transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value. After he was absent from work at Green Era Biotech for eight straight days due to illness, Great Value issued him a notice to explain. He was warned that another similar violation would lead to an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.

Carpio was later absent from work for another nine consecutive days. Great Value issued him an AWOL notice, stating that his continued absences were considered serious misconduct and abandonment of work.

He later took another leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, when he returned to work the next day, he was barred from entering the workplace. A few days later, Carpio was informed he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Ruling that Carpio was illegally dismissed, the SC reiterated that abandonment, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, requires proof of two elements: (1) the employee was absent without a valid reason; and (2) the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements.

In this case, although Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he tried to return to work and immediately challenged his dismissal by filing a complaint.

The SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages because his dismissal was made in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must instead pay him separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378.

Read the full text of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383.

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

24/06/2026

⚠️ Trigger Warning: The following case involves the killing of a spouse and discusses evidence used in a criminal prosecution for parricide. Reader discretion is advised. Recommended for mature audiences. Please comment responsibly.

UNEXPLAINED FLIGHT MAY BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT

“A husband is expected to lend comfort to his dying wife up to her last breath. In this case, however, appellant took flight. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, as in this case, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn."

-YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
June 29, 2007

09/06/2026

The (SC) has ruled that Koronadal City cannot stop a bus company from using its own private terminal and force it to use the city’s common terminal, as these would violate the company’s property rights.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 issued a writ of injunction against Koronadal City and its officials, prohibiting them from blocking and rerouting the buses of Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. (Yellow Bus) and requiring it to use the City of Koronadal Integrated Transport Terminal Complex (common terminal).

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Koronadal City, through 𝘖𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘕𝘰. 9, 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 2018, created the common terminal to provide efficient transport services, reduce traffic congestion and pollution in the city’s business center, and generate revenue for public services.

Yellow Bus filed a complaint for injunction to stop the implementation of the ordinance, arguing that the city unlawfully interfered with its right to use its own private terminal. It claimed that as a result, it has paid more than PHP 1 million in terminal fees while travel time of its buses increased by 20-25 minutes and dispatch times were disrupted.

Koronadal City argued that after being designated as the administrative seat of Region XII, it was required to have a centralized transport terminal, as part of its valid exercise of its power to regulate traffic, promote public welfare, and generate revenue.

Agreeing with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, the SC recognized Yellow Bus’ ownership rights to its private terminal, including the right to use and manage the property, as protected by the Constitution.

The SC emphasized that an LGU’s exercise of police power is valid only if it aims to address a public concern and the methods used are reasonably necessary. In this case, forcing all PUVs to use the common terminal while effectively prohibiting private terminals was excessive and not reasonably necessary to achieve that goal.

The SC said that the measures imposed by the city were too broad and excessive for their purpose. The city also did not prove that compelling PUVs to use the common terminal was the only solution to the traffic problem.

The SC added that there is no legal basis to block Yellow Bus from using its own facility or to force rerouting, as the ordinance did not expressly mandate that all PUVs use the common terminal or prohibit private terminals.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167210

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165268

Read the Separate Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165362

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

29/05/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s acts creating a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children may constitute “grossly abusive conduct” under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 which serves as a ground for legal separation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division granted the petition for legal separation filed by a husband against his wife, after finding that her actions constituted grossly abusive conduct under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

The couple married in 2003 and later had two children. To support their family, the wife started selling coffee, but they still faced financial hardships. The husband studied nursing with hopes of eventually relocating their family abroad. However, his plan to move abroad never materialized.

During the marriage, the husband claimed he faced various abusive behaviors from his wife. He reported that she controlled their finances and refused to provide financial help, even when he needed treatment for his toothache and was advised to get a root canal.

The husband also claimed that at a party, his wife told their friends she wanted to cut off his p***s because they were no longer having s*x. He also alleged that she shared stories about him with family and friends, often twisting the facts to make him look bad.

The husband also said that his wife refused marriage counseling, prohibited him from seeing his friends, manipulated their children to force him to provide more financial support, and maintained a controlling attitude throughout their marriage.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition for legal separation after finding that the wife’s behavior amounted to grossly abusive conduct. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that their disagreements were ordinary marital disputes.

The SC affirmed the RTC defining acts constituting “grossly abusive conduct”, which is a ground for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, to include those acts by a spouse that create a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse or the children.

The SC also stressed that courts must decide this issue on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts and evidence presented.

While the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 does not allow absolute divorce, spouses may legally separate by order of a court without ending their marriage. Unlike a declaration that a marriage is void, a legal separation does not break the marital bond.

Among the grounds for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 is repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct against the spouse, their common child, or the spouse’s child.

The SC added that this interpretation is consistent with the State’s constitutional duty to protect marriage as a basic social institution.

In this case, the SC found that the wife’s actions, taken together, created a hostile and intimidating environment for the husband. He was made to constantly follow her lead, and his efforts to fix the marriage through counseling and other interventions were unsuccessful. Witnesses also confirmed her controlling behavior, which supported the finding of a hostile home environment. Because of this, the SC ruled that the husband was justified in seeking reassignment to another province to distance himself from the situation at home.

The SC granted the legal separation and sent the case back to the RTC for the dissolution and division of the couple’s property. It also directed the RTC to decide on the custody and support of their children.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166927

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164913

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164917

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.

26/05/2026

Democracy can only thrive when citizens are free to question those in power and when institutions such as courts, local governments, schools, healthcare systems, social welfare agencies, and civil society organizations uphold transparency and accountability.

Senior Associate Justice (SAJ) Marvic M.V.F. Leonen emphasized this as he spoke before nongovernmental organization (NGO) leaders during the 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘕𝘎𝘖 𝘊𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘐𝘯𝘤.’𝘴 27𝘵𝘩 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺 on May 14, 2026, in Quezon City. PCNC is the accrediting body of the NGO sector tasked to ensure the qualifications, integrity, transparency, accountability, and service of accredited organizations and foundations.

In his keynote address, SAJ Leonen discussed institutional integrity and why public sector governance is the foundation of democratic and inclusive development. He said this raises a difficult but necessary question: What kind of development is possible when institutions are weak, distrusted or compromised, especially in the Philippines, where weak governance contributes to the disparities in wealth, wages, education, healthcare, social security, and access to justice?

He explained that democracy, often associated only with elections, should extend beyond the ballot. It should be felt in people’s everyday lives through the way public institutions function and deliver services. Courts, regulatory bodies, local government units, schools, healthcare and social welfare systems, and public service agencies, he said, determine whether people’s rights are truly protected or merely promised.

Against the backdrop of these formal institutions are NGOs and peoples’ organizations which often witness firsthand the gaps in the system and serve communities often marginalized and excluded by language, geography, disability or fear.

SAJ Leonen lauded the work of NGOs, especially PCNC. While their work may appear technical because it involves policies, reports, audits, compliance reviews, and evaluations, he noted that the process is a “deeply democratic community commitment” of protecting civic trust.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166703

15/05/2026

⚠️ URGENT NOTICE FROM THE IBP NATIONAL OFFICE ⚠️

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reminds the public to always verify the credentials of anyone claiming to provide legal services or representing themselves as connected to any court or government agency.

We are officially warning the public regarding an individual using the name "Atty. Allyssa Ann Nordstrome Agustin." Please be informed that this individual is NOT authorized by, employed at, or affiliated with the government and legal offices she claims a connection to.

Protect yourself from unauthorized legal transactions and misrepresentation. Before paying any fees or sharing case details, it is your right to:
✅ Check the official Supreme Court Roll of Attorneys.
✅ Demand to see their Roll Number, IBP Number, and current MCLE compliance.
✅ Contact our National Office or your local IBP Chapter to confirm their standing.

Do not fall victim to individuals refusing to show proper identification. Report suspicious transactions and preserve your evidence.

Contact the IBP to verify legal credentials today:
📞 Helpdesk: 8634-4696 / 8634-4697
📱 Viber: 0919-095-5859
📧 Email: [email protected]

Mag-ingat. Mag-verify. Huwag basta magtiwala sa nagpapakilalang abogado. ⚖️

27/04/2026

The (SC) has acquitted a mother of parricide over her daughter’s death, exempting her from criminal liability after finding that she has schizophrenia and her mental state deprived her of the capacity to recognize the wrongfulness of her act.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted a mother’s appeal and overturned her parricide conviction on the ground of legal insanity due to schizophrenia, an exempting circumstance under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

The mother was charged with parricide for the killing of her five-year old daughter after she was seen embracing the child and simultaneously jumping off a bridge into a river with her, which led to her daughter’s death. While a man aboard a styrofoam banca was able to save the mother, he was unable to locate the child. The daughter’s lifeless body was found in the river the next day.

The mother claimed she was not in her right mind at the time. She could only remember walking with her daughter and had no memory of the incident itself. She said she only regained consciousness while floating in the water.

A licensed physician from the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) testified that the mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) brushed aside the claim of insanity as she entered into a plea of “not guilty” and raised insanity as a defense only after the prosecution rested its case. The RTC convicted the mother and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua after finding that she was sane at the time of the incident.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

The SC disagreed. It ruled that the mother was not criminally liable because her mental condition during the incident prevented her from understanding the nature and wrongfulness of her actions.

Insanity is defined as a disease or defect of the brain manifested in language or conduct. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, it is one of the circumstances that exempts a person from criminal liability.

In 𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙫. 𝙋𝙖ñ𝙖, the SC laid down a three-way test to establish insanity as an exempting circumstance:

• 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩, the insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime;
• 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙, it must be medically proven; and
• 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙, it must render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the act.

Insanity must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Because it involves a person’s state of mind, courts look at overt acts or outward behavior. As a rule, insanity must be supported by medical evidence, unless there are extraordinary circumstances where such evidence is not available. While people who know the accused may testify about their observations, courts give greater weight to the findings and evaluations of qualified medical experts.

In this case, the SC determined that the mother was able to medically prove that she was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the crime based on the testimony and mental status examination reports from psychiatrists.

The SC further explained that schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions, the medical condition deprives a person of discernment, satisfying the third requisite in the 𝘗𝘢ñ𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦.

Here, the psychiatrist testified that the mother was mentally disturbed at the time of the incident, showing signs of paranoia and perceiving threats, gossip, and envy directed at her.

While the SC exempted the mother from criminal liability, it still held her civilly liable and ordered her to pay the victim’s heirs PHP 75,000 in civil indemnity and PHP 200,000 in moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.

The SC also ordered the mother’s immediate transfer from the Correctional Institution for Women to the NCMH for her treatment. She will be released only upon the order of the RTC based on a recommendation from her attending physician at the hospital.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164320

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164308

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.

Sokoken Law Office

24/07/2026

14/07/2026

12/07/2026

26/06/2026

24/06/2026

09/06/2026

29/05/2026

26/05/2026

15/05/2026

27/04/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm
Saturday	9am - 5pm
Sunday	1pm - 5pm