Cunanan Law Office

Directions Website

Cunanan Law Office Angeles, Clark, Pampanga, and Tarlac lawyers

📢 WE ARE HIRING! | Join Our TeamCunanan Law Office is looking for a proactive and detail-oriented Liaison Clerk to join ...
11/08/2026

📢 WE ARE HIRING! | Join Our Team

Cunanan Law Office is looking for a proactive and detail-oriented Liaison Clerk to join our growing legal team!

If you are reliable, know your way around administrative processes, and take pride in efficient support work, we would love to hear from you.

In Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524), the Court settled long-standing debate by ruling that cyber libel carries a pres...
30/07/2026

In Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524), the Court settled long-standing debate by ruling that cyber libel carries a prescriptive period of just one year from the moment the offended party or authorities discover the post. Because cyber libel is simply traditional libel committed through a computer system rather than a distinct offense, the shorter one-year rule under the Revised Penal Code prevails over longer timelines, and this period runs specifically from discovery because social media posts lack automatic public registration. Whether you are seeking to protect your reputation from online defamation or defending against an unexpected legal charge, knowing these exact timeframes is essential for safeguarding your rights.

Link to the full article in the comment section.

The Philippine Supreme Court’s ruling in Gregory Israel v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 265736) has fundamentally...
13/07/2026

The Philippine Supreme Court’s ruling in Gregory Israel v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 265736) has fundamentally broadened the application of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code by establishing that non-verbal, physical gestures, such as mimicking a gunshot to the head or a throat-slicing motion, carry the same legal weight as spoken or written words.

The Court clarified that the law measures a threat by its communicative substance and its psychological impact on the victim, effectively ruling out the misconception that criminal liability requires verbal or written expression.

However, the decision also sets a strict threshold for securing a conviction: the prosecution must concurrently prove actus reus (the threatening act) and mens rea (the explicit criminal intent to intimidate).

In this specific case, the Court ultimately acquitted the accused because his gestures were spontaneous, knee-jerk reactions fueled by immediate anger after a near-miss traffic collision, rather than a calculated attempt to terrorize.

Furthermore, because the accused immediately went about his day and showed no persistence in carrying out the harm, the Supreme Court emphasized that heat-of-the-moment outbursts lacking proven, persistent criminal intent cannot rise to the level of a punishable crime.

Link to the full article in the comment section.

Atty. Marco Polo E. Cunanan recently served as a lecturer during the IBP Central Luzon Regional Convention MCLE Program ...
08/07/2026

Atty. Marco Polo E. Cunanan recently served as a lecturer during the IBP Central Luzon Regional Convention MCLE Program held on June 25, 2026, at the Widus Hotel, Clark City, Pampanga.

He discussed “Don’t Click That Link! Understanding and Preventing Financial Crimes,” examining current substantive and procedural law developments relevant to online fraud, financial scams, and the growing need for lawyers to understand cyber-enabled financial crimes.

Thank you to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Central Luzon Region for the opportunity to contribute to the continuing legal education of members of the Bar.

đź“·: IBP Central Luzon

The legal framework of constructive dismissal manifests when an employer creates an impossible, unreasonable, or unbeara...
03/07/2026

The legal framework of constructive dismissal manifests when an employer creates an impossible, unreasonable, or unbearable working environment, thereby compelling an employee to sever their employment relationship under the guise of an involuntary resignation.

In the landmark case of Bacani v. Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 271518, promulgated on September 30, 2025, Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp., unilaterally altered the core terms and conditions of employment by reducing a standard six-day workweek to a mere two to three days and executing a worker rotation scheme without securing the prior, voluntary consent of the affected personnel or complying with the mandatory regulatory safeguards established under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

Jurisprudentially, FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

Consequently, because these unauthorized management actions directly caused an illegal diminution of take-home pay, the law deems the employer's operational maneuvers as an act of bad faith that effectively forces the workers out of their livelihoods.

Link to the full article in the comment section.

The Supreme Court clarified a vital rule on the nullity of marriage in the case of Republic v. Ramoran-Wong and Wong (G....
03/07/2026

The Supreme Court clarified a vital rule on the nullity of marriage in the case of Republic v. Ramoran-Wong and Wong (G.R. No. 276986), ruling that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage does not prove collusion.

The case involved a wife who sought a declaration of absolute nullity based on her husband's psychological incapacity, detailing severe physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which culminated in his total abandonment of the family and his fathering an illegitimate child with another woman.

While the state argued that the husband's failure to oppose the petition and his own family's willingness to testify indicated a fraudulent conspiracy, the high court firmly established that a lack of objection or mutual consent is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the bench. Emphasizing that marriage must be a sanctuary of mutual respect, care, and safety rather than a damaging chain that binds a person to an irreparably broken relationship, the Court upheld the absolute nullity of the union.

Full link to the full article in the comment section.

In a significant ruling on security of tenure, the Supreme Court’s Third Division declared that Green Era Biotech Corp. ...
02/07/2026

In a significant ruling on security of tenure, the Supreme Court’s Third Division declared that Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation committed illegal dismissal against Alvin G. Carpio, emphasizing that an employer cannot rely on mere unexcused absences to prove an employee's abandonment of work.

The High Court firmly established that a valid charge of abandonment requires the employer to prove two specific elements: first, the employee failed to report for work or was absent without a valid reason, and second, the employee exhibited a clear, deliberate intent to sever the employment relationship.

The Court highlighted that the second element is more determinative and must be shown through overt acts, placing the entire burden of proof on the employer.

In this case, while Carpio was absent for nine consecutive days without prior permission following a bout of illness and a severe toothache, the Court found absolutely no evidence that he intended to give up his job. Instead, Carpio's immediate overt actions, specifically his attempts to report back to work the very next day and his prompt filing of a formal complaint for illegal dismissal, completely negated any intention to abandon his post, rendering Great Value's strict internal policy of dismissing workers for five consecutive unauthorized absences too harsh and legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in ### v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025), affirmed ...
02/07/2026

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in ### v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025), affirmed the judgment of conviction against the accused for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), arising from the publication of derogatory and threatening statements on the social media platform Facebook.

In disposing of the accused's defense of identity theft and the purported creation of a "dummy" profile by an unauthorized third party, the High Tribunal established a binding evidentiary standard, ruling that the prosecution cannot rely solely upon the prima facie appearance of a user's name or profile likeness; rather, it bears the burden to establish actual ownership, access, or constructive control over the digital account.

To govern the admissibility and weight of electronic evidence in establishing digital authorship, the Court promulgated seven jurisprudential guideposts.

Finding that the prosecution's evidence satisfied a combination of these criteria, specifically through a historical pattern of targeted communication, unique personal knowledge of the victim's social media restrictions, and consistent user engagement, the Court rejected the respondent's alibi and sustained the penalty of up to eight years of imprisonment, a fine of PHP 100,000, and mandatory psychological counseling.

Link to full article in the comment section.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (promulgated Febr...
02/07/2026

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (promulgated February 24, 2026), the Supreme Court of the Philippines reaffirmed that a marriage contracted without the essential formal requisite of a valid marriage license is void ab initio where the underlying Affidavit of Cohabitation is established to be fraudulent.

The High Tribunal strictly construed the statutory exemption under Article 34 of the Family Code, ruling that a contracting party's prolonged, uninterrupted absence due to overseas contract employment effectively ruptures the continuity of the mandatory five-year common-law cohabitation period. The Court determined that the respondents failed to maintain a regular, exclusive common-law union at bed and board, as their pre-departure living arrangements were transient and non-exclusive, and subsequent separation lacked mutual intent or public indicia of marital deportment.

Furthermore, full probative weight was accorded to the petitioner's testimony under the evidentiary principle of declarations against interest, as his judicial admission regarding the falsity of the subject affidavit directly exposed him to criminal liability for perjury. Consequently, the false Affidavit of Cohabitation was rendered a mere scrap of paper without force and effect, thereby invalidating the license exemption and sustaining the decree of absolute nullity.

Link to the full article in the comment section.

Address

Capas
2315

Opening Hours

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

Website

Alerts

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

Shortcuts

Share

Category