Tuliao-Bacud Law Firm

31/08/2025

📌ALAM MO BA? Estafa & Illegal Contracting Without a PCAB License

❌Do you know that signing a construction agreement without a PCAB license can be considered an offense, and even lead to a conviction for Estafa?”

✅Case Highlight
Ernesto S. Mallari v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 249374, June 22, 2022)
- Petitioner Ernesto Mallari entered into a construction agreement with spouses Rodolfo and Cynthia Yumang, representing himself as a licensed and experienced contractor.

- But the truth? His company, E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction, had long been disqualified, blacklisted, and delisted by DPWH, CIAP, and PCAB.

✅Supreme Court Ruling
The Court affirmed his conviction for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code due to deceit and the resulting financial damage to the complainants.

- Engaging in construction contracting without a PCAB license is also an offense under Section 35 of RA 4566 (Contractors’ License Law).

- According to the SC: “Engaging in construction contracting sans the required license is considered an offense under Section 35 of RA 4566.

As a contractor himself, petitioner is required to secure a PCAB license. The exemption under Section 143 of RA 4566 applies to civil engineers or licensed architects only when acting solely in their professional capacity, i.e., design and supervision.”

✅Key Court Findings
- While Mallari signed the agreement in his personal capacity, evidence showed that he negotiated not only as an engineer but also as the sole proprietor of E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction.

- He used his company as a bargaining tool, claiming it had a history of implementing various projects, but he failed to show any separate PCAB license of his own.

✅The Court emphasized:
A sole proprietorship does not have a separate juridical personality from its owner. Thus, the disqualification of E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction also pertains to petitioner as they are one and the same person. With more reason, petitioner should have disclosed such disqualification or lack of qualification to complainants.

📌Concealing this fact amounted to deceit, which is the gravamen of Estafa.

⚖️NOTE: The gravamen of Estafa is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. While concealment is the unlawful suppression of any fact or circumstance, by one of the parties to a contract, from the other, which in justice ought to be made known.

07/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

11/07/2025

18/06/2025

18/05/2025

😔Nangyari na ba saiyo ito?

Q: Good afternoon Po, magtatanong lang Po at nais ko lang malinawan if Ang Isang employee Po ba na pumirma Ng Isang kontrata na nais na magresign ngunit Isa sa mga kondisyon sa kontrata ay kapag Hindi natapos Ang kontrata ay magbabayad Ng 30,000.00 ang employee bilang penalty sa Hindi pagtapos nito ngunit nakapagrender Naman na siya Ng kalahati sa napag usapang duration Ng employment.

May batas Po ba na nagpoprotekta sa mga empleyado sa ganitong uri Ng mga kontrata upang Sila ay magkaroon Ng chance na makapaghanap Ng bang trabaho kung Hindi naman sapat Ang kita sa current work.

Maraming salamat Po at sana Po ay napansin.

____________________
Ayon sa Labor Code of the Philippines at sa mga ruling ng Korte Suprema, may mga limitasyon ang mga kontratang naglalaman ng penalty clauses para sa mga empleyado. Narito ang mahalagang puntos:

✅ 1. Karapatan ng Empleyado Mag-Resign

Article 300 [285] ng Labor Code ay nagsasaad na ang empleyado ay may karapatang magbitiw (resign) kahit pa may kontrata, basta't magbigay ng 30-day notice, maliban kung may just cause.

Hindi pwedeng ipilit ng employer na tapusin ang buong kontrata kung hindi ito "reasonable restriction."

❌ 2. Penalty Clause (tulad ng P30K penalty) -- May Limitasyon

Sa kasong Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. (G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013), sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang mga bond or penalty clauses ay hindi absolute. Hindi pwedeng gamitin ang clause para pigilin ang karapatan ng empleyado na mag-resign at maghanap ng mas magandang kabuhayan.

Kung ang penalty clause ay excessive o unreasonable, maaari itong ideklarang void/walang bisa.

⚖️ 3. Kontrata vs. Labor Rights

Kahit may pinirmahang kontrata, ang mga probisyon/mga nilalaman nito ay dapat sumusunod sa Labor Code. Hindi ito pwedeng gamitin para pilitin ang isang taong manatili sa trabaho kung ito ay labag sa kanyang karapatan.

💡 Rekomendasyon:
Maaari po kayong humingi ng tulong sa DOLE o NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) kung pinipilit kayong magbayad ng penalty.

Kung nagbigay po kayo ng 30-day notice (resignation letter) at may sapat na dahilan kung bakit kailangan ninyong magbitiw (halimbawa - kakulangan sa sahod, personal na pangangailangan), maaaring hindi na kayo obligadong magbayad ng penalty.

📌 Bottom Line:
May karapatan po kayong mag-resign at humanap ng mas magandang trabaho. Ang penalty clause sa kontrata ay hindi awtomatikong enforceable kung ito ay lumalabag sa inyong mga karapatan bilang manggagawa.
__________________________
NOTE: The legal information provided is for general informational purposes only and not as a solicitation for legal services.

10/05/2025

21/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that unauthorized structures on public land, including 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘬𝘦 machines, 𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪-𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪 stores, billiard tables, 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘴, and other businesses on beaches, may be demolished for being public nuisances.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division upheld the order to demolish various illegal structures along Matabungkay Beach in Lian, Batangas.

The owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay Beach filed a case for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against Pablo and Patnubay Calimlim (Calimlims), who had operated informal structures along the beach for over 50 years.

The resort owners claimed the structures were built without the necessary permits and disrupted their business and inconvenienced guests, leading to financial losses.

Affirming the Court of Appeals ruling which ordered the demolition of the illegal structures for being public nuisances, the SC found that the structures were built on public foreshore land without the required lease agreement from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

According to DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24, in relation to the 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘓𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘵 or Commonwealth Act No. 141, foreshore lands may be disposed of only through a lease agreement with the DENR. The Calimlims’ lease application was denied by the DENR, making their occupation and use of the land unauthorized.

The DENR acknowledged this illegal occupancy and issued Notices to Vacate, which the Calimlims ignored. The SC ruled that their obstruction of and unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore land equate to a public nuisance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yyp6y4kr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5axh8jcj.

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

05/04/2025

The has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.

The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino whom she later married when she returned to the Philippines.

Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.

After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.

Denying her petition, the Supreme Court stated that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-guilty-spouse-cannot-seek-nullity-of-bigamous-marriage/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/g-r-259520/.

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