Virtudazo Nebrida Law Offices

Virtudazo Nebrida Law Offices A full-service Law Office based in Cebu. We also accept engagements in Bohol and other areas within the Philippines.

03/01/2025

Ipinaalala ng Korte Suprema na habang ang mga nagpapahiram ng pera ay maaaring makakuha ng mga ari-arian na ginagamit bilang loan collateral, ang pagmamay-ari ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong ilipat sa kanila, maliban kung may hiwalay na kasunduan.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, kinatigan ng First Division ng Korte Suprema ang paglipat ng pagmamay-ari ng lupang pag-aari ng Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation (Ruby Shelter) sa pinagkakautangan nito na sina Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) at Roberto L . Obiedo (Obiedo). Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang paglilipat na ito ay batay sa isang may bisang kasunduan at hindi lumalabag sa batas na nagbabawal sa awtomatikong paglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral.

Ang Ruby Shelter ay humiram ng pera kina Tan at Obiedo, gamit ang ilang mga ari-arian bilang collateral. Nang ang natitirang utang ay umabot sa PHP 95 milyon, ang mga partido ay pumirma sa isang Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) na ibenta ang mga ari-arian nito kina Tan at Obiedo bilang bayad sa utang.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang bisa ng MOA at sinabing kusang pumasok ang Ruby Shelter sa MOA na ibenta ang mga ari-arian kung hindi makapagbayad. Ipinaliwanag din ng Korte na ang MOA ay hindi bumubuo ng pactum commissorium o isang ipinagbabawal na kasunduan sa ilalim ng Article 2088 ng Civil Code. Ang probisyong ito ay nagsasaad na ang isang tagapagpahiram ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong makakuha ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Ang pactum commissorium ay nangyayari kapag (1) ang isang ari-arian ay ginamit bilang collateral para sa isang pautang; at (2) ang kasunduan sa pautang ay may kasamang probisyon na awtomatikong naglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral sa nagpapahiram kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/



03/01/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that while lenders can acquire properties used as loan collateral, ownership cannot automatically transfer to them.

The SC explained that pactum commissorium occurs when (1) a property is used as collateral for a loan; and (2) the loan agreement includes a provision automatically transferring ownership of the collateral to the lender if the borrower fails to pay.

The SC emphasized that pactum commissorium is prohibited to protect borrowers from losing properties that may be worth more than their debt. Ownership can only be transferred through foreclosure and a public auction.

However, the SC clarified that this prohibition only applies to automatic transfers of ownership. Borrowers are free to voluntarily sell their collateral to lenders as repayment.

In this case, the realty corporation willingly entered into a separate agreement to sell its properties to the lenders as payment for the loan. The SC ruled that this was not an automatic transfer and, therefore, did not violate the prohibition against pactum commissorium.

The Decision is from the SC First Division, penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

Read the full text of the press release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/



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

09/10/2024

The Supreme Court has emphasized that simply violating ordinances and regulations is not enough to justify a valid warrantless search and seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court's Second Division acquitted Angelito Ridon of illegal possession of a firearm. The Court found the firearm seized from him inadmissible because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Searches and seizures without a warrant may be allowed if they are part of a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. However, a lawful arrest must first be conducted before a warrantless search and seizure can be done.

In the present case, the police officers' basis for pursuing Ridon was his violation of traffic rules for entering a one-way street.

A traffic violation, however, does not call for an arrest but merely the confiscation of the driver’s license. Hence, regardless of Ridon’s guilt in entering the one-way street, he was not under arrest when the police officers pursued him.

As there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search that followed was also not valid.

Read the full press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-violation-of-ordinance-not-enough-to-justify-a-warrantless-search/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/252396-angelito-ridon-y-guevarra-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

05/10/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

Leonora and Alfredo were married in June 1984. Over time, Alfredo's behavior changed. He refused to provide financial su...
29/08/2024

Leonora and Alfredo were married in June 1984. Over time, Alfredo's behavior changed. He refused to provide financial support to his family, and treated Leonora merely as an occupant of their home rather than as his wife. He also engaged in extramarital affairs.

Leonora and Alfredo separated in 1994, after which Alfredo married several women. Leonora filed a petition to nullify her marriage, but the Regional Trial Court held that there was not enough evidence to prove Alfredo's subsequent marriages.

The Supreme Court declared their marriage void, ruling that Alfredo's long absence from his marital home showed psychological incapacity, which made him unable to fulfill his marital duties.

Under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Alfredo's infidelity, lack of support for his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family indicate that he does not understand the responsibilities of a husband and father.

Read the full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/242362-leonora-o-dela-lanuza-vs-alfredo-m-lanuza-jr-and-the-republic-of-the-philippines/

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Childre...
06/05/2024

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), grants protection to women victims not only from men, but also from women, with whom they are in an intimate relationship.

The petitioner was charged with violating the Anti-VAWC Act for being physically violent with her partner, also a woman. She moved to quash the Information on the ground that the law did not operate against her since she was a woman, arguing that the law intended to protect women and children from the abusive acts of men.

Agreeing with the trial court, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-VAWC Act applies even if the perpetrator is a woman, so long as the victim is a woman. It clarified that the offense may be committed by any person against a woman or her child.

"The nature of this social legislation is to empower women who find themselves in situations where they are left vulnerable to their abusers who are their intimate partners," the Court explained. Regardless of who the perpetrator is, it said, a woman being a victim of violence is enough to trigger the law's protection.

[The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the Decision in G.R. No. 242133, Agacid v. People (April 16, 2024) once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)]

The Supreme Court has ruled that backwages due illegally dismissed probationary employees are not limited to the unexpir...
01/05/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that backwages due illegally dismissed probationary employees are not limited to the unexpired portion of the probationary period but cover the time when compensation was withheld up to reinstatement.

[C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa, G.R. No. 228357, April 16, 2024.]

Address

JM Del Mar Street Cebu IT Park
Cebu City
6000

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+639684159523

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Virtudazo Nebrida Law Offices 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 Virtudazo Nebrida Law Offices:

Shortcuts

Share

Category