CGO Law Davao

10/02/2026

07/01/2026

27/12/2025

DEROGATORY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AGAINST EX-LOVER CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE UNDER VAWC—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the criminal conviction of a man for committing "psychological violence" against his ex-girlfriend after he posted derogatory statements about her on social media.

In a 30-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division has sentenced a man to suffer the penalty of up to 8 years imprisonment after he was found guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC).

The accused and the complainant were in a relationship for three years when the woman became pregnant. He offered her marriage, but she refused because of their problems. She raised their child alone, living with her parents.

Years later, the complainant siblings received a private message on Facebook Messenger from an account they knew belonged to the accused. In the message, he insinuated that the complainant was causing his mother a heart attack.

The next day, the complainant learned from a friend that the same account posted a statement in Kapampangan on Facebook, calling her a dirty woman and an animal, and threatening to punch her when he sees her. He repeated the insults in the comments to the post, which was public.

Fearing for her safety, the woman decided to file a complaint against her former sweetheart for violating Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act. A protection order was issued in her favor pending the resolution of the case.

During the trial, the complainant presented printouts of the screenshot of the Facebook post. She also admitted that she created the account long ago for the accused but said he had been the one using it. Her two siblings testified that the account was being used by the accused and that they received messages from him through the same account.

The accused denied owning the account but identified the persons in the profile photo as himself and one of his children with his current live-in partner. He claimed "someone might have used his photo" to create a fake account. He also denied making the post because he was working as a waiter at a restaurant at the time, without access to his phone.

The Family Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) found him guilty, rejecting his arguments. The CA noted that he and his live-in partner were able to identify the people in the profile photo. This prompted the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming his conviction, the High Court noted that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that the offender was the owner of the said account and the one who posted the derogatory remarks against the complainant, which caused public ridicule on her part and perfectly suited the definition of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.

It emphasized that there are several factors indicating that the man wrote the Facebook post as the account name itself bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child with his current live-in partner.

The SC underscored that since Facebook is widely used in the Philippines, Facebook accounts can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform, such as Facebook, must be considered, noting that once created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings.

With the proliferation of fake or dummy social media accounts that can easily be created, the Supreme Court (SC) has laid down guideposts to help identify who owns or controls an account involved in a criminal case.

The SC said there are seven guideposts to prove ownership or authorship: (1) Admission of ownership or authorship, (2) Being seen accessing the account or composing the post, (3) Containing information known only to the offender or a few people, (4) Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics, (5) Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features and other attributes linking the account to the offender, and (6) Acts consistent with previous posts. and (7) other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

The highest bench meted out the penalty of up to an eight-year jail term and a fine of P100,000 against the accused. He was also ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

25/12/2025

"LAWYERS ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO BE SAINTS"—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that marital infidelity by a lawyer does not automatically amount to administrative liability for immorality unless it has a direct and measurable impact on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

In a 12-page decision authored by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC En Banc junked the administrative complaints for immorality filed against Atty. Pastor Marcelo M. Reyes, Jr., who allegedly entered into an illicit affair with his own law student after finding that they conspired to keep the said relationship "sub rosa," or secret.

The case stemmed from the disbarment case filed by Maria Theresa Imperial against Atty. Reyes, a married man, who was her law professor in the subject "Secured Transactions"

Imperial alleged that she initially rejected Atty. Reyes's offers of affection; however, after years of enduring courtship, she agreed to engage clandestinely in an extramarital relationship, which started in 1998 until she was discarded by Atty. Reyes sometime in 2019, prompting her to file a disbarment case against him.

In support of the alleged illicit affair, Imperial submitted pictures of Atty. Reyes and her embracing each other, screenshots of various text messages, and a handwritten letter.

In his answer, Atty. Reyes admitted the student-teacher relationship between him and the complainant but denied having any affair with her. He added that although Imperial frequently visited his law firm, it was only because he mentored her in the bar examinations. Unfortunately, the complainant failed the examinations multiple times.

Atty. Reyes also claimed that the pictures and text messages presented by Imperial were old, undated, unauthenticated, and unreliable.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Atty. Reyes should be guilty of a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for having breached his marital vows for more than 20 years and for having abused his position as a law professor when he engaged in an illicit affair with his student.

In exonerating Atty. Reyes, the high court noted, Imperial's admission that she conspired to keep their alleged illicit relationship secret destroys the allegations of immorality because she is neither the aggrieved spouse nor an unwilling victim.

It emphasized that the administrative proceedings against lawyers are not an avenue to deprive them of their livelihood and should never be used as a vehicle to assert private rights that have no material and direct connection to the professional duties as a member of the legal profession.

The SC also cited the case of Perfecto vs. Judge Esidera, where it held that lawyers are not and should not be expected to be saints. It underscored that "what they do as citizens of their faiths is beyond this court's power to judge," noting that "the court's jurisdiction over their actions is limited to their acts that may affect public confidence in the Rule of Law."

Nevertheless, the highest bench noted that this ruling doesn't mean that marital infidelity can be justified or should be tolerated.

24/10/2025

The Supreme Court will fully transition to digital filing by 30 October, ending paper submissions and expanding e-court systems across the judiciary. | Alvin Murcia, layout by Chynna Basillaje

Full story in the comments.

28/09/2025

SUPREME COURT: NOTARY PUBLIC CAN'T PERFORM NOTARIAL ACT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF SIGNATORY

| The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for being commissioned as a notary public for six months after he notarized a document without requiring one of the signatories thereto to personally appear before him.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division has found Atty. Arnulfo Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he was barred from being commissioned as a notary public for six months.

The administrative complaint stemmed from the disbarment cases filed by Macario Mina against Attys. Arnulfo Manigos, Florencio Anchuvas, and Roberto Arca on the ground that they committed falsehood and have intentionally misled the Court.

Mina alleged that Atty. Manigos notarized an instrument without requiring one of the authors thereto to personally appear before him. He claimed that the signatory could not have appeared before Atty. Manigos on the day the document was notarized because the former travelled to the United States.

As regards Atty. Arca and Atty. Anchuvas, Mina contended that they conspired in the notarization of the subject documents. In response, Atty. Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of the signatory therein. However, he claimed that he notarized the document only after he was convinced by his personal examination of the document that the signatory in fact executed and signed the same.

Meanwhile, Atty. Arca vehemently denied the accusations, and Atty. Anchuvas failed to submit a response on the complaint. In its report and recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable for violation of Rule 4, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules), but absolved Atty. Anchuvas.

The high court upheld and adopted the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors with respect to Atty. Manigos. It found that the act of Atty. Manigos notarizing a document even though the signatory thereto did not personally appear before him is a violation of notarial rules.

It cited the 2004 Notarial Rules, which provide that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these rules.

“The requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signature,” the Supreme Court said.

On the other hand, as to the complaints against Attys. Arca and Anchuvas, it dismissed the same due to the failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims.

17/07/2025

Happy Birthday, Atty. Julie! 🥳❤️

07/07/2025

The (SC) has recognized that a sudden outburst of uncontrolled emotions, triggered by years of abuse from the accused’s father, qualifies as passion or obfuscation – a mitigating circumstance that can reduce the penalty for parricide.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of accused Leopoldo Singcol’s (Singcol) for killing his father, but lowered the penalty due to the presence of this mitigating factor.

Case records show that during a heated argument, Singcol’s father attempted to attack him with a bolo, but the former stumbled and fell. Singcol then grabbed the bolo and stabbed his father in the chest, killing him.

Singcol thereafter encountered his sister-in-law and her two-year-old son; he fatally stabbed his sister-in-law, and injured the child.

During trial, Singcol admitted to stabbing his father, his sister-in-law, and the child. He claimed he suffered abuse from his father since childhood, and was thus not thinking clearly when he attacked the others.

While the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that self-defense was not applicable in this case, it ruled that passion or obfuscation should be considered as a mitigating factor or circumstance that lessens the penalty. It sentenced Singcol to two counts of reclusion perpetua or a maximum of 40 years in prison for the parricide and the murder of his sister-in-law.

Under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, the crime of parricide is committed when the accused kills their parents or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of their ascendants or descendants, or legal spouse.

On the other hand, passion or obfuscation is a state of mind present when a crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of emotions triggered by previous unjust or improper acts.

The SC considered the parricide a result of “a sudden surge of the accused’s bottled-up feelings caused by paternal neglect since childhood,” as shown by Singcol’s narration and his extreme, irrational acts of self-harm immediately after the killing.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/5yk5j7sr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4xm6xee3.

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

02/07/2025

The (SC) has found two managers of a pizza restaurant guilty of simple theft for having kept service charges that should have been paid to the restaurant’s employees.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division sentenced Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos, two store managers at the Shakey’s branch in Angono, Rizal, to 6 months in prison. It also ordered them to pay their fellow employees the withheld service charges.

One of Teologo and Delos Santos’ duties as managers was to give the employees their salaries and shares in the service charges. However, employees of Shakey’s Angono branch reported to franchise owner Big G Philfoods & Entertainment that they had not been receiving their share of service charges.

The employees claimed that notwithstanding this, they had been made to sign payroll documents indicating that they received their shares. They said that according to the store managers, this was pursuant to an alleged company policy.

While the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Teologo and Delos Santos of qualified theft, the SC modified the conviction to simple theft.

The 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that the crime of theft is committed by one who takes something that belongs to another without permission, intending to benefit from it, without using violence or force. Theft becomes qualified when it involves the abuse of trust or confidence.

In this case, while the store managers took the service charges meant for the employees, the SC clarified that the victims were the employees, not the employer Big G Philfoods & Entertainment, Inc.

Since there is no special trust relationship between managers and rank-and-file workers, there was no abuse of trust or confidence in this case that would have qualified the theft.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2f6a4tvb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/36vavmjv.

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

27/06/2025

𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐘𝐄𝐑𝐒! Begin your registration with eCourt PH!

eCourt PH is an innovative electronic filing system developed specifically for the Judiciary as part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027. This robust platform is designed to support a unified, comprehensive, and intelligent case management approach, facilitating the ELECTRONIC FILING for parties involved in legal proceedings. eCourt PH will be utilized across various levels of the judicial system, including first- and second-level courts, tertiary courts, and the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

By incorporating eCourt PH into your practice, you’ll not only keep pace with technological advancements but also contribute to a more efficient and transparent justice system. Don't delay—register today and be at the forefront of legal innovation!

📌 Content source: Supreme Court Public Information Office
Link: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ecourt-ph/

26/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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