The Shingle

02/09/2026

Congratulations to the lady of the office Jiesyl P. Caballero for passing the 2026 Criminology Board Exam!

04/07/2026

Thank you, Dr. Rowela Cartin-Pecson Director of Alumni Affairs Office.

ALUMNI NEWS | LEGAL PARTNER

GA, we are pleased to announce our official partnership with S.P. Cabrera Law Office, our newest legal partner dedicated to assisting our valued alumni with their legal needs.

As an exclusive alumni privilege, simply present your Alumni ID and enjoy:

✔ FREE Legal Consultation
✔ Special Discounted Rates for Affidavits

So what are you waiting for? Visit our office today and claim your Alumni ID to start enjoying these privileges.

Because being an alumnus means staying connected and staying supported.

15/06/2026

The (SC) has suspended a lawyer for using vulgar words in a social media post.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

The case arose from a Twitter post made by Atty. Falcis defending his brother, Nicko, against accusations related to a qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino (Aquino):

“𝘠𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘺𝘢𝘯, 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰. 𝘚𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘪 𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘥. 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘬𝘰 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘨 𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘺𝘰? 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘺𝘶 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘩𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴.”

Jason Gene Baltao (Baltao), Aquino’s former business partner, filed a complaint against Atty. Falcis before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Atty. Falcis argued that previous SC rulings held that the phrase “𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘢” is often used to express anger or frustration, not to defame. He also claimed that lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.

The IBP found that Atty. Falcis violated the 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘊𝘗𝘙𝘈) by using offensive language and recommended a penalty of a fine and reprimand.

The SC agreed with the IBP’s findings but imposed a heavier penalty of suspension.

Under Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA, lawyers must use dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in both their professional and personal dealings. They must not use abusive, offensive, or improper language, whether spoken or written, including on social media. Such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession.

Section 37 of the same Canon requires lawyers to ensure that their online posts—whether public or shared within a limited audience—uphold the dignity of the profession, protect it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.

Section 36 also requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media.

Ruling that Atty. Falcis failed to meet these standards, the SC stressed that he should have understood the risks and consequences of his statements on social media, including how they can spread widely, reach all kinds of audiences, and influence both lawyers and non-lawyers, including children.

The SC held that the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities serve as the limit of free speech for lawyers.

The SC also reminded lawyers of the nature of social media, which encompasses a wide audience and may not easily be restricted.

The SC explained that Atty. Falcis’ actions amounted to misconduct, defined as intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behavior, whether work-related or not. It is considered simple misconduct if there is no corruption or clear intent to violate the law.

The SC increased the penalty from a fine to suspension due to Atty. Falcis’ prior administrative violations, including direct and indirect contempt, and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167468

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167448

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167455

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

12/06/2026

Happy Independence Day! We honor the courage and sacrifices of our forebears who fought for our freedom! 🇵🇭

08/06/2026

Question: What is the distinction between Acts of God and Force Majeure?

Answer: while both of them speaks of unforseeable events, Acts of God is natural like Earthquakes. Force Majeure involves man-made event such as War.

02/06/2026

The has ruled that similarities in trademark or logo designs that may confuse purchasers prevent the registration of later marks, even if new words are added.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC’s (Starwood) consolidated petitions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings allowing the registration of Oceanic Empire Limited’s (Oceanic) marks.

Oceanic filed to register the trademarks “𝐖 𝐆𝐋𝐎𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑” and “𝐖 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐔𝐄” and had earlier secured registration for “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑.”

Starwood, owner of several registered "𝐖” trademarks for hotels and entertainment services, opposed the applications and sought the cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑,” arguing that Oceanic’s marks were confusingly similar to its trademarks.

Starwood argued that Oceanic would benefit from the popularity and reputation of its brand and that this would mislead the public into believing that Oceanic’s business was connected with Starwood.

Ruling in favor of Starwood, the SC explained that trademark protection prevents confusion of goods and businesses, and that only the likelihood, not actual proof, of confusion is required. Each case must be assessed based on the resemblance of the marks and the relatedness of the services.

Under the 𝗗𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁, emphasis is placed on the dominant or most striking features of the marks rather than on minor differences.

In this case, the SC ruled that "𝐖" is the dominant feature of both Starwood’s and Oceanic’s marks. While Starwood’s "𝐖" is registered as a word mark, the Court clarified that Starwood cannot claim the letter "𝐖," but only its distinct stylized version.

The Court stressed that purchasers would immediately notice the similarity between the parties’ "𝐖" marks. It held that minor textual differences do not change the fact that both use the same style, which looks visually similar.

The SC thus directed the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks to deny Oceanic’s application for registration of trademark, and to grant Starwood’s petition for cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑” mark.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166975.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164983.

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

27/05/2026

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RAW COMMENTS!!!

Part 2. Qualitative Information
Comments:
1 Atty. Cabrera is amazing Teacher, Even though he is exhausted from his work or not feeling well, he didn't failed us to learned, despite of evening class and bad weather, sir always throw jokes at the same time wisdom from reality, sir is kind, simple and neutral and also a stress reliever with a side effect which is Knowledge.
2 Base on my personal perception regarding how atty. Cabrera tech and deliver his discussions, i find it fluently and beyond extraordinary because he emphasis every topic with clear examples and direct to it's main objectives, that's why this subject has not been little bit of coaster for me due to atty, Cabrera capability to teach..
3 Daghan salamat sa learnings nga imong gipa ambit diri kanamo sir, God bless you always sir.
4 | learned a lot from sir, not just theoretically but based on his own experience as a lawyer. He makes our class fun because of his jokes. And we enjoyed it a lot and it inspired us to be a better student. Thank you sir for everything. Godbless always.
5 Second take na nako ni na crimpro, and honestly sir, sa imoha ra nako ni nasabtan nga sub, kay first take nako wakoy nasabtan gyud, tapos self learning pa, murag na reset gyud akoa utok same time, nalingaw sad kos klase kay dili boring, thankyou kaayu sir.
6 THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING SIR LALO NA SA MGA ADVICES NIMO PAG MAGSULOD NAMI SA SERBISYO PUHON. SNAPPY SALUTE PARA SAYO, SIR!
7 Thank you sir daghan kaayu ko natun an saimo
8 Thank you, Atty. Cabrera, for helping us learn and understand the subject of Criminal Procedure. Your teachings made the lessons clearer and easier for us to comprehend.
9 Thank you, sir!

12/04/2026

Question: Can poverty be a justification for selling or using prohibited drugs punishable under RA 9165?

Answer: No! The crime is MALA PROHIBITA. This means, it is wrong because the law says its wrong regardless of intent or purpose.

The belief of this priest is clearly misplaced. He reasoned, “para pantawid sa kahirapan para sa edukasyun ng anak” to justify selling but the same immaterial. In fact, this priest has the obligation to report these people to the proper authorities.

25/03/2026

Question: can you subpoena a lawyer or law office if he/she/it represent a person?

Answer: No! The communication between a lawyer, including those reasonably believe to be a lawyer, and a client is privilege. The secretary of a law office is even covered by such relationship.

12/03/2026

Question: is this an actionable wrong?
Answer: yes! It is performed wilfully. It is contrary to morals. Can cause damage to another.

It can cause damage to the name of the brand because it is suggestive of act contrary to the brand’s established use and reputation.

Photo sourced from the internet.