Odak Law Firm

Odak Law Firm No case too big, no fee too small.

We combine empathy, expertise & excellence by proving that strategic and ethical lawyering when combined, is the best solution for your legal needs.

18/10/2025

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon na inihain ni Katherine Cassandra Li Ong (Ong) laban sa mga komite ng Senado at Kamara de Representante (HOR) na nagsagawa ng mga pagdinig sa Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGO).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinagtibay ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang kapangyarihan ng Kongreso na magsagawa ng mga inquiries in aid of legislation. Iginiit nito na ang kapangyarihan ng Lehislatura sa pagsisiyasat ay malawak at sumasaklaw sa lahat ng bagay na may kinalaman sa pangangasiwa ng mga umiiral na batas, gayundin ang iminungkahing, o posibleng mga kinakailangang batas. Umaabot ang kapangyarihang ito sa kanilang mga komite.

Taong 2024 nang magsagawa ng magkahiwalay na pagdinig ang Senado, sa pangunguna ng Tricot, at ang HOR, sa pamamagitan ng Quadcomm, hinggil sa mga ilegal na aktibidad na nauugnay sa mga POGO.

Sa kanyang pagdalo sa pagdinig sa Quadcomm, tumanggi si Ong na sagutin ang mga tanong sa kanya pero kalaunan ay napilitan siyang sumagot dahil hindi raw niya malapitan ang kanyang abogado.

Tumanggi nang dumalo sa anumang pagdinig si Ong. Sa halip, dumulog siya sa Korte Suprema para igiit ang kanyang karapatan na manahimik at karapatan na huwag idawit ang sarili (right against self-incrimination). Inakusahan din niya ang Kongreso ng pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan nito sa pamamagitan ng pagpilit sa kanya na magbigay ng impormasyon.

Hindi pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ni Ong at sa halip ay pinagtibay ang kapangyarihan ng Kongreso, kasama ang mga komite nito, na magsagawa ng legislative inquiries. Kinatigan din nito ang kapangyarihan ng Kongreso na i-cite in contempt ang mga indibidwal, at, kung kinakailangan, iutos ang kanilang pag-aresto para piliting dumalo, magbigay ng testimonya, o magsumite ng mga dokumento.

May limitasyon ang kapangyarihan ng Kongreso na magsagawa ng legislative inquiry. (1) Dapat in aid of legislation ang pagtatanong, (2) isinasagawa ayon sa inilathala na mga tuntunin, at (3) dapat iginagalang ang karapatan ng mga indibidwal na kasangkot.

Pero hindi kinwestiyon ni Ong ang bisa ng pagdinig. Iginiit lang niya ang kanyang karapatang manahimik, right against self-incrimination, at karapatang magkaroon ng sariling abogado.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na maaari lamang gamitin ang right against self-incrimination sa mga partikular na tanong, at hindi sa pangkalahatan para umiwas sumagot sa mga tanong. Maari lang din tumangging tumestigo ang isang akusado sa kriminal na paglilitis at hindi ang kagaya ni Ong na itinuturing na resource person sa mga pagdinig sa Kongreso.

Ang right to counsel naman ay maaari lang gamitin sa mga custodial hearings ng mga indibidwal na pinaghihinalaang gumawa ng krimen.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153606.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153601.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


27/09/2025

Iginiit ng na maaaring managot ang mga bangko para sa moral damages na dinanas ng mga depositor dahil sa kapabayaan kahit na walang katibayan ng bad faith o malice.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, inatasan ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang Banco de Oro (BDO) na bayaran sina Remedios at Angelita Antonino (Antonino) sa nalikom ng kanilang time deposit, kabilang ang PHP 100,000 bilang moral damages.

Mga U.S. green card holder na naninirahan sa ibang bansa ang mga Antonino na gumawa ng tatlong time deposit placement na may kabuuang halaga na higit sa USD 150,000 sa BDO San Lorenzo Branch sa Makati City (BDO San Lorenzo). Nakipag-ayos sila sa manager ng sangay na kung hindi ma-withdraw ang mga deposito kapag nag-mature ang mga ito, awtomatiko silang i-roll over sa mga savings account na may interes. Hindi na-redeem ang mga time deposit certificate (TDC) at itinago ang mga ito sa isang deposit box sa Banco Filipino.

Nang maglaon, nagdeklara ng pagkalugi ang Banco Filipino at tinake-over ito ng Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Itinigil ng BDO San Lorenzo ang operasyon at nagsara nang hindi nag-abiso sa mga Antonino na natuklasan lamang ang pagsasara noong sinubukan nilang bawiin ang kanilang mga investment.

Nagpadala sila ng ilang demand letter sa BDO ngunit sinabi ng bangko na na-withdraw na ang mga deposito at binanggit ang demand draft na pinirmahan umano ni Angelita. Itinanggi ni Angelita ang pagpirma sa dokumento.

Nagsampa ng reklamo ang mga Antonino laban sa BDO para bayaran sila sa kanilang time deposit.

Sa pagpasya pabor sa mga Antonino, binanggit ng Korte Suprema ang Section 9 ng mga tuntunin at kundisyon ng BDO para sa mga placement ng time deposit na nag-aatas ng pagsuko ng mga TDC kapag nag-withdraw ng mga deposito. Dahil mayroon pa ring mga sertipiko ang mga Antonino, sinabi ng Korte na hindi na-withdraw ang mga pondo.

Binigyang pansin ng Korte na sinabi ng eksperto sa PNP na posibleng peke ang lagda sa demand draft. Ipinakita rin sa mga tala ng imigrasyon at pasaporte na hindi nagpunta si Angelita sa bansa para pumirma sa draft. Dagdag pa, nabigo ang BDO na beripikahin ang pagkakakilanlan ng taong nag-withdraw ng pondo.

Dagdag pa nito, nagpakita ang mga lapses na ito ng kabiguan ng BDO na gamitin ang required diligence, lalo na kung malaking halaga ang nasasangkot.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152203.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152187.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


18/07/2025

Nagpasya ang na ang 15-taong palugit sa pagsasampa ng kasong bigamy ay magsisimula lang kung kailan natuklasan ang bigamous marriage at hindi kung kailan ito ay nakarehistro sa gobyerno.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, hinatulan ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na maysala sa kasong bigamy si Erwin Bonbon, matapos niyang pakasalan si Elizabeth Bonbon noong 1999 habang legal pa ring kasal sa ibang babae.

Makikita sa mga talaan na unang ikinasal si Erwin kay Gemma Cunada noong 1988. Gayunman, nagpakasal siya sa ibang babae noong 1994 at kay Elizabeth naman noong 1999 kahit may bisa pa ang pinakaunang kasal.

Taong 2020 nang malaman ng mga kapatid na babae ni Erwin ang tungkol sa ikatlong kasal nang humingi sila ng mga dokumento mula sa Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) para makuha ang benepisyo ng kanilang yumaong ina. Nagsampa sila ng kasong bigamy laban kina Erwin at Elizabeth noong 2021 o 22 taon pagkatapos ng kasal ni Erwin kay Elizabeth.

Nanindigan si Erwin na huli na ang pagsasampa ng kaso at iginiit nyang alam na ng kanyang mga kapatid na babae ang tungkol sa kasal noong 1999.

Kinatigan ng Korte Suprema ang mga desisyon ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals na hinatulan si Erwin na maysala sa kasong bigamy. Sinentensiyahan siya ng pagkakakulong na aabot sa walong taon at isang araw.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code, ang bigamy ay nangyayari kapag ang isang taong legal pa rin ang kasal ay pumasok sa ibang kasal na tila may bisa. Ang isang kaso para sa bigamy ay dapat na isampa sa loob ng 15 taon mula nang matuklasan ang ikalawang kasal at hindi mula nang ito’y mairehistro. Dahil ang bigamous na pag-aasawa ay kadalasang inililihim, magiging halos imposible ang pag-uusig kapag ang petsa ng pagpaparehistro ang gagamiting simula ng takdang oras sa pagsampa ng kaso.

Nalaman ng mga kapatid na babae ni Erwin ang tungkol sa kasal noong 2020. Hindi niya mapatunayan na alam na nila ang tungkol dito mula pa noong 1999.

Inamin din ni Erwin na walang miyembro ng pamilya ang dumalo sa kasalang sibil na naganap sa ibang probinsiya. Ang kasong isinampa noong 2021 ay nanatiling nasa loob ng 15-taong legal na limitasyon kung kailan pwede pa magsampa ng kaso (prescriptive period).

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/ynu8t7jr.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/4u5bnvjy.

Basahin ang Hiwalay na Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://tinyurl.com/5n7ksdk7.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


28/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

10/05/2025

Pinawalang-sala ng ang isang security guard sa kasong paglabag sa election gun ban dahil sa depektibong information o charge sheet na isinampa laban sa kanya.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, binaliktad ng Third Division ng Korte ang hatol kay Efren Sadiarin Baguinon, Sr. (Baguinon) sa pagdadala ng baril sa kasagsagan ng election period nang walang tamang pahintulot.

May nakabanggaan at nakaalitan na tricycle driver si Baguinon habang papauwi sakay ng kanyang motorsiklo. Apat na beses niyang pinaputukan ang tricycle driver pero hindi ito tinamaan.

Kasong paglabag sa election gun ban sa ilalim ng section 32 ng Republic Act No. 7166 kaugnay sa Commission on Elections Resolution No. 6446 ang isinampa laban kay Baguinon.

Pero ayon sa Korte Suprema, hindi nakasaad sa information na nangyari ang krimen sa isang pampublikong lugar kaya nalabag ang kanyang karapatang maabisuhan sa mga akusasyon laban sa kanya.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, napaghalo ng prosekusyon ang mga elemento ng dalawang klase ng paglabag sa election gun ban:

-Section 32, RA 7166 - pinagbabawal ang pagbitbit ng baril sa pampublikong lugar sa kasagsagan ng election period
-Section 261(s), Omnibus Election Code - pinaparusahan ang mga miyembro ng security o police organization sa hindi awtorisadong pagbitbit ng baril sa labas ng opisyal na tanggapan ng trabaho habang campaign period, sa araw bago ang halalan, sa mismong araw ng halalan, at 30 na raw matapos ang halalan

Sa parehong kaso, dapat nakalagay kung saan nangyari ang paglabag.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Press Release sa https://tinyurl.com/4897c94f.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/2p9whd3c.


08/05/2025

The has reiterated that the presumption that a letter was properly delivered, based on a post office’s registry return receipt, does not apply when strong evidence suggests otherwise.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division held that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) wrongly dismissed Victoria Labastida’s (Labastida) appeal for being filed late.

Labastida, the Municipal Planning and Development Officer of Saint Bernard, Leyte, was dismissed by the Disciplining Authority of the Office of the Municipal Mayor for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on a complaint filed by respondent Monina Quires (Quires).

A copy of the Disciplining Authority’s June 10, 2016 decision was reportedly sent to Labastida by registered mail, as shown by a registry return receipt marked “refused to accept 06-14-16.”

However, Labastida denied ever receiving the decision. She claimed that she only learned about it on March 8, 2017, when she received a notice of suspension. She filed an appeal with the CSC on March 16, 2017, which the CSC dismissed for having been filed beyond the 15-day appeal period.

Remanding the case to the CSC for further consideration of Labastida’s appeal, the SC concluded that Labastida had successfully overturned the presumption that the decision was properly served on June 14, 2016.

The SC explained that presumptions under the Rules on Evidence, specifically that official duties are regularly performed and that mail is properly delivered, can be overturned by strong, opposing evidence.

In this case, Labastida denied receiving the decision, supported by the succeeding Mayor’s statement that neither his office nor the Human Resources Management Office of Saint Bernard had any record of the alleged June 10, 2016 decision or any administrative case leading to it. Instead, they were only notified of the decision on March 8, 2017. The registry return receipt also bears the signature of an unidentified postal official. These shifted the burden of proof to the complainant to show that the decision was actually received.

The SC also clarified that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, then in effect, mere presentation of a registry return receipt is not enough to prove proper service. It must be accompanied by a postmaster’s affidavit confirming when, how, and to whom the delivery was made. This requirement remains under the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yckbpt78.

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

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

05/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

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

01/05/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

Nilinaw ng na ang paghain ng reklamo sa Department of Justice (DOJ) ― at hindi ang pagsampa ng kaso sa korte ― ang siyang naghihinto ng pagtakbo ng oras o ang prescriptive period na nakatakda para sa prosekusyon ng mga krimen, kasama rito ang mga napapaloob sa 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures).

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, inabandona ng Korte Suprema En Banc ang naunang mga desisyon noong 2023 sa kaso na Republic v. Desierto at Corpus, Jr. v. People, kung saan idineklara ng Korte Suprema na ang prescriptive period para sa mga krimen na saklaw ng 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) ay tumitigil lang pag ang kaso ay naisampa na sa korte.

Iginiit ng Korte na ang prescriptive period para sa mga krimen ay tumitigil sa pagtakbo sa pagsasampa ng reklamo sa prosekusyon at pagsisimula ng summary investigation.

Sinabi din ng Korte na habang ang mga kasong kriminal ay dapat na mainam na malutas kaagad, minsan ay hindi maiiwasan ang mga pagkaantala. Samakatuwid, ang Estado, bilang ang agrabyadong partido, ay hindi dapat mapahamak ng mga pagkaantala sa mga paunang pagsisiyasat ng DOJ, kahit na sa mga kasong kriminal sa ilalim ng summary procedure.

Ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema tungkol sa pagkaantala ng prescriptive period para sa pag-uusig ng mga krimen ay ipapatupad lang sa mga darating na kaso.

Bukod pa rito, nilinaw din ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng Section 281 ng 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, ang prescriptive period para sa mga krimen ukol sa tax ay nagsisimula lang mula sa oras na ito ay nadiskubre, kung ito ay hindi agad napag-alaman. Nahihinto ang pag-usad ng prescriptive period sa oras na ang preliminary investigation ay umusad na. Ang interpretasyong ito ay intensyon ng batas – para magtakda ng klarong oras para sa prosekusyon ng paglabag ng batas ukol sa tax – ay nagamit nang wasto.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-filing-of-complaint-before-doj-stops-prescriptive-period-for-crimes/

Ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa G.R. No. 258563 (People v. Consebido, Abril 2, 2025) ay ia-upload sa website kapag available na.

03/04/2025

Supreme Court Associate Justice Alfredo Caguioa argued that sin tax laws and the Universal Health Care Act require funds for PhilHealth, challenging the solicitor general's claim of congressional discretion after zero subsidy was granted.

Address

Imus, Cavite
Imus
4103

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+639478973190

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Odak Law Firm 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 Odak Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share

Category