Enriquez Law Office - Notary Public Lipa

Enriquez Law Office - Notary Public Lipa FULL SERVICE LAW OFFICE | NOTARIAL SERVICES

16/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that once a job offer is accepted, an employer-employee relationship is already formed. Employers cannot just claim redundancy to justify terminating workers – they must present clear proof that a valid redundancy program is in place.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division found that Alltech Biotechnology (Alltech) illegally dismissed Paolo Landayan Aragones (Aragones) for failing to prove there was redundancy in the company.

Alltech had offered Aragones the position of Swine Technical Manager - Pacific, with a monthly salary of PHP 140,000. He accepted the offer and resigned from his previous job.

Before Aragones’ start date, however, Alltech informed him that the position had been abolished due to a global restructuring. Alltech offered him the amount of PHP 140,000 as goodwill payment. Aragones then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The SC ruled that the employment contract was perfected as soon as Aragones signed the job offer. The delay in his start date merely postponed the obligations of Aragones to report for work, and of Alltech to pay his salary.

However, the SC emphasized that employers must provide solid evidence to justify terminating an employee due to redundancy, which Alltech failed to provide.

Alltech only submitted an affidavit from its Vice President stating that the company decided to shift from regional to local support to better respond to its customers’ needs.

The SC found the statement vague and unsupported by other documents. It did not explain how or why certain positions like Aragones’ were removed. It thus ordered Alltech to pay Aragones backwages and separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/38vp842u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/2tfywuhu.

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

13/03/2025

The (SC) has emphasized that sheriffs, when serving the court’s writs and processes and implementing its orders, must perform their duties with the utmost care and diligence, as any mistake affects the administration of justice.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc dismissed Vicente S. Sicat, Jr. (Sicat) for repeatedly failing to properly perform his duties as Sheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga.

Sicat was ordered by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court to seize and sell, through a writ of ex*****on, the properties of an accused in an Anti-Bouncing Checks Law case, to satisfy a judgment. However, the complainant alleged that Sicat improperly submitted a Notice to Lift the Levy on Potts’ real properties to the Register of Deeds without a court order. This led to the cancellation of the levy, allowing the accused to transfer the property to another person.

The SC stressed that sheriffs must strictly adhere to procedural rules to ensure the proper enforcement of court orders. Any deviation from these procedures can undermine the administration of justice and warrants disciplinary action.

While Sicat’s failure to follow procedure made him liable for simple neglect of duty, which carries with it a penalty of suspension from office, the SC took note of Sicat’s long history of administrative infractions in his 40-year career in the Judiciary as it dismissed him from service.

The SC lamented that Sicat’s “deplorable track record in the Judiciary reveals a pattern of unwillingness to reform, deeming it worthy of the gravest penalty.”

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/h94s8rpv.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://tinyurl.com/3td5ejt4.

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

06/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

14/02/2025

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/.

13/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a contract of sale of goods is completed by a mere agreement between the parties, even without a written document.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division directed Marcelina Villanueva (Villanueva) to pay Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Coca-Cola) over PHP 600,000 for unpaid products delivered under their dealership agreement.

Coca-Cola sued Villanueva to collect payment for Coca-Cola products her business received but failed to pay for. It claimed it had a dealership agreement with Villanueva, who was operating under the name Vedge Trading.

Villanueva denied knowledge of the dealership agreement, claiming it was her nephews who actually managed the business, and that they should be held liable instead.

Ruling that Villanueva is liable to Coca-Cola for the entire unpaid obligation, the Supreme Court stated that while no written contract was presented, the sale of goods was proven through other evidence, such as signed delivery invoices confirming the purchase, payment terms, and actual delivery of the products.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-contract-of-sale-of-goods-finalized-by-mere-agreement-of-parties/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/6bbav392

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

13/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No. 6552, popularly known as the Maceda Law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division upheld the validity of contracts to sell between State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) and spouses Carlos and Victoria Baculo (Spouses Baculo) after SITI failed to meet the Maceda Law’s cancellation requirements.

The Maceda Law’s purpose is to protect real estate buyers on installment payments against one-sided conditions in contracts.

SITI owned two parcels of land, which it offered to sell to Spouses Baculo through two contracts to sell. When the latter failed to complete payments, SITI sent letters demanding payment and, later, declaring the contracts to sell cancelled. The Spouses Baculo refused to vacate the property, leading Siti to file an ejectment case.

The SC ruled that while a seller may cancel a contract to sell under the Maceda Law on its own without going to court, it must still comply with Section 4 of the law, which requires: (1) a 60-day grace period for the buyer to settle overdue installments; (2) a notarized notice of cancellation from the seller; and (3) cancellation only after 30 days from the buyer’s receipt of the notarized notice.

In this case, the SC found that SITI’s letters were not notarized, and it failed to provide the required 60-day grace period, giving only five days to settle the balance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

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

20/09/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines.

The Court ruled that Filipinos who were previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, does not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse's national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse.

The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage.

The Court also clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 157-2022-A, the OCA’s compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements of proving foreign divorce laws under the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognition-of-divorce-not-limited-to-those-decreed-by-foreign-courts/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/249238-republic-of-the-philippines-vs-ruby-cuevas-ng-a-k-a-ruby-ng-sono/

21/06/2024

"All remaining Official Receipts can be used, until fully consumed. Inventory reports and notices can be submitted through email. The BIR is committed to making the transition to EOPT as convenient to taxpayers as possible. Comments and suggestions on the different services provided by the BIR and its implementation of the EOPT are welcome" --Commissioner Romeo D. Lumagui

Maari pa ring gamitin ang mga natitirang Official Receipts (OR) hanggang maubos ang mga ito, kahit lumagpas pa ng December 31, 2024. Ang mga Inventory Reports o Notice na kailangan sa transitory provitions ng Revenue Regulation No. 7-2024 ay maari na pong ipasa sa email. Ang mga pagbabago na ito ay alinsunod po sa Revenue Regulation No. 11-2024 at Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 66-2024 na may layunin na mas padaliin ang paglilipat sa bagong sistema na buhat ng Ease of Paying Taxes Act.

Sinisikap ng BIR na padaliin at pasimplehin ang iba't-ibang mga regulations, sistema, at mga proseso mula ng maisabatas ang EOPT. Kasabay nito ay ang ating walang sawang pagpapayaman ng kaalaman ng mga taxpayers sa pamamagitan ng mga EOPT Roadshows. Dumayo na po ang mga lider ng BIR sa Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, Koronadal, at Pangasinan para makapagbahagi ng kaalaman sa mga taxpayers. Dumagsa ang libu-libong mga taxpayers, tax practitioners, at mga negosyante para maging updated sa EOPT.

Tuloy-tuloy po nating lilibutin ang iba't-ibang mga bayan para makapagdaos ng EOPT Roadshow, ito po ay bahagi ng ating programa para sa taxpayer education.

Address

2nd Floor, NESL Building, P. Torres Street, Brgy. 5 And Carnes Car Trading, 188 P. Torres St. , Brgy. 8, Lipa
Lipa City
4217

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+639668340334

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Enriquez Law Office - Notary Public Lipa 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 Enriquez Law Office - Notary Public Lipa:

Shortcuts

Share

Category