Padkiw Cabatingan Wacnang Law Firm

08/01/2024

SC Reiterates Consent of Adopter’s Children Required in Petitions for Adoption |

The consent of the adopter’s legitimate children, who are at least 10 years old, is required for a petition for adoption to prosper.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, as it denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena Bagcat-Gullas (Bagcat-Gullas). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) setting aside the adoption decree previously granted in favor of Bagcat-Gullas.

In dismissing the present petition, the Court emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, is clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for the adoption to be valid.

Reiterating its 2014 ruling in Castro v. Gregorio, the Court held that the “consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitimes, with another person.”

Further, the Court stressed that personal service of summons on the legitimate children is needed to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. Constructive notice does not suffice.

In the present case, the Court found that as the respondents were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings, their written consent was necessary.

As legitimate children of one of the adopters, Jose, respondents are thus indispensable parties to the petition.

Since the respondents were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons upon them, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption is void, ruled the Court.

“The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such, the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present,” said the Court.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-consent-of-adopters-children-required-in-petitions-for-adoption/. Read G.R. No. 264146 (Bagcat-Gullas v. Gullas, et al., August 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/264146-nena-bagcat-gullas-vs-joselito-f-gullas-joie-marie-f-gullas-yu-and-john-vincent-f-gullas/.

21/12/2023

SC Nullifies Exorbitant, Unconscionable Loan Interest Rate |

While the parties to a loan agreement may depart from the legal interest rate, any deviation therefrom must be reasonable and fair.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Second Division, through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by Manila Credit Corporation (MCC). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring the interest rates imposed by MCC on Ramon S. Viroomal (Ramon) and Anita S. Viroomal (collectively, Spouses Viroomal) void for being patently exorbitant and unconscionable.

In resolving MCC’s petition, the Court stressed that while parties to a contract are free to agree on stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they may deem convenient, these must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Further, under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, such contracts contrary to morals are inexistent and void from the beginning.

In loan agreements, in particular, while the contracting parties may depart from the legal interest rate, any deviation therefrom must be reasonable and fair. “If the stipulated interest for a loan is more than twice the prevailing legal rate of interest, it is for the creditor to prove that this rate is justified under the prevailing market conditions,” held the Court.

The Court added that while Central Bank of the Philippines Circular No. 905-82 has effectively removed the interest ceilings prescribed under the Usury Law, lenders may not impose interest rates that would “enslave borrowers or hemorrhage their assets.”

Reiterating its 2021 ruling in Megalopolis Properties, Inc. v. D’Nhew Lending Corporation, the Court held that while there is no “numerical limit on conscionability, the rate of 3% per month or 36% per annum is three times more than the 12% legal interest rate, and therefore excessive and unconscionable.”

The Court added that the “willingness of the debtor in assuming an unconscionable rate of interest is inconsequential to its validity.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-nullifies-exorbitant-unconscionable-loan-interest-rate/. Read G.R. No. 258526 (Manila Credit Corporation v. Viroomal) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258526-manila-credit-corporation-vs-ramon-s-viroomal-and-anita-s-viroomal-office-of-the-clerk-of-court-and-ex-officio-sheriff-of-the-regional-trial-court-of-paranaque-city-as-represented-by-atty/.

01/12/2023

01 December 2023

𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐄 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐁𝐄𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐏𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐅𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐒

MANILA, Philippines — The Bureau of Immigration (BI) said that more than 400 foreign nationals are set to be blacklisted, after having been found to be petitioned by fake companies.

BI Commissioner Norman Tansingco said that the move is part of the agency’s campaign to remove illegal aliens in the country, particularly those who use fake documents to be able to obtain visas.

Tansingco said that three consecutive audit reports from their Verification and Compliance Division (VCD) revealed that a total of 459 aliens have been using fake companies in their application.

“These foreign nationals’ applications were processed using the services of accredited entities, authorized to apply in behalf of the foreign nationals,” said Tansingco. “However, through our audits, we discovered that the companies that petitioned them are spurious,” he added.

The BI Chief shared that at least 79 accredited liaison officers face investigations by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for the racket.

Tansingco also revealed that four BI lawyers are also under investigation in relation to the modus.

Last week, the BI reported uncovering the modus, prompting a massive investigation on the purported scheme.

Tansingco said that they reported the matter immediately to the Department of Justice, who committed to assist in the investigation with the NBI.

According to Tansingco, the subject foreign nationals’ visas will be cancelled and those inside the country will be ordered to leave and blacklisted.

The audit follows after local law enforcement agencies conducted raids uncovering scam hubs and prostitution dens posing as legitimate companies.

“We are after aliens who falsify or misuse documents,” said Tansingco. “Our drive against illegal aliens remain relentless, and we will continue to run after those who coddle such violators,” he added.

28/11/2023

13/11/2023

SC: Only Registered and Licensed Architects May Sign Architectural Documents |

With the enactment of the Architecture Act, only registered and licensed architects may prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents as listed under Section 302(4)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, granting the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by the Department of Public Works and Highways and the United Architects of the Philippines. The petitions challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s decision upholding the validity and constitutionality of Sections 302(3) and 302(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code of the Philippines.

The Architecture Act of 2002, effective April 10, 2004, emphasized the importance of architects in nation-building and aimed for comprehensive regulation of the registration, licensing, and practice of architecture. The DPWH subsequently amended the Revised Implementing Rules of the National Building Code, specifically introducing Section 302(3) limiting the authority to prepare architectural documents to architects and Section 302(4) detailing what constitutes architectural documents.

This led to a legal challenge by respondents, Leo Cleto Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc., seeking to declare Sections 302(3) and 302(4) void. The Regional Trial Court initially denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision, declaring the contested sections void.

The Court, in resolving conflicting provisions between the Civil Engineering Law (RA 544) and the Architecture Act, determined that the Architecture Act impliedly repealed the Civil Engineering Law concerning the preparation, signing, and sealing of architectural documents by civil engineers. The Court highlighted legislative intent in providing limitations on civil engineers' authority in building construction matters.

Additionally, the Court addressed conflicting versions of the National Building Code and concluded that the published version in the Official Gazette prevails over the copy stored in the National Library. Therefore, only the version in the Official Gazette, which did not include the phrase allowing civil engineers to prepare architectural plans, holds legal effect.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that only registered and licensed architects are authorized to prepare, sign, and seal specified architectural documents, while only registered and licensed architects, or interior designers, may prepare, sign, and seal the architectural interior/interior design documents enumerated under Section 302(4)(b) of the same rules, emphasizing the significance of the Architecture Act in regulating the architectural practice and superseding conflicting provisions.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-only-registered-and-licensed-architects-may-sign-architectural-documents/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/200015-205846-department-of-public-works-and-highways-vs-philippine-institute-of-civil-engineers-inc-and-leo-cleto-gamolo-united-architects-of-philippines-vs-philippine-institute-of-civil-engineer/.

08/11/2023

📢 The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair has announced that the Oath Taking & Roll Signing Ceremonies shall be held on December 22, 2023 (Friday) at SMX Convention Center, Pasay City.

Stay tuned for further announcements, and make the necessary logistical preparations ahead.

27/10/2023

SC: Law Cannot Alter Blood Relationships

While the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.

Thus held the Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by James Cua Ko. The petition challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) denial of Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.

The case involved a petition by James Cua Ko to recognize a minor child, Jamie Shaye, whose birth certificate indicated him as the father. Jamie Shaye was born during a marriage between Shalimar Abellera and Kerwin Cruz Par. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy, as provided by Article 164 of the Family Code, which considers children born during a valid marriage as legitimate for their best interest. Additionally, Article 170 of the Family Code stipulates that only certain individuals, primarily the husband, can challenge a child's legitimacy directly.

While James Cua Ko's petition was denied due to his lack of standing under the law, the Supreme Court clarified that Jamie Shaye still has the right to establish her filiation to him if she chooses to do so. The court acknowledged the complexity between legitimacy, which is a civil status established by marriage, and filiation, which is the biological relationship. It stressed that children born during a valid marriage but not necessarily to their biological parents may have doubts about their filiation and identity. Consequently, the law allows such children to establish their filiation, and this choice should ultimately belong to the child.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-law-cannot-alter-blood-relationships/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/210984-jame-cua-ko-vs-republic-of-the-philippines/.

26/10/2023

COMELEC Cannot Remove or Destroy Privately-Owned Campaign Materials Displayed on Private Property |

The Supreme Court recently held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot remove or destroy privately-owned campaign materials displayed on private property.

In St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, the Court sitting En Banc, granted the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus filed by St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. (St. Anthony College) against the COMELEC and declared the COMELEC’s confiscation and destruction of privately-owned campaign materials displayed on private property unconstitutional.

St. Anthony College and other private persons were the owners and co-owners of tarpaulins, posters, murals, and other materials displayed on their premises, expressing support and soliciting votes for former Vice President Maria Leonor Gerona Robredo, who was a candidate for president in the May 9, 2022 national and local elections. The COMELEC confiscated and destroyed their campaign materials pursuant to the COMELEC’s “Oplan Baklas” under Republic Act No. 9006 (RA 9006), or the Fair Election Act, and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730.

The Court, through the Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, held that RA 9006 only permits the COMELEC to regulate the election propaganda owned by candidates and political parties. It does not allow the COMELEC to regulate the political speech of private persons on private property. While COMELEC may validly implement “Oplan Baklas” against candidates and political parties, it cannot implement “Oplan Baklas” against private individuals expressing their political preferences or support for a candidate or political party. The COMELEC also violated the property rights of St. Anthony College, as there was no legal basis for the COMELEC’s entry into their private property and removal and destruction of their privately-owned campaign materials.

The Court also emphasized that it “has always protected political speech as one of the most important expressions guaranteed by the Constitution, and freedom of speech and expression is at the core of civil liberties and must be protected at all costs for the sake of democracy.” While acknowledging “the zeal and dedication with which the COMELEC performs its duties and fulfills its mandate to ensure free and fair elections,” the Court stressed that “the best intentions cannot justify impermissible infringements on constitutional rights.”

Ultimately, COMELEC’s implementation of “Oplan Baklas” as against St. Anthony et al., was declared unconstitutional as it exceeded the bounds of permissible regulation under RA 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/comelec-cannot-remove-or-destroy-privately-owned-campaign-materials-displayed-on-private-property/.

11/10/2023

DECLARING MONDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2023, AS A SPECIAL (NON-WORKING) DAY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
Proclamation No. 359, s. 2023

Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2023/10/09/proclamation-no-359-s-2023/

10/10/2023

SC: BDO Negligent for Allowing Unauthorized Withdrawals |

Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence, along with high standards of integrity and performance in view of its significant role in commercial transactions.

Thus underscored the Supreme Court’s Third Division in a 19-page Decision, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, denying the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), Vivian Duldulao, and Christine T. Nakanishi. The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found the petitioners liable to Liza A. Seastres, a depositor in BDO.

In ruling for Seastres, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s factual findings that BDO totally failed to comply with its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in taking care of Seastres’ bank accounts. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in jurisprudence that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

In the case of BDO, the Court said that BDO was duty bound to exercise the highest degree of diligence in handling Seastres’ bank accounts and in ascertaining that the signatures in the subject withdrawal slips and manager’s checks were made by Seastres and not by anybody else.

However, the Court found that BDO failed to comply with its own rules and regulations regarding withdrawals made through a representative.
As established during trial, BDO’s own rules and regulations require all withdrawals to be made by the depositor by properly filing out a withdrawal slip. Further, withdrawals made by a person other than the depositor him/herself may be allowed only upon the depositor’s written authorization to be verified by the bank teller.

However, in the case of Seastres, BDO allowed Benaje to personally transact the unauthorized withdrawals without confirming from Seastres the authority of Benaje. The Court noted that the alleged written authorization in favor of Benaje is limited to deposits, inquiries, pick-ups, and printouts on behalf of Seastres. The same authorization did not authorize Benaje to make any withdrawals.

The Supreme Court thus ruled that BDO is solely liable to Seastres for over PhP8,000,000.00 in actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and cost of suit, to earn legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-bdo-negligent-for-allowing-unauthorized-withdrawals/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-banco-de-oro-universal-bank-inc-vivian-duldulao-and-christine-nakanishi-vs-liza-a-seastres-and-annabelle-n-benaje/. Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-dissenting-opinion-justice-samuel-h-gaerlan/.

14/04/2023

WAITING!!
2022 Bar Examinations: List of Successful Examinees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbotP7zSEr0