Egnar - Blaza Law Office

10/09/2026

In affirming the conviction, the SC held that the elements under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are present as they are public officers who unjustly favored Mangopina and that their actions have given unfair advantages or benefits to another person.

The (SC) has affirmed the conviction of Orville Fua (Fua), former mayor of Lazi, Siquijor, and other public officers for graft involving more than PHP 4.9 million worth of fertilizer procurement.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that found former Lazi officials Fua, Rose Marie Tomogsoc, Natalio Bongcawel Jumawan, Jr., and Sue Agnes Castillon, and private individual Merlyn Estallo Lu (Fua and others) guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

In 2004, Fua signed a purchase request for the procurement of fertilizers or farm inputs for the town’s Fertilizer Program. The Department of Agriculture (DA) and Lazi then entered into a memorandum of agreement for the transfer of PHP 8 million to implement the project.

Of three bidders, the contract was awarded to Mangopina Trading, Inc., represented by Lu.

The Office of the Ombudsman however found that there were no records showing that the municipality invited other bidders or suppliers from nearby areas, or that the project was published or advertised in a newspaper of general circulation.

The Commission on Audit also found several deficiencies in the procurement, including the lack of a Special Allotment Release Order supporting the municipality’s Fertilizer Program and proof that a pre-bid conference was conducted.

The Sandiganbayan convicted Fua and others.

In affirming the conviction, the SC held that the elements under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are present as they are public officers who unjustly favored Mangopina and that their actions have given unfair advantages or benefits to another person.

SC found that Fua and Tomogsoc approved the purchase request and certified that funds were available even before the municipality entered into an agreement with the DA. According to the SC, these actions had no basis at the time, as the agreement was signed later and the funds were released only months afterward.

The Court also ruled that Mangopina and other bidders did not submit the required documents to determine their qualifications in violation of RA 9184, or the 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘈𝘤𝘵, and other procurement requirements were also not followed.

The SC noted that the evaluation by the Bids and Awards Committee, the recommendation, approval of the transaction and the issuance of a purchase order all happened on the same day.

The SC also found that Mangopina was not qualified to supply the fertilizers because it had not paid the fees to renew its mayor’s permit and its manufacturer-distributor license had already expired.

Fua and others were sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. They were also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172777

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/273389-people-of-the-philippines-vs-orville-fua-y-ano-os-et-al/

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

28/08/2026

BARANGAY MUNA O DIRETSO KORTE? 👀⚖️

Hindi porke may away, barangay agad. 😏
May mga kaso na required ang conciliation and may mga EXCEPTIONS.

👉 Bago ka mag-file, ALAMIN MO MUNA.

11/08/2026

The SC explained that such employees are considered to have remained employed during the period covered by their backwages and are therefore entitled to the rights and benefits that would have accrued during that period.

The has ruled that employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled not only to full backwages but also to the remittance of their Social Security System (SSS) contributions.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division held that an employer’s obligation to remit SSS contributions continues during the period covered by an employee’s illegal dismissal.

The case involved four employees of Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC) who were illegally dismissed. LSC was ordered to reinstate them to their former positions and pay them full backwages. After the ruling became final, the employees asked LSC to remit their SSS contributions for the period covered by their backwages so they could qualify for retirement benefits.

LSC refused, arguing that under the 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997, its obligation to pay SSS contributions ended upon the employees’ separation from employment, regardless of whether their dismissal was legal or illegal.

The Social Security Commission (SSC) rejected LSC’s position and ordered it to pay the contributions. The SSC ruled that because the employees were illegally dismissed, the employer-employee relationship was deemed to have continued during the period they were prevented from working.

Holding that LSC remained obligated to remit the employees’ SSS contributions for the period covered by their backwages, the SC stated that under Article 294 of the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, illegally dismissed employees are entitled to full backwages and other benefits.

The SC explained that such employees are considered to have remained employed during the period covered by their backwages and are therefore entitled to the rights and benefits that would have accrued during that period.

Since LSC failed to remit the illegally dismissed employees’ social security contributions, the SC held that LSC is liable to pay a penalty thereon of three percent per month, reckoned from the date they became due until full payment.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170676.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165713.

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

12/07/2026

Keeping up with the weekend legal hustle ⚖️✨

10/07/2026

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN CYBERCRIME PROVISION THAT COULD CRIMINALIZE 'LIKES,' COMMENTS, AND SHARES

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc declared unconstitutional the Cybercrime Prevention Act provision that would have penalized "aiding or abetting" cyber libel, ruling that it posed a serious threat to freedom of expression in the digital age.

“Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms "aiding or abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes "aiding or abetting" libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.”

-ABAD, J.

Supreme Court, En Banc
February 11, 2014

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

30/06/2026

SC Clarifies DARAB Jurisdiction Over Registered CLOAs; Indefeasibility Does Not Protect Titles Issued in Violation of Agrarian Reform Laws

The Supreme Court clarified that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction over petitions to cancel registered Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) only when the controversy involves an agrarian dispute. The Court further ruled that although CLOAs enjoy the protection generally accorded to Torrens titles, they may still be cancelled if they were issued in violation of agrarian reform laws, including a landowner's right of retention.

“CLOAs which have been issued in violation of agrarian reform laws, are not covered by the rule on indefeasibility of title… In this case, the Delfinos' cancellation case was hinged on the violation of their right to due process, lack of compensation, and the denial to exercise their right of choice as to what to retain among their landholdings. Clearly, these are valid grounds to invoke in a case for the cancellation of CLOAs.“

-GAERLAN, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
September 29, 2021

29/06/2026

SCHOOL HELD LIABLE FOR CLASSROOM ACCIDENT; SC STRESSES SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER STUDENTS
"Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
x x x x
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody."
-NACHURA, J.
Supreme Court, Second Division
June 29, 2010

SCHOOL HELD LIABLE FOR CLASSROOM ACCIDENT; SC STRESSES SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER STUDENTS

"Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
x x x x
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody."

-NACHURA, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
June 29, 2010

Read the full text in the comments section.