SA Law

05/01/2026

⚠️ 𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘: 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗟𝗬 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗧𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗟𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗘𝗦

The public is reminded to exercise caution and verify the legitimacy of lending applications, platforms, and websites before engaging in any transactions.

To ensure that you are dealing only with authorized and recorded online lending platforms, scan the QR code or visit the link below for the complete list:
🔗 bit.ly/SEC-Recorded-OLPs

The SEC also wishes to inform the public that the previously imposed cease and desist orders, revocations, and/or suspensions against certain financing and lending companies have been lifted, modified, or reversed, and that the entities concerned now hold active registration and are legally authorized to operate, subject to continued compliance with existing laws and SEC rules.

📌 The Commission clarifies that this development does not affect the rights of borrowers nor prevent the filing and investigation of complaints for any violations, and reminds the public to remain vigilant and report unfair debt collection practices or other prohibited acts through the Financing and Lending Companies Department (FinLenD) or the SEC iMessage Portal.

Read the full Advisory here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/advisories-2025/advisory-on-previously-imposed-penalties-against-certain-financing-and-lending-companies/

29/05/2025

⚠️ 𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 ⚠️
The public, especially individuals and companies with registered bank accounts, e-wallets such as GCash and Maya, online financial platforms such as Palawan Express, or other financial accounts, is strongly advised not to share, lend, rent out, or allow other people or entities to use their personal financial accounts.

Individuals or companies with the aforementioned financial accounts may be used as “money mules” by criminal syndicates to perpetrate various financial scams.

🔗 Read the Full Advisory: https://www.sec.gov.ph/advisories-2025/advisory-on-the-unauthorized-use-of-personal-financial-accounts-or-being-money-mules/

13/03/2025

Staying Informed: SA Law at the Best Practices in Corporate Housekeeping Webinar

SA Law recently participated in a Corporate Housekeeping webinar, reinforcing our commitment to staying updated on corporate governance and compliance.

Send a message to learn more

05/03/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property – not ownership.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the SC’s First Division ordered respondents Ernie “Toto” Castillo et al. to vacate a parcel of land in Barangay Matina, Davao City (Lot 1957), after finding that they had forcibly entered the property.

The case stemmed from a complaint for forcible entry filed by Edgar M. Rico (Rico), who claimed he was in possession of the property by virtue of his free patent application for Lot 1957 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. He claimed that on October 11, 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.

The SC ruled that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership. It held that the only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proven prior physical possession of the contested property. Since Rico had established his prior possession, the SC ruled in his favor and ordered the respondents to vacate the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-prior-possession-not-ownership-matters-in-forcible-entry-cases/.

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/215166-edgar-m-rico-vs-ernie-toto-castillo-pifiano-jumo-gerry-villegas-alfrance-alicante-felix-yagao-john-does-and-marilou-lopez-a-k-a-ma-loreto-v-abella-lopez/.

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

21/02/2025

🔠 Word of the Day Wednesday: INTEREST

Interest is the additional amount a borrower pays on top of the principal loan. It is how lenders earn from lending money and is usually computed as a percentage of the loan amount.

🤔 May limit ba ang interest rates?
➤ Loans amounting to P10,000 and below are regulated at a capped rate set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to protect borrowers from predatory lending.
➤For bigger loans higher than P10,000, lenders and borrowers can negotiate the interest rate, but it should be reasonable and not excessive.

Maging wais sa pag-utang, alamin ang tamang interest rate para hindi malubog sa utang. Bago pumirma sa loan contract, siguraduhing malinaw ang interest computation, kayang bayaran, at walang hidden charges.

Always check if the lending or financing company is SEC-registered. Verify here: bit.ly/SEC-Lending-Financing-Corner

19/02/2025

Tinanggal ng ang isang clerk ng Regional Trial Court dahil sa paghingi at pagtanggap ng pera mula sa magulang ng isang litigante kapalit ng paghahanap sa kanila ng abogado mula sa Public Attorney’s Office.

Sa isang Resolusyon ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema, hinatulang guilty sa gross misconduct si Gerald Eric F. Sanchez (Sanchez), Clerk III ng RTC, Cabuyao City, Laguna. Bukod sa pagtanggal sa kanya sa trabaho, habambuhay din siyang diniskwalipika sa paghawak ng anumang posisyon sa gobyerno.

Si Sanchez ay sinampahan ng reklamo ng ina ng isang akusado sa isang nakabinbing kasong kriminal matapos mangako at mabigo na tutulungan sila sa kanilang mga kaso kapalit ng PHP 100,000.

Pinaimbestigahan din siya ng isang trial court judge dahil sa mga ulat ng pagiging “fixer” ng mga kaso.

Dahil sa kanyang sadyang paglabag sa Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, si Sanchez ay tinanggal sa pwesto. Sumang-ayon ang Korte sa mga natuklasan ng Judicial Integrity Board, na nagpasya na sa kabila ng kanyang mga pagtanggi, si Sanchez ay tumanggap nga ng pera para sa kanyang personal na pakinabang.

Ayon sa Canon IV, Section 5 ng Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, ang mga tauhan ng korte ay hindi dapat magrekomenda ng mga pribadong abogado sa mga litigante, mga prospective na litigante, o sinumang nakikipag-ugnayan sa Hudikatura. Higit pa rito, bilang Clerk III, si Sanchez ay hindi pinahihintulutan na mangolekta o tumanggap ng pera mula sa sinumang litigante.

Basahin ang buong teskto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-rtc-clerk-for-soliciting-money-from-litigant/.

09/04/2024

Mapagpalayang Araw ng Kagitingan! 🇵🇭

25/03/2024

SC: LGU Legal Officers May Not Represent Local Government Officials Before the Ombudsman |

Due to conflict of interest, legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the LGUs they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. as it reprimanded a provincial legal officer for unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the then Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

The Court found that there is no proof that the lawyer possessed an authority to practice law outside of his duties as provincial legal officer. Thus, his act of representing Gov. Degamo in the criminal and administrative cases against the latter constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

The lawyer’s argument that he was simply performing his official duties as provincial legal officer was also rejected by the Court, stressing its ruling in the 2016 case of Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, that a basic conflict of interest exists when a government lawyer represents another public official before the Ombudsman.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lgu-legal-officers-may-not-represent-local-government-officials-before-the-ombudsman/. Read A.C. No. 13219 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13219-in-re-g-r-nos-226935-228238-and-228325-vs-atty-richard-r-enojo/.

24/03/2024

SC Voids Contract for Being Grossly Disadvantageous to Seafarer |

The Supreme Court has voided a litigation financing agreement between a seafarer and a consultancy firm for being grossly disadvantageous to the seafarer.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation (RODCO). The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) award of damages in favor of RODCO.

In resolving the present petition, the Court evaluated the contract between Floserfino and RODCO and found it has the features of a litigation financing by a third party.

As previously held in the 2009 case of Nocom v. Camerino, a contract between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment, in consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the proceeds is a champertous contract.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), champertous contracts between attorneys and their clients are prohibited for being against public policy. While the definition of a champertous contract under the CPRA appears to contemplate an agreement between a lawyer and a party, the Court is nevertheless not precluded from recognizing that the agreement of the parties in the present case is similar to a champertous contract.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-voids-contract-for-being-grossly-disadvantageous-to-seafarer/. Read G.R. No. 259832 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259832-rodco-consultancy-and-maritime-services-corporation-herein-represented-by-froilan-g-clemente-jr-vs-floserfino-g-ross-and-antonia-t-ross/.