Salomon Law Office

11/07/2026

10/07/2026

The (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 12079, which grants value-added tax (VAT) refunds on certain local purchases made by non-resident foreign tourists.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam challenging the validity of the law. RA No. 12079 introduced Section 112-A of the 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 1997, establishing a VAT refund system for non-resident foreign tourists who purchase goods in the Philippines but are meant to be consumed outside the country.

The VAT refund applies to goods bought from duly accredited stores and taken out of the Philippines within 60 days from purchase. The value of the goods must be at least PHP 3,000 per transaction and Section 5 of the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations limits the refund to items intended for personal use.

Tayam argued that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it limits VAT refunds to foreign tourists and excludes Filipino citizens and residents.

In dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons. The Constitution permits different treatment for groups that are genuinely distinct, provided the classification is reasonable and related to the purpose of the law.

The SC found that RA 12079 validly distinguishes foreign tourists from Filipino citizens and residents. The classification is directly related to the law’s objective of promoting tourism and encouraging visitors to purchase local products. Rather than discriminate against Filipinos, the law grants a specific incentive to foreign tourists as part of the State’s effort to strengthen the tourism industry.

The SC also said the VAT refund system follows the basic rule of VAT that goods are taxed where they are consumed. Since the law requires foreign tourists to take the goods out of the Philippines within 60 days, the goods are considered to be consumed abroad and may qualify for a VAT refund. If the goods are consumed in the Philippines, they remain subject to Philippine VAT.

The SC also rejected claims that the law unfairly disadvantages foreigners with long-term visas. It explained that non-resident foreigners may still qualify for the VAT refund, even if they stay in the Philippines for an extended period, as long as they take the goods out of the country within 60 days and consume them abroad.

The SC added that VAT refund programs for foreign tourists are widely practiced around the world.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168521

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168497

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168502

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168507

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

25/03/2026

📢 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: KASAMBAHAY LAW (RA 10361)
Are you a household worker or an employer? Understanding the Kasambahay Law protects the rights and responsibilities of both.

👩‍🍳 WHO IS A KASAMBAHAY?
Domestic worker or “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.

The term shall not include children who are under foster family arrangement, and are provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to education, i.e. “baon”, transportation, school projects and school activities. [Sec.4(d)]

⚖️ KEY RIGHTS OF KASAMBAHAY:
If you are a kasambahay, the law protects your dignity, safety, and well-being.
✔️ Minimum wage (varies by region)
✔️ Daily rest (8hrs) and weekly rest (24hrs) periods
✔️ SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG (subject to sharing of contributions, as applicable)
✔️ Humane treatment and respect for dignity

⚖️ EMPLOYER RIGHTS:
While the law protects kasambahays, employers are equally given rights to ensure fairness and order in the household.
✔️ To expect quality work and proper performance of agreed duties
✔️ To terminate employment for just causes (e.g., misconduct/willful disobedience, gross/habitual neglect of duties, inefficiency, fraud, breach of trust, prejudicial disease)
✔️ To terminate for authorized causes, with proper notice and payment when applicable

[Nothing in the law prevents an employer from granting benefits more favorable than those provided under the Kasambahay Law. The statute merely establishes the minimum standards, which employers are free to exceed.]

📍The content shared on this page is for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please seek the guidance of a lawyer of your own choice.

28/02/2026

03/02/2026

Not all property documents prove ownership. Know the difference between a land title and a tax declaration.
Disclaimer: Posts on this page are for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. Laws and their application may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. For proper guidance, please consult your lawyer.

29/01/2026

Art. 1318 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides,
"There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain, which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. "

28/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

27/01/2026

Congratulations on earning your Master of Laws (LL.M.) ✨🎓
Atty. Emmanuel K. Salomon!

Your dedication, discipline, and passion for the law have reached another remarkable milestone. This achievement is a testament to your perseverance and commitment to excellence.

Best wishes for continued distinction in your legal career. ⚖️

27/01/2026

The (SC) has dismissed an adultery case filed by the representative of a married man, reiterating that only the offended spouse may file the complaint.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division dismissed the adultery charge filed by Jin Chiba, through a representative, against his wife, Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and her co-accused Michael Llona. SC reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel and Michael.

Aurel’s husband, Jin, through his representative, filed a complaint for adultery and grave threats against the two.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it.

The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative.

The SC disagreed and reiterated that adultery is a private crime that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, citing Rule 110, Section 5, of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and Article 344 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC).

The SC explained that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

In this case, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

Because there is failure to meet the requirement under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 and the RPC, the SC held that no valid complaint was filed and dismissed the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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