GAD Law Firm

13/08/2026

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/.

12/08/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 | 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟔

"Attorney, do I have to obey a subpoena?"

Yes.

A subpoena is not simply a request to appear or provide something. It is a legal process that generally requires compliance when properly issued and served.

But read it carefully. A subpoena may require you to appear and testify, produce documents or other things, or both. What you are required to do depends on the subpoena itself and the applicable rules.

If you receive one, do not simply ignore it because you "do not want to get involved." There may be consequences for unjustified noncompliance. If you believe there is a valid reason why you cannot comply, address it properly and promptly.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺-𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.

10/08/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 | 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟓

"Attorney, can I be arrested without a warrant?"

A common belief is: "No warrant, no arrest."

But the law is more nuanced than that.

There are circumstances recognized by law where an arrest may be made without a warrant. At the same time, the absence of a warrant does not automatically make an arrest lawful.

The important question is always:

What were the circumstances?

In law, the details matter.

Swipe through for the general rule.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺-𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.

07/08/2026

The (SC) has clarified that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.

The case arose from a complaint for 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 and violation of 𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘨. 22 (BP 22) filed against petitioner Faustine Feliz Abad (Abad) in connection with her purchase of airline tickets from respondent GHT Travel and Tours (GHT).

The City Prosecutor found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violation of BP 22, but found insufficient evidence to charge her with 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢. Two Informations for BP 22 were then filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that she was a flight risk. The RTC granted the request.

Abad later sought to have the PHDO lifted. The RTC denied her request, noting, among others, that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge to the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.

Ruling that the PHDO should have been lifted, the SC cited the Rule on PHDO that it issued on August 7, 2018, which provides that a PHDO may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment. It may also be issued against a foreigner regardless of the penalty.

The SC explained that the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The only charges filed against Abad were two counts of BP 22 violations, each punishable by imprisonment of 30 days to one year.

Thus, the BP 22 charges did not meet the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170320.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165691.

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

03/08/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 | 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟒

"Attorney, can I change lawyers?"

Yes. As a general rule, a client has the right to choose who will represent them.

That said, changing lawyers should not be done impulsively. Before making that decision, consider why you want to change counsel, the current stage of your case, and any upcoming hearings or deadlines. In many situations, open communication with your lawyer may resolve misunderstandings without the need for a change.

If you do decide to engage new counsel, proper coordination and the orderly turnover of case records can help ensure that your legal interests remain protected.

Swipe through to learn the general considerations.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺-𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 | 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟑

"Attorney, how many witnesses do I need?"

It's a question I hear more often than you might expect.

Many people assume that the side with more witnesses automatically has the stronger case. The law, however, does not work that way.

Courts do not simply count witnesses, they evaluate them. A witness's credibility, consistency, and personal knowledge of the facts often matter far more than the number of people who testify.

In some cases, one credible witness may be enough. In others, documentary or electronic evidence may be just as important.

Swipe through to learn why the strength of evidence is not measured by numbers alone.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺-𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.

30/07/2026