Dy-Po Law

15/08/2026

SUPREME COURT: CYBER LIBEL PRESCRIBES IN ONE YEAR, NOT 15 YEARS

The Supreme Court has ruled that cyber libel prescribes in one year, rejecting the argument that the offense should be subject to the 15-year prescriptive period applicable to crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties.

In its En Banc Resolution¹ dated April 8, 2026, the Court explained that cyber libel is not an entirely new crime created by the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Rather, it is libel as defined under Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system or information and communications technology (ICT).

The Court noted that Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, expressly refers to libel under the Revised Penal Code. Section 6 of the same law merely provides for a penalty one degree higher when crimes under the Revised Penal Code or special laws are committed through ICT. Thus, the use of a computer system constitutes a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty; it does not transform cyber libel into an entirely different offense for purposes of prescription.

The Court therefore applied Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifically provides that “libel or other similar offenses” prescribe in one year. The fact that cyber libel carries a heavier penalty does not, by itself, place it under the 15-year prescriptive period in Article 90, paragraph 2.

The Court further emphasized that the Legislature has historically treated libel differently from other offenses carrying comparable penalties. Republic Act No. 4661 shortened the prescriptive period for libel to one year, in part to synchronize it with the one-year period for civil actions involving defamation under Article 1147 of the Civil Code.

Applying the principle that penal laws on prescription must be construed in favor of the accused, the Court held that the one-year period under Article 90, paragraph 4 governs cyber libel.

Thus, while cyber libel carries a penalty one degree higher because it is committed through ICT, the prescriptive period remains one year. The Court denied the motions for partial reconsideration with finality.

FOOTNOTES

1 Causing v. People, SC En Banc, (2026) Per Inting, J. [https://dlsurf.com/l/f0a673e]

14/08/2026

05/08/2026

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Office has issued ULAS Advisory No. 7, s. 2026 - Reminders on Accreditable Legal Aid Activities, Incidental Activities, and Representations Relating Thereto.

The Advisory reminds all Covered Lawyers (CLs) and Registered Organizations (ROs) to ensure that all representations regarding the ULAS Program, including promotional materials, announcements, and claims of accreditation or partnership, are truthful, accurate, and consistent with the ULAS Rules, ULAS Rules Manual, and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). False or misleading representations may result in the denial of accreditation, non-crediting of service hours, or other appropriate measures.

The Advisory also clarifies that only the actual conduct of pro bono legal aid service is accreditable as a Legal Outreach Program or Legal Mission. While incidental activities (e.g., travel and other ancillary tasks) are not themselves accreditable activities, they may still be claimed separately as ULAS service hours in the participating lawyer's Compliance Report, subject to the applicable rules and documentation requirements.

Finally, stakeholders are informed that the logging of service hours and generation of Compliance Reports will be available upon the rollout of Phase 2 of the ULAS Portal.

Read the full text of ULAS Advisory No. 7, s. 2026 here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/FINAL-ULAS-ADVISORY-No7-S-2026-Representations-on-Accreditable-Legal-Aid-Activities.pdf

18/07/2026

The CIR/BIR cannot file a petition directly before the Court without first obtaining permission from the OSG. Otherwise, the unauthorized filing shall be dismissed outright.

(Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Nippon Express Philippines Corporation, and the Court of Tax Appeals Third Division G.R. No. 280580. April 16, 2026)

17/04/2026

SUPREME COURT: NOISE FROM REGULAR SCHOOL ACTIVITIES NOT CONSIDERED NUISANCE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that schools cannot be held liable for damages for noise or sounds coming from its regular activities such as drums, bugles and teachers speaking through megaphones, as these are not considered a nuisance in residential areas.

In a 17-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division granted the petition filed by the Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (CFC-SMS) and reversed a ruling that awarded damages to residents Saint Joseph Subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga, Butuan City, where the school is situated.

The case stemmed from a civil complaint filed by a group of residents of the subdivision led by Wideline Malonda, who claimed that they were often exposed to loud noises from the school, such as drums and bugles being played, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students running, cheering, and shouting during games played at the multipurpose center.

The residents sought damages, as according to their contentions these sounds, heard day and night, disturbed their sleep and peace at home. Meanwhile, in its defense, the school said it has been operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances and that any noise comes only from regular classes.

It added that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office conducted a test and found the noise to be within the allowed limits for residential areas. The school also claimed it took steps to reduce noise, such as building higher fences, planting trees, using small speakers, and limiting activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the residents’ complaint, ruling that they failed to prove they were harmed by the noise. It also noted that the school did not intend to harm the residents and acted in good faith by taking steps to reduce the noise.

When elevated before the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court ruled in favor of the residents case, holding that the school's noise, which came not only from classes but also from other social functions in the multi-purpose hall, was a nuisance that caused discomfort and annoyance to the residents. This prompted the school to seek an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In abandoning the CA decision, the high court held that academic noise, or sounds from legitimate school activities, is not a nuisance. It found that the residents failed to establish that the school willfully made such noise with malice.

“Absent a preponderance of evidence rendering CFC-SMS liable, the action for damages against it is dismissed,” the SC said.

The SC said the CA “erroneously” relied on the tests conducted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 2017 that the ambient noise exceeded 55 decibels, which was beyond the threshold for residential areas under the rules of the National Pollution Control Commission.

“There is no law that states that a violation of the noise level limits would result in an automatic finding of nuisance,” the SC said.

It reiterated its ruling in Frabelle Properties Corp. v. AC Enterprises, Inc., which held that in resolving cases involving complaints of noise as a nuisance, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the reliability of the noise pollution tests conducted; (2) the defendant’s introduction of measures or improvements to mitigate the noise; (3) applicable allowable noise levels; (4) the defendant’s intent, or lack thereof, to cause harm to the plaintiff; (5) the number of complaining witnesses; (6) the representativeness of the plaintiffs; and (7) the actions taken by the plaintiff to alleviate his or her condition.

The highest bench underscored that the sounds coming from the school originated from its ordinary operations as an educational institution and that the respondents are hardly representative of the community.

It also emphasized that the residents failed to prove that the noise was unreasonably disturbing and that it worsened their health conditions, as their statements showed only minor discomforts, not serious harm.

The SC added that while location and environment are important in determining a nuisance, they must be weighed against whether the noise is normally expected from the activity involved. Here, the sounds complained of did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected from a school.

It noted that there is no nuisance if an ordinary person would not find the sound disturbing, even if someone else is unusually sensitive to it.

17/04/2026

𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬!

You can now access the ULAS Portal through the Philippine Judiciary Platform. (https://portal.judiciary.gov.ph/Login)

Follow the easy step-by-step guide:

✅ Create your account
✅ Log in to the portal
✅ Start your ULAS compliance

For the latest updates and full instructions, visit the ULAS Microsite: 𝐡𝐭𝐭𝐩𝐬://𝐬𝐜.𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲.𝐠𝐨𝐯.𝐩𝐡/𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐬

14/04/2026

𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗠𝗔𝗬 𝟭𝟱, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-2026, extending the deadline to May 15, 2026 for the filing of 2025 Annual Income Tax Returns, payment of the corresponding taxes due thereon, and submission of required attachments.

“In line with the directive of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., this extension is meant to make tax compliance easier for taxpayers at a time when many are managing added strain from the ongoing energy crisis,” Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza said.

Taxpayers may file through the BIR’s electronic filing platforms and pay electronically through available payment platforms, or manually through the nearest Authorized Agent Banks.

RMC No. 30-2026: https://tinyurl.com/RMC302026

20/03/2026

20/03/2026