ARGA LAW

08/09/2026

08/09/2026

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO MANILA, Philippines — The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is moving to tighten controls on payment transactions, requiring banks and payment firms to identify the real

25/08/2026

Nagpasya ang na hindi maaaring singilin ng bangko ang isang depositor sa perang na-withdraw nito kung ang pagkawala ng pera ay dulot ng mismong gross negligence o matinding kapabayaan ng bangko.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon na inihain ng BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO) at sinabi na maituturing na matinding kapabayaan ang hindi pagsunod ng bangko sa sarili nitong patakaran.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa pagdeposito ni Cristina Barcellano (Barcellano) ng isang regional check na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 151,200 mula sa sangay ng Landbank sa Albay sa kanyang savings account sa sangay ng BDO sa Lucena City.

Nagkamali ang teller ng BDO sa pag-validate ng tseke bilang local check sa halip na regional check. Dahil dito, na-credit ang halaga makalipas lamang ng tatlong banking days sa halip na pitong araw.

Sa paniniwalang maaari nang gamitin ang pera, nag-withdraw si Barcellano ng PHP 76,000. Di nagtagal, nakatanggap ang BDO ng stop payment order para sa tseke at hiniling kay Barcellano na isauli ang pera. Bagama’t pumayag siya, hindi niya naibalik ang nasabing halaga. Kalaunan, tumanggi ang BDO na ilabas ang natitirang balanse at nagsampa ng reklamong kriminal para sa estafa.

Kapwa pinawalang-sala ng Regional Trial Court at ng Court of Appeals si Barcellano matapos mapag-alamang walang pandaraya, panlilinlang, o pang-aabuso sa tiwala sa kanyang panig, at ang sariling kapabayaan ng BDO ang naging sanhi ng insidente.

Sa Korte Suprema, hiniling ng BDO na repasuhin ang aspekto ng pananagutang sibil ng kaso. Iginiit nitong sa kabila ng pagpapawalang-sala kay Barcellano, dapat pa rin siyang atasan na isauli ang pera. Ayon sa BDO, ang pagtanggi niyang isauli ito ay nagresulta sa unjust enrichment o hindi makatarungang pagpapayaman. Dagdag nito, dahil nailabas ang pondo dahil sa pagkakamali nito sa pagproseso ng tseke, obligado si Barcellano na isauli ang pera batay sa prinsipyo ng solutio indebiti na nag-aatas sa pagsasauli ng perang natanggap dahil sa pagkakamali.

Hindi sumang-ayon ng Korte Suprema. Walang unjust enrichment dahil nabigo ang BDO na patunayang tinanggap nito ang isang benepisyo na hindi para sa kanya.

Sa kasong ito, hindi ipinaliwanag ng bangko kung bakit naglabas ng stop payment order o ipinakita na alam ni Barcellano na hindi mababayaran ang tseke. Sa halip, ipinakita ng mga ebidensiya na nag-withdraw siya ng pera nang may mabuting loob matapos mismong gawing available ng BDO ang pondo sa kanyang account.

Dagdag pa nito, ang mismong gross negligence ng BDO ang naging sanhi ng pagkalugi nito. Napag-alaman na na-credit ng bangko ang tseke bago ito maayos na na-clear, napagkamalan nitong local check ang regional check, at hindi nito natukoy ang pagkakamali hanggang sa matanggap nito ang stop payment order. Ipinakita ng mga pagkukulang na ito na hindi nasunod ng bangko ang mga pangunahing pag-iingat na nilalayong protektahan ito laban sa mga panganib na dulot ng mga tsekeng hindi wasto o hindi mababayaran.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

19/08/2026

KALIGTASAN MUNA SA PANAHON NG MASAMANG PANAHON

Sa panahon ng bagyo, malakas na pag-ulan at iba pang weather disturbances, maaaring suspindihin ng mga employer sa pribadong sektor ang trabaho upang mapangalagaan ang kaligtasan at kalusugan ng kanilang mga manggagawa.

Narito ang mga patakaran sa bayad:

🔹 Hindi nagtrabaho – Walang regular na sahod, maliban kung may mas paborableng company policy, practice, CBA, o paggamit ng accrued leave credits.
🔹 Nagtrabaho nang 6 oras o higit pa – Karapat-dapat sa buong regular pay.
🔹 Nagtrabaho nang mas mababa sa 6 oras – Proporsyonal na bayad batay sa aktuwal na oras ng trabaho.

Mahalaga: Ang manggagawang hindi pumasok o tumangging magtrabaho dahil sa napipintong panganib dulot ng masamang panahon o katulad na pangyayari ay hindi dapat patawan ng administrative sanction.

Para sa karagdagang impormasyon, basahin ang Labor Advisory No. 14, Series of 2026 – Suspension of Work in the Private Sector by Reason of Weather Disturbances and Similar Occurrences.

Unahin ang kaligtasan. Maging alerto, manatiling ligtas, at sumunod sa mga opisyal na abiso.

19/08/2026

17/08/2026

For everyone's safety during the inclement weather, ARGA Law is working FULLY ONLINE today. Our physical office is CLOSED but our team remains available to assist you virtually.

17/08/2026

The has acquitted a woman of bigamy, ruling that a prior marriage that was void from the beginning (𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰) may be raised as a defense even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pampanga and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had found Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira guilty of bigamy.

Lapira faced a bigamy charge under Article 349 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 for marrying Jimmy Fariscal while still married to Takahiko Sato as evidenced by a marriage certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

During trial, Lapira argued that her marriage to Sato was void because no ceremony took place and no marriage license had been issued, both of which were required for validity. The Local Civil Registrar confirmed that there was no record of the application for a marriage license for Lapira and Sato.

In acquitting Lapira, the SC applied its ruling in the 2021 case of 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘰 𝘷. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, which held that an accused in a bigamy case may directly argue that a previous marriage is void as a defense, even without a prior court declaration.

The SC explained that one of the essential elements of bigamy is the existence of a valid prior marriage. If the first marriage was void from the beginning, that element is absent.

In this case, the certification from the Local Civil Registrar sufficiently proved that no marriage license was issued to Lapira and Sato. This certification was enough to counter the presumption of the marriage certificate’s validity.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171178.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165698.

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

24/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

03/07/2026

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.

26/06/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that an employee's absence from work, by itself, is not enough to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) and Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Carpio claimed he was originally hired by Green Era Biotech but was later transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value. After he was absent from work at Green Era Biotech for eight straight days due to illness, Great Value issued him a notice to explain. He was warned that another similar violation would lead to an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.

Carpio was later absent from work for another nine consecutive days. Great Value issued him an AWOL notice, stating that his continued absences were considered serious misconduct and abandonment of work.

He later took another leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, when he returned to work the next day, he was barred from entering the workplace. A few days later, Carpio was informed he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Ruling that Carpio was illegally dismissed, the SC reiterated that abandonment, or the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, requires proof of two elements: (1) the employee was absent without a valid reason; and (2) the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements.

In this case, although Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he tried to return to work and immediately challenged his dismissal by filing a complaint.

The SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages because his dismissal was made in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must instead pay him separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378.

Read the full text of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383.

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