Rufin & Parilla Law

22/06/2026

Judges appreciate brevity over brilliance.

22/06/2026

🚨 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐑𝐓 🚨

𝗛𝗨𝗪𝗔𝗚 𝗠𝗔𝗚-𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗔 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗥-𝗚𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘; 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗥 𝗚𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗟 𝗜𝗡𝗖.; 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗥 𝗚𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗘 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗧; 𝗢 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗥 𝗚𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗟

Batay sa mga ulat at impormasyong nakalap ng Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), ang nabanggit ay 𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜 𝗥𝗘𝗛𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗞𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗡𝗬𝗔 𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗔𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗟𝗢𝗧 upang mangalap ng investment mula sa publiko.

Pinapayuhan ang publiko na HUWAG MAKIPAG-TRANSAKSYON sa nasabing entidad o sa sinumang nagpo-promote ng investment schemes nito.

📩 I-sumbong ang kahalintulad na gawain sa: https://imessage.sec.gov.ph/
🔍 I-verify ang rehistro at lisensya sa: https://checkwithsec.sec.gov.ph/
o sa SEC Check App

🔗 BASAHIN ang kabuuan ng Advisory dito: https://www.sec.gov.ph/advisories-2026/frontier-global-financial-advisory-service-frontier-global-inc-frontier-global-trade-expert-frontier-global/

22/06/2026

Atty. E. (Leo) D. Battad, a member of the Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, a professor at the Graduate School of Law and College of Law of the University of the Philippines Diliman, and a human rights advocate, discusses what happens when a job offer is accepted, and the implications for employer-employee relationship in #𝐒𝐂𝐩𝐡𝐏𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝟏𝟐𝟎: 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐉𝐨𝐛 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭?

When is an employment contract perfected? Is there a distinction between the perfection of the contract and the commencement of the employment?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5J39JloY8ZGqqK1tRWCZ5t?si=g-AKcWbZSEK8CHT1imkrZg

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000771296664

YouTube: https://youtu.be/3EAoQ46OjtQ

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EPCS7HsAw/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

22/06/2026

SC suspends lawyer for using vulgar words in social media post

The (SC) has suspended a lawyer for using vulgar words in a social media post.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

The case arose from a Twitter post made by Atty. Falcis defending his brother, Nicko, against accusations related to a qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino (Aquino):

“𝘠𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘺𝘢𝘯, 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰. 𝘚𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘪 𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘥. 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘬𝘰 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘨 𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘺𝘰? 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘺𝘶 𝘬𝘢𝘺𝘰 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘩𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴.”

Jason Gene Baltao (Baltao), Aquino’s former business partner, filed a complaint against Atty. Falcis before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Atty. Falcis argued that previous SC rulings held that the phrase “𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘢” is often used to express anger or frustration, not to defame. He also claimed that lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.

The IBP found that Atty. Falcis violated the 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘊𝘗𝘙𝘈) by using offensive language and recommended a penalty of a fine and reprimand.

The SC agreed with the IBP’s findings but imposed a heavier penalty of suspension.

Under Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA, lawyers must use dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in both their professional and personal dealings. They must not use abusive, offensive, or improper language, whether spoken or written, including on social media. Such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession.

Section 37 of the same Canon requires lawyers to ensure that their online posts—whether public or shared within a limited audience—uphold the dignity of the profession, protect it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.

Section 36 also requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media.

Ruling that Atty. Falcis failed to meet these standards, the SC stressed that he should have understood the risks and consequences of his statements on social media, including how they can spread widely, reach all kinds of audiences, and influence both lawyers and non-lawyers, including children.

The SC held that the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities serve as the limit of free speech for lawyers.

The SC also reminded lawyers of the nature of social media, which encompasses a wide audience and may not easily be restricted.

The SC explained that Atty. Falcis’ actions amounted to misconduct, defined as intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behavior, whether work-related or not. It is considered simple misconduct if there is no corruption or clear intent to violate the law.

The SC increased the penalty from a fine to suspension due to Atty. Falcis’ prior administrative violations, including direct and indirect contempt, and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167468

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167448

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167455

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

22/06/2026

SC Updates Rules on Running Periods for VAT Refund claims

The (SC) has clarified when the processing periods begin for value-added tax (VAT) refund claims.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division updated the summary of rules on the reckoning of the processing periods will start for VAT refund claims under Section 112(A) of the 𝘛𝘢𝘹 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which was previously explained in the case of 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 (𝘊𝘐𝘙) 𝘷. 𝘋𝘰𝘩𝘭𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, based on changing policies.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰, the 120-day period starts from the date of the filing of the administrative claim once the taxpayer submits complete documents with the claim or manifests that they will no longer submit additional supporting documents. If the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) does not notify the taxpayer that their documents are incomplete, the 120-day period begins from the taxpayer’s submission. If the BIR notifies the taxpayer that additional documents are needed, the 120-day period begins from the submission or the end of the 30-day period given to submit additional documents.�

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰 𝘁𝗼 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟯𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟳, the 120-day period begins from the date of filing of the administrative claim for refund with complete supporting documents. The taxpayer is not allowed to submit additional documents after the filing of the claim.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟴 𝘁𝗼 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟭𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟭, the 𝘛𝘢𝘹 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘸 (𝘛𝘙𝘈𝘐𝘕 𝘓𝘢𝘸) shortened the 120-day period for the CIR to process administrative claims for VAT refund to 90 days. The 90-day period begins from the submission of the official receipts or invoices and other supporting documents for the application for VAT refund. If the documents are incomplete, the application will not be accepted. Any unsupported claim shall be outrightly disallowed, resulting in full or partial denial of the claim.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟭𝟵, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟭 𝘁𝗼 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟯𝟬, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯, the 90-day period begins from the submission of the official receipts or invoices and other supporting documents for the application for VAT refund. A 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 (𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵) was released by the BIR as basis for the completeness of the submitted documents.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰, the 90-day period begins from the submission of the official receipts or invoices and other supporting documents for the application for VAT refund, as provided in the 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟯𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, the 90-day period begins from the acceptance by the processing office of the claim or application for VAT refund with complete documents, as provided in the 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵. Applications with incomplete documents will not be accepted.

- For administrative claims for VAT refund or credit filed 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗼𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀, the 90-day period begins from the submission of the certified true copies of the invoices or official receipts and other supporting documents for the application for VAT refund, as provided in the 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵. If documents are incomplete, the application will not be received and processed by the processing office.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167773.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164115.

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

12/06/2026

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!
Maligayang Araw ng Kalayaan! 🇵🇭

08/06/2026

SC rejects Trademark registration for similar “W” logos

The has ruled that similarities in trademark or logo designs that may confuse purchasers prevent the registration of later marks, even if new words are added.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC’s (Starwood) consolidated petitions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings allowing the registration of Oceanic Empire Limited’s (Oceanic) marks.

Oceanic filed to register the trademarks “𝐖 𝐆𝐋𝐎𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑” and “𝐖 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐔𝐄” and had earlier secured registration for “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑.”

Starwood, owner of several registered "𝐖” trademarks for hotels and entertainment services, opposed the applications and sought the cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑,” arguing that Oceanic’s marks were confusingly similar to its trademarks.

Starwood argued that Oceanic would benefit from the popularity and reputation of its brand and that this would mislead the public into believing that Oceanic’s business was connected with Starwood.

Ruling in favor of Starwood, the SC explained that trademark protection prevents confusion of goods and businesses, and that only the likelihood, not actual proof, of confusion is required. Each case must be assessed based on the resemblance of the marks and the relatedness of the services.

Under the 𝗗𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁, emphasis is placed on the dominant or most striking features of the marks rather than on minor differences.

In this case, the SC ruled that "𝐖" is the dominant feature of both Starwood’s and Oceanic’s marks. While Starwood’s "𝐖" is registered as a word mark, the Court clarified that Starwood cannot claim the letter "𝐖," but only its distinct stylized version.

The Court stressed that purchasers would immediately notice the similarity between the parties’ "𝐖" marks. It held that minor textual differences do not change the fact that both use the same style, which looks visually similar.

The SC thus directed the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks to deny Oceanic’s application for registration of trademark, and to grant Starwood’s petition for cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑” mark.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166975.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164983.

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

08/06/2026

21/05/2026

𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐍𝐎. 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟒, 𝐬. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

Declaring Wednesday, 27 May 2026, a Regular Holiday Throughout the Country, in observance of Eid'l Adha (Feast of Sacrifice)

Visit the Official Gazette website: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/RJdUhv

19/05/2026