SGS LAW

26/01/2026

22/12/2025

The has clarified that the proper term for the crime under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊) is 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 and not 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for ra**ng a 13-year-old girl, sentencing him to a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

Under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC, 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 is committed when a man has sexual in*******se with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.

The SC affirmed his conviction and also took the opportunity to clarify that the crime should be referred to as 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 instead of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦:

“After all, there is nothing ‘simple’ about R**e and referring to it in such a manner downplays its severity and desensitizes the public to the harm it inflicts,” said the SC.

While 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 was initially classified as a crime against chastity under Article 335 of the RPC, Republic Act No. 8353, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘙𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘓𝘢𝘸 𝘰𝘧 1997, reclassified it as a crime against persons.

Crimes against chastity, such as adultery and seduction, are generally private crimes which focus on protecting the victim’s honor.

On the other hand, crimes against persons, such as homicide, murder, and physical injuries, aim to protect individuals’ bodily integrity and well-being.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

06/11/2025

The has reiterated that just compensation in land expropriation cases must be based on all relevant factors, not just market value.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) the case between the City Government of Pasay (Pasay LGU) and Arellano University (University) to reassess the amount of just compensation owed to the latter.

The University filed a complaint before the RTC in 2015, claiming that the Pasay LGU took its 805-sq. m. parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro and turned it into a public road, now known as Menlo Street, without going through proper expropriation proceedings or paying just compensation. The parties subsequently referred the matter to a board of commissioners composed of Pasay LGU officials.

The board used a base value of PHP200/sq. m. based on the 1978 General Revision of the City Assessor’s Office, then added 6% annual interest from 1978, the year the street was discovered, up to 2017, resulting in a value of PHP2,060/sq. m.

The University disagreed and proposed a total compensation of PHP 5,793,664.63, arguing that the interest should be based on the rates published by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

The RTC adopted the board’s base value but applied a different interest rate, ordering Pasay LGU to pay PHP 161,000 plus 12% annual interest from 1978 to 2018.

The CA remanded the case to the RTC, ruling that the RTC relied solely on the 1978 assessment and ignored other relevant factors.

The SC upheld the CA, finding that the RTC’s decision was based on incomplete data.

Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The SC emphasized that just compensation must be real, substantial, full, and ample, and that determining this amount is a matter for the courts to decide.

The SC clarified that although local government assessors provide appraisals, these are not controlling in expropriation cases. Such appraisals often cover broad areas and do not account for specific property differences. They rely on general descriptions and may be inaccurate. And while tax values can serve as a guideline, they cannot substitute for a comprehensive assessment of just compensation.

Thus, courts must use a “totality of circumstances” approach, considering all facts about the property’s condition, surroundings, existing improvements, and capabilities. These include the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, acquisition cost, tax declarations, size, shape, location, and the current value of similar properties.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153762

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153692

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153737

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

13/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

16/08/2025

PRACTICE AREAS

🔹 Notarial Services & Document Preparation

🔹 Civil & Criminal Litigation
• Handling of Cases before lower courts (MTC, MeTC, RTC)
• Appeals and Original Actions before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
• Pre-court proceedings before the Prosecutor’s Office
• Pleading preparation

🔹 Business & Corporate Law
• Contract Drafting and Review
• Retainer Services
• Business/Corporate Registration
• Corporate Compliance & Housekeeping
• Corporate Secretarial Services
• Corporate Litigation
• Corporate Due Diligence

🔹 Intellectual Property
• Intellectual Property Protection
• Trademark Registration
• Copyright Registration
• Patent, Industrial Design and Utility Model Registration

🔹 Information Technology & Data Privacy
• Data Privacy Protection
• Data Privacy Compliance
• IT Law Consultation

🔹 Real Property Transactions
• Processing of Sales, Leases and Transfer of Real Property
• Registration of Title
• Land Dispute legal assistance
• Eviction/Demolition Assistance
• Quieting of Title, Reconstitution of Title, and other title-related concerns
• Due Diligence

🔹 Government Procurement & Relations
• Procurement Assistance before government agencies and instrumentalities, and GOCCs.
• Administrative Cases, including preparation of pleadings (Memoranda or Position Papers) before agencies such as the SEC, DOLE, NLRC, BSP, PDIC, IPO, DAR, COA, CSC, HSAC, OP, LRA, GPPB, DA, PCUP, etc.)

🔹 Labor & HR Compliance
• Labor Cases before the NLRC
• Legal Compliance
• Preparation of Position Papers
• Termination Cases
• Labor Relations

🔹 Agrarian & Banking Law
• Agrarian Cases before the DARAB and DAR Secretary and DAR Regional/Provincial Offices
• Processing of Transfer of CLOA, EP and other Agrarian Titles
• Land Use Conversion Assistance
• Banking Law
• Banking Insurance
• Islamic Banking and Finance

🔹 Estate Management and Planning
• Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate
• Judicial Settlement of Estate

📞 (02) 7000-6368
83-A Malakas Street, Quezon City
📧 [email protected]

16/08/2025

01/08/2025

The (SC) has clarified that being listed in a corporation’s General Information Sheet (GIS) is not enough to prove someone is a stockholder.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted a motion for reconsideration of its earlier Decision and ruled that Ma. Christina Patricia C. Lopez (Christina) and John Rusty Lito Lopez (John Rusty) are not stockholders of LC Lopez and Conqueror, despite being listed in the companies’ GIS submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The case stemmed from special stockholders’ meetings held by the two companies to elect new board members. Christina and John Rusty sent proxies to participate, but the companies rejected them, stating that their principals were not registered stockholders. The meetings proceeded, and new directors were elected.

Christina and John Rusty challenged the elections before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that their exclusion invalidated the election due to a lack of quorum. The RTC ruled in their favor, relying on the GIS as proof of their stockholder status.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, pointing out that their names did not appear in the companies’ stock and transfer books.

The SC initially upheld the RTC’s decision, considering the GIS and witness testimonies as sufficient evidence. Respondent board of directors, however, moved for reconsideration.

In granting the motion, the SC clarified that the stock and transfer book is the primary and official record of a corporation’s stockholders. A person must also present a stock certification issued in their name to prove ownership of shares.

Under Section 62 of the Revised Corporation Code, a transfer of shares is not valid—except between the parties—until it is properly recorded in the company's books.

The SC ruled that being listed in the GIS does not make one a stockholder, and that the stock and transfer book prevails.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/35m52bke.

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://tinyurl.com/5n75bf7s.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at https://tinyurl.com/a5jwrd4d.

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

14/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that the 15-year time limit for filing a bigamy case begins only when the bigamous marriage is actually discovered, not when it is registered with the government.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division found Erwin Bonbon guilty of bigamy after marrying Elizabeth Bonbon in 1999 while still legally married to another woman.

Records show that Erwin first married Gemma Cunada in 1988. Without ending that marriage, he married another woman in 1994 and then Elizabeth in 1999.

Erwin’s sisters learned about the third marriage in 2020 when they obtained documents from the Philippine Statistics Authority to claim their late mother’s benefits. They filed a bigamy case against Erwin and Elizabeth in 2021, 22 years after Erwin’s marriage to Elizabeth.

Erwin argued that the case was filed too late and had prescribed, claiming his sisters already knew about the marriage in 1999.

The SC disagreed and upheld the rulings of both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which had convicted Erwin of bigamy.

Sentencing Erwin to up to eight years and one day in prison, the SC explained that under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, bigamy is committed when a person who is still legally married enters into another marriage that appears to be valid.

A case for bigamy must be filed within 15 years from the time the second marriage is actually discovered, not just registered. Since bigamous marriages are often kept secret, using the date of registration as the starting point for the time limit would make prosecution “almost impossible.”

In this instance, Erwin’s sisters learned about the marriage only in 2020; Erwin could not prove that they had been aware of it since 1999.

He also admitted that no family members attended the civil wedding, which took place in a different province. The case filed in 2021 thus remained within the 15-year legal limit.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/ynu8t7jr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4u5bnvjy.

Read the Separate Concurrent Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/5n7ksdk7.

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

17/02/2025

We are thrilled to announce the opening of SGS LAW this Saturday, 2.22.2025!

Our team of dedicated attorneys is here to provide you with exceptional legal services tailored to meet your needs.

Visit us soon at our new office located at Unit 3, 83-A Malakas Street, Quezon City. For more information or to schedule a consultation, please contact us at 0917-651-4602 or visit our page LAW. https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61572570999373

SEE YOU!