https://www.facebook.com/1094971910357805/

Atty. Joemar Paquio, San Rafael Street Tigbi, Tiwi (2026)

24/08/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

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

19/08/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sales agent’s promise to issue a Contract to Sell after payment of reservation fee is not an “advertisement” under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957, or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦, that would form part of developer’s warranties. However, the developer may still be required to refund a buyer if it fails to honor that promise.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ordered Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East) to refund the payments made by John Edrem Bautista (Bautista) after it failed to issue the promised Contract to Sell.

Bautista paid Empire East for a residential unit PHP 130,000, consisting of a PHP 20,000 reservation fee and PHP 110,000 in additional payments. He claimed he made the payments because Empire East’s sales agent promised to issue a Contract to Sell once he paid the reservation fee. When more than a year passed without the contract being issued, Bautista stopped making payments and demanded a refund.

The SC, agreeing with both the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) and the Court of Appeals which ruled in Bautista’s favor, held that Bautista was entitled to a refund but clarified that the sales agent’s promise did not fall under Section 19 of PD 957.

The SC clarified that Section 19, which mandates truthful and non-misleading advertisements and sales materials, applies only to materials intended for the general public, such as those in those in newspapers, radio, TV, or similar mass communication channels. It does not cover promises made by a sales agent to individual buyers.

The SC emphasized that buyers remain protected, as developers may still be held liable under their contractual obligations and other applicable laws.

The SC ordered Empire East to refund Bautista the PHP 130,000 with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the filing of the complaint in 2012, as well as to pay PHP 260,000 in exemplary damages, which courts award to discourage wrongful conduct and warn against similar actions.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171359.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/272556-1.pdf.

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

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.

11/08/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang mga empleyado na ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ay may karapatan hindi lamang sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 kundi maging sa paghuhulog ng kanilang mga kontribusyon sa Social Security System (SSS).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, nagpasya ang Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nagpapatuloy ang obligasyon ng employer na maghulog ng kontribusyon ng kawani nito sa SSS sa loob ng panahong saklaw ng ilegal na pagkakatanggal sa kawani.

Apat na manggagawa ang ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho ng Lopez Sugar Corporation (LSC). Inatasan ng National Labor Relations Commission ang LSC na ibalik ang apat sa kanilang dating mga posisyon at bayaran sila ng buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 . Nang maging pinal na ang desisyon, hiniling ng mga empleyado sa LSC na ihulog ang kanilang mga kontribusyon sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 para maging kwalipikado sila sa mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro.

Tumanggi ang LSC at iginiit na sa ilalim ng 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997, natatapos ang obligasyon nitong maghulog ng mga kontribusyon sa SSS sa oras na matigil ang pagtatrabaho ng mga empleyado, anuman ang dahilan o legalidad ng kanilang pagkakatanggal sa trabaho.

Isinantabi ng Social Security Commission (SSC) ang posisyon ng LSC at inatasan itong bayaran ang mga nasabing kontribusyon. Ayon sa SSC, dahil ilegal ang pagkakatanggal sa mga empleyado, itinuturing na nagpatuloy ang relasyon ng employer at empleyado sa panahong hindi sila nakapagtrabaho dahil sa kanilang ilegal na pagkakatanggal.

Sa pagpapatibay na nanatiling obligado ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon ng mga empleyado sa SSS para sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 294 ng 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 ay may karapatan ang mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho sa buong 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 at iba pang mga benepisyo.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, itinuturing na nagpapatuloy ang pagtatrabaho ng mga nasabing empleyado sa panahong saklaw ng kanilang 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴. Dahil dito, may karapatan sila sa benepisyong dapat na naipagkaloob sa kanila sa panahong iyon.

Dahil nabigo ang LSC na ihulog ang mga kontribusyon sa 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 ng mga empleyadong ilegal na tinanggal sa trabaho, pinanagot ito ng Korte Suprema sa pagbabayad ng tatlong porsiyentong multa bawat buwan sa mga naturang kontribusyon.

Basahin ang 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170676.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165713.

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

28/05/2026

Commissioned as Notary Public for and in the Province of Albay

15/05/2026

The has ruled that non-verbal threatening gestures with criminal intent may be considered grave threats under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gesture of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.

But it clarified that the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.

Israel, who claimed to be a Belgian architect allowed to practice his profession in the Philippines, was hired by Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville for the construction of their building. After Israel refused to correct the construction defects in the said building, Navez and Denonville filed a case for damages against him.

Sometime in 2017, while Navez and Denonville were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Israel’s motorcycle. The latter then allegedly made two overt gestures: pointing his fingers at Navez’s head as if pulling a gun trigger and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead Navez.

Israel was convicted of grave threats. When his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, he sought relief from the SC, arguing that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts, and that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not cover pure non-verbal gestures.

The SC acquitted Israel after finding that criminal intent was not proven. But it disagreed with his other argument, ruling that non-verbal gestures may be considered grave threats.

To convict for grave threats, the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 requires two elements: the 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 and the 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲.

The SC held that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not differentiate between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures. What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate.

Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Therefore, threats can be either verbal or non-verbal.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166072.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164941.

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

11/05/2026

Nilinaw ng na ang kawalan ng isang kontraktor ng mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya ay hindi agad nangangahulugan na sangkot ito sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting kung hindi naman kailangan ang mga kagamitam sa mismong trabahong ipinakontrata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, idineklara ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong job contractor ang MMA Competent Manpower & General Services, Inc. (MMA) at siyang tunay na employer nina Richard Delera at Dionel Quiling (mga nagpetisyon).

Isang domestic corporation ang MMA na nag-aalok ng human resource at support services sa mga kliyente, kabilang ang Philippine Foremost Milling Corp. (PFMC) kaugnay sa flour milling at Amigo Logistics Corp. (Amigo) na namamahala sa logistics tulad ng warehousing at trucking.

Itinalaga ng MMA ang mga nagpetisyon sa PFMC at Amigo bilang feed mill bagger at pollard stacker. Matapos silang maiulat dahil sa mga paglabag sa patakaran, isinailalim sila sa preventive suspension ng MMA ngunit napawalang-sala at napawalang-bisa ang mga paratang laban sa kanila.

Hiniling ng PFMC at Amigo ang reassignment ng mga nagpetisyon. Kinailangan silang ilagay ng MMA sa floating status noong una pero kalaunan ay inalok ng reassignment sa Cavite at Bataan, na kanilang tinanggihan. Nagsampa sila ng reklamo para sa iligal na dismissal. Sinabi nilang isang labor-only contractor ang MMA at mga regular na empleyado sila ng PFMC at Amigo.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong kontraktor ng paggawa ang MMA, na may malaking pondo na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 27 milyon, kahit na wala itong mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya.

Kinilala ng Korte Suprema ang pagkakaiba ng legitimate labor contracting (lehitimong pangongontrata ng paggawa) at ng ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting. Sa lehitimong pangongontrata, maaaring kumuha ang mga employer ng isang kontraktor para magsagawa ng mga partikular na trabaho, basta’t sapat ang pondo at mga kagamitan ng kontraktor. Sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting, nagbibigay lamang ang kontraktor ng mga manggagawa nang walang sapat na pondo at kagamitan, at nagsasagawa ang mga manggagawa ng mga tungkuling direktang may kaugnayan sa pangunahing negosyo ng employer.

Sa kasong Conqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v. Balingbing, na nagbibigay ng limitadong eksepsiyon kung saan ang trabaho ay pansuporta lamang at hindi nangangailangan ng mga kagamitan, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na nagsagawa ang mga nagpetisyon ng mga post-production na gawain katulad ng pagpapakete at pag-iimbak, na sumusuporta lamang sa operasyon ng PFMC at Amigo.

Dahil hindi nangangailangan ng espesyal na makinarya o teknikal na kadalubhasaan ang mga tungkuling ito, nagpasya ang Korte na maaari itong ipakontrata kahit walang malaking pamumuhunan sa mga kagamitan.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165353.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164807.

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

07/05/2026

The has disbarred a lawyer for using a false Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in his pleadings.

In a 𝘗𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘮 Decision, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 disbarred Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo (Atty. Hidalgo) for dishonest conduct in violation of the 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘊𝘗𝘙𝘈).

Atty. Hidalgo represented the defendant in a malicious prosecution case pending before Branch 153, Regional Trial Court, Biñan City. In the answer he filed for his client, Atty. Hidalgo included his MCLE compliance number, which is required for lawyers.

The plaintiff's lawyer filed a motion to expunge Atty. Hidalgo's answer from the records, claiming that he did not actually comply with the MCLE requirements. Attached to the motion was a Certification from the MCLE Office stating that Atty. Hidalgo had not complied from the first compliance period up to the present.

In ordering the disbarment of Atty. Hidalgo, the SC emphasized that Canon II of the 𝘊𝘗𝘙𝘈 requires lawyers to act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior.

Lawyers are also required under Canon III to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for laws and legal processes.

The SC held that Atty. Hidalgo violated these Canons, stating that his act of indicating false information in the pleadings he filed “constitutes bad faith and dishonesty, and shows blatant disrespect of the courts and its rules.”

The SC also fined Atty. Hidalgo PHP 35,000 for willful disobedience, a less serious offense, for ignoring the IBP's order when he did not submit an answer and a verified position paper.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164745.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164728.

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

06/05/2026

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name, was marked "𝘕/𝘈" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.

In reversing the accused’s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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

05/05/2026

THE LEGAL MIND | Can misconduct cost a student her academic honors?

A Grade 12 student, attacked a schoolmate and was suspended after due process. Although academically qualified for honors, she was delisted from the honor roll under the school’s handbook but was still allowed to march on graduation day. Her guardian rejected the decision, and she verbally attacked school authorities both in person and online, and eventually filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s regional office.

"Was the school correct in disqualifying the student from the school’s honor list?

Yes.

Legally speaking, while the relationship between a student and a private school is imbued with public interest, it remains essentially contractual."

Read the full article in the comments below.

Atty. Joemar Paquio

24/08/2026

19/08/2026

17/08/2026

11/08/2026

28/05/2026

15/05/2026

11/05/2026

07/05/2026

06/05/2026

05/05/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request