PHD Law Office

13/01/2026

A DOSE OF LAW | Filing to ex*****on: What’s new under the 2025 NLRC Rules of Procedure

Published 12 January 2026, The Daily Tribune

On 1 December 2025, the National Labor Relations Commission issued En Banc Resolution 09-25, approving and promulgating revised procedural rules for labor cases. Published on 29 December 2025 and effective on 13 January 2026, these replace the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, and introduce significant reforms in labor adjudication.

Dean Nilo Divina talks about the key changes in the 2025 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

Please check the comments for the link.

07/01/2026

Congratulations! Welcome to the legal profession. ⚖️

28/10/2025

The has approved the “Rules on Extradition Proceedings."

The new rules will take effect on November 10, 2025, following their publication in the Official Gazette, in two newspapers of general circulation, and on the Supreme Court website.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 22-03-29-SC here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=154454

28/09/2025

SUPREME COURT: NOTARY PUBLIC CAN'T PERFORM NOTARIAL ACT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF SIGNATORY

| The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for being commissioned as a notary public for six months after he notarized a document without requiring one of the signatories thereto to personally appear before him.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division has found Atty. Arnulfo Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he was barred from being commissioned as a notary public for six months.

The administrative complaint stemmed from the disbarment cases filed by Macario Mina against Attys. Arnulfo Manigos, Florencio Anchuvas, and Roberto Arca on the ground that they committed falsehood and have intentionally misled the Court.

Mina alleged that Atty. Manigos notarized an instrument without requiring one of the authors thereto to personally appear before him. He claimed that the signatory could not have appeared before Atty. Manigos on the day the document was notarized because the former travelled to the United States.

As regards Atty. Arca and Atty. Anchuvas, Mina contended that they conspired in the notarization of the subject documents. In response, Atty. Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of the signatory therein. However, he claimed that he notarized the document only after he was convinced by his personal examination of the document that the signatory in fact executed and signed the same.

Meanwhile, Atty. Arca vehemently denied the accusations, and Atty. Anchuvas failed to submit a response on the complaint. In its report and recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable for violation of Rule 4, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules), but absolved Atty. Anchuvas.

The high court upheld and adopted the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors with respect to Atty. Manigos. It found that the act of Atty. Manigos notarizing a document even though the signatory thereto did not personally appear before him is a violation of notarial rules.

It cited the 2004 Notarial Rules, which provide that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these rules.

“The requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signature,” the Supreme Court said.

On the other hand, as to the complaints against Attys. Arca and Anchuvas, it dismissed the same due to the failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims.

18/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 13-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Arnold Alfonso and Michelle Pamintuan-Alfonso on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Arnold and Michelle were high school classmates. In 1997, or eight years after their graduation, they unexpectedly met. Since then, they have become close and regularly exchanged phone calls.

Despite being in a relationship with another man, Michelle often visited Arnold's apartment. Later on Michelle and Arnold spent the night at the latter's apartment, where the two engaged in unprotected sexual in*******se that resulted in Michelle's unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.

At first, Michelle was contemplating aborting the child, but Arnold convinced her otherwise and offered marriage. After the wedding, Michelle and Arnold resided at the parental house. They were blessed with three children.

A year later their relationship turned sour. Arnold noticed the changes in Michelle's behavior. Michelle would be verbally aggressive towards him, crying loudly to gain sympathy from their neighbors. She also refused to do household chores or care for their children, instead relying on her mother to fulfill her domestic responsibilities.

Arnold also observed that Michelle has a luxurious lifestyle, which caused her to obtain looming debts from various people. It reached the extent that Arnold's father paid Michelle's debt to save her from being sued.

Over time, Arnold felt Michelle's growing coldness towards him. Michelle disavowed fulfilling his sexual needs by making excuses that she is tired and not in the mood.

Sometime in 2010, Michelle informed Arnold that she had secured a job that required deployment to Bicol for one month. However, to his surprise, Arnold later learned that Michelle was having an affair with another man. Since then, Michelle has refused to communicate with him and their children.

This paved the way for Arnold to file a petition for nullification of their marriage on the ground of Michelle's psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital obligations.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and nullified their marriage, but it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Arnold to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting Arnold's petition, the high court held that he was able to illustrate that the incapacity of Michelle was so grave or serious that it already impaired her from carrying out the required ordinary marital duties. It gave credence to the psychological report, which diagnosed Michelle with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The SC also emphasized that the incapacity of Michelle was incurable, as the pattern of persistent failure to assume her essential marital obligations was proven. It also took into account the instance where Michelle entered into an illicit affair with another man.

“In every marriage lies the vinculum juris—the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law. This vinculum juris imposes upon each spouse the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,” the Supreme Court said.

“Thus, in the present case, we hold that Michelle's psychological incapacity existed prior to and during the celebration of the marriage; the vinculum juris is deemed never to have validly arisen,” it added.

03/09/2025

Iginiit ng ang mga angkop na legal na paraan para sa pagbawi ng lupa depende sa kung ito ay para sa posesyon (possession) at/o pagmamay-ari (ownership) nito, gayundin ang mga nalalapat na prescriptive period. Kasama sa mga remedyong ito ang accion interdictal o ejectment, accion publiciana, at accion reivindicatoria.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, sinabi ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema na tama si Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) sa paghain ng accion publiciana para mabawi ang posesyon ng kanyang lupain. Sa pangkalahatan, maaari lang ihain ang accion publiciana kapag higit sa isang taon na ang lumipas mula sa pagkakaalis ng posesyon. Pero maaari pa rin itong ihain nang mas maaga kung nangyari ito nang walang halong puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o panlilinlang.

Nagpasya din ang Korte Suprema na hindi isang accion reivindicatoria ang inihain ni Espinosa dahil hindi niya hiniling sa kanyang reklamo ang pagbawi ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa.

Matapos bilhin ang ari-arian, nalaman ni Espinosa na inuokupa ang isang bahagi nito ng mag-asawang Noel at Leny Agullo. Nang tumanggi silang umalis sa kabila ng kanyang kahilingan, nagsampa si Espinosa ng reklamo para sa pagbawi ng posesyon ng lupa sa Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Tinanggihan ng RTC ang reklamo nang walang paglilitis at nagpasya na masyadong maaga itong isinampa. Ipinaliwanag nito na mayroon pa ring opsyon si Espinosa na magsampa ng kaso ng ejectment na dapat gawin sa loob ng isang taon mula nang matuklasan niya ang hindi awtorisadong pag-okupa sa kanyang lupain. Napaaga ang reklamo dahil maaari lang umano ihain ang isang accion publiciana sa pangkalahatan pagkatapos lumipas ang isang taon.

Gayunpaman, binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng RTC. Nakita nito na hindi isang accion publiciana kundi isang accion reivindicatoria ang reklamo ni Espinosa dahil sinikap niyang mabawi ang lupa batay sa kanyang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian.

Sa kanilang Petisyon sa Korte Suprema, iginiit ng mag-asawang Agullo na isang accion publiciana na maagang isinampa ang kaso ni Espinosa dahil wala pang isang taon ang lumipas mula nang mawala sa kanila ang posesyon ng lupa.

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang Petisyon. Nilinaw nito ang iba't ibang legal na aksyon na magagamit para sa mga paghahabol na may kaugnayan sa lupa:
• Accion interdictal o isang summary ejectment case;
• Accion publiciana; at
• Accion reivindicatoria.

Inihahain ang summary ejectment case para mabawi ang pisikal na posesyon ng lupa kapag ang pag-aalis ay dahil sa puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o pagnanakaw at hindi pa tumatagal ng higit sa isang taon.

Inihahain naman ang isang accion publiciana para mabawi ang posesyon ng lupa kapag higit sa isang taon ang lumipas mula nang mapunta sa iba ang lupa, o kahit wala pang isang taon kung walang ginamit na puwersa o katulad na pamamaraan.

Sa kabilang banda, inihahain ang isang accion reivindicatoria para mabawi ang parehong pagmamay-ari at posesyon batay sa pagmamay-ari na iyon.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, sa accion publiciana, ang isyu ay kung sino ang may mas mabuting karapatan na angkinin ang lupa nang hindi kinakailangang mag-claim ng pagmamay-ari. Sa kabaliktaran, sa accion reivindicatoria, tinutukoy kung sino ang nagmamay-ari ng lupa, at ang posesyon ng lupa ay ibinibigay sa nararapat na may-ari.

Sa kasong ito, ang aksyon ay publiciana at hindi reinvindicatoria dahil ang hiniling sa reklamo ay mabawi ang posesyon at hindi ang pagmamay-ari ng lupa. Dagdag pa nito, hindi kwinestiyon ng mag-asawang Agullo ang titulo ni Espinosa.

Sinabi ng Korte na hindi napaaga ang aksyon dahil maaaring magsampa ang isang accion publiciana kahit sa loob ng isang taon mula sa pagkakaalis sa lupa kung walang puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o panlilinlang na ginamit. Dahil hindi sinabi ni Espinosa na ginamit ng mag-asawang Agullo ang alinman sa mga paraan na ito, wastong naihain ang aksyon.

Inutusan ng Korte Suprema ang RTC na magpatuloy sa paglilitis at pagdesisyunan ang kaso.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa.

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

13/08/2025

25/07/2025

The (SC) En Banc, during its session today, July 25, 2025, has declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

However, the SC said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her. But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.

The ruling of the SC is immediately executory. It shall be deemed served on the petitioners and promulgated upon publication in the SC website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte. The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day. This was followed by two petitions filed before the SC challenging its constitutionality.

The SC voted 13-0-2, with the Justices present voting unanimously to grant the petitions to annul the Articles of Impeachment, and Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave.

The Decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Decision differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.

The SC took note that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the HOR.

The SC also determined that due process applies to the impeachment process. It laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings:

1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with HOR members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.

2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.

3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the HOR, not only those who are being considered to endorse.

4. The respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from HOR members.

5. The HOR must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The SC, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitioner—who invokes the SC’s power to review—should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.

6. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI, Section 2 or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate. For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy.

7. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard, the HOR is required to:

(a) Provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the HOR rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial; and

(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the HOR. It is the HOR—not one-third of the HOR—that has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal however will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the HOR.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/596r7cde.

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

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando at https://tinyurl.com/3cjtcpjv.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3wdhk52w.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://tinyurl.com/mr47p9ux.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/mr22rane.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://tinyurl.com/u9um2h54.

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

24/07/2025

📢 𝗖𝗦𝗖 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 (𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗦)!

The updated RACCS reflects key laws, Supreme Court rulings, and evolving governance practices streamlines how disciplinary and non-disciplinary cases are handled in government.

Chairperson Atty. Marilyn B. Yap, DPA led the Commission to act swiftly in completing the RACCS and ensuring its swift release to strengthen capabilities at resolving disciplinary cases. This revised framework promotes accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the civil service.

Key features include:
⚖️ Integration of RA No. 11032 and RA No. 9285
👩‍⚖️ Virtual and clarificatory hearings
📄 Electronic filing
💼 Revised rules on dishonesty and sexual harassment cases

📖 Read the full news release here: https://csc.gov.ph/csc-revises-rules-on-administrative-cases-in-the-civil-service

17/07/2025