Atty. Raisa S. Barrameda

03/03/2026

Muling iginiit ng na ang mga corporate directors at officers ay maaaring singilin para sa kabuuang halaga ng pananagutan ng manning agency para sa pagbabayad ng mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ng mga seafarer o marino sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 8042 o ang Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinagbigyan ng Special First Division ng Korte Suprema ang motion for partial reconsideration sa naunang Desisyon nito na tanging Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) at Princess Cruises Ltd. (Princess Cruises) ang pinapanagot para sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ng seafarer nito. Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na solidarily liable si Magsaysay Fleet Director Sorwin Joy G. Rivera (Rivera) na ibig sabihin ay maaari siya ang pagbayarin ng buong halagang dapat bayaran.

Kinuha ng manning agency na Magsaysay si Ruthgar T. Parce (Parce) bilang electrical fitter para sa foreign principal nitong Princess Cruises. Matapos siyang masugatan habang nagtatrabaho sa barko, pinabalik siya sa Maynila, kung saan na-diagnose siya ng itinalagang doktor ng kumpanya na siya ay may rotator tendinitis sa kanyang balikat at inirerekomenda nito ang physical therapy.

Pagkalipas ng ilang buwan, sinabihan si Parce na naabot na niya ang maximum na medikal na pagpapagamot at hindi na ipagpapatuloy ang kanyang sickness allowance. Batay dito, idineklara siyang angkop nang magtrabaho sa Princess Cruises.

Humingi si Parce ng pangalawang medikal na opinyon dahil patuloy siyang nakaramdam ng kirot. Sinabi sa kanyang ng kinunsultang doktor na hindi sya karapat-dapat para sa trabahong pandagat. Hiniling ni Parce sa Magsaysay na magpatingin sa pangatlong doktor, ayon na rin sa patakaran, at humingi rin siya ng kopya ng kanyang talaang medikal. Tinanggihan ito ng Magsaysay na humingi ng kopya ng ulat ng pangalawang doktor para tingnan ang isang posibleng pag-aayos. Nagsampa ng reklamo si Parce sa Labor Arbiter (LA) para sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan at reimbursement ng mga gastusing medikal.

Nagpasya ang LA pabor sa kanya at inatasan ang Magsaysay at Princess Cruises na magbayad ng USD 60,000 sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan. Sinabi ng LA ang hindi kumpleto ang ulat ng itinalagang doktor ng kumpanya dahil nabigo itong sabihin ng klaro na karapat-dapat na magtrabaho si Parce. Pinagtibay ng National Labor Relations Commission ang LA at sinabing dapat managot si Rivera kasama ng Magsaysay at Princess Cruises.

Binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon at binigyang-pansin na hindi agad kinuwestiyon ni Parce ang kanyang medical assessment na nagpahina sa kanyang kaso.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema na nagsabing dapat managot ang Magsaysay at Princess Cruises dahil hindi kumpleto ang ulat ng doktor na itinalaga ng kumpanya na hindi nagbigay kay Parce ng anumang dokumento para makipaglaban nang maayos. Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng LA na itinuring nang permanenteng may kapansanan si Parce sa ilalim ng batas.

Naghain si Parce ng motion for partial reconsideration na hinihiling na ideklara ring solidarily liable si Rivera kasama ng mga kumpanya. Pinagbigyan ito ng Korte Suprema.

Ayon sa Section 10 ng Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, o ang Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, malinaw na kapag ang isang recruitment agency ay isang korporasyon o partnership, ang mga opisyal, direktor, o partner nito ay mananagot ito sa kumpanya para sa anumang mga claim sa pera na iginawad sa mga overseas Filipino workers.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na habang ang mga opisyal ng korporasyon ay, sa pangkalahatan, hindi personal na mananagot para sa mga kontratang pinasok ng kanilang kumpanya, nalalapat ang isang eksepsiyon kapag partikular ang isang batas na nagpapanagot sa kanila. Sa kasong ito, si Rivera, isang corporate officer ng Magsaysay, ay pinanagutan ng kumpanya para sa permanenteng mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ni Parce. Pinangalanan si Rivera sa reklamo bilang "Owner/President/Manager" at pumirma sa kontrata sa pagtatrabaho sa ngalan ng kumpanya.

Dagdag ng Korte Suprema, nang mag-apply ang Magsaysay para sa lisensya nito para gumana bilang isang manning agency, inatasan ang mga opisyal at direktor nito, sa ilalim ng Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Rules, na magsumite ng isang verified undertaking na ginagawa silang solidarily liable para sa mga claim na nagmumula sa relasyon ng employer-employee.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na ang Section 10 ng RA 8042 at ang kaugnay na Mga Panuntunan ng POEA ay itinuturing na bahagi ng kontrata sa pagtatrabaho ng bawat marino. Ang mga probisyong ito ay naaayon sa patakaran ng Estado sa pagbibigay ng proteksiyon sa paggawa at pagpapagaan sa kalagayan ng mga manggagawa at nilayon upang tiyakin ang mga manggagawang Pilipino sa ibang bansa na agaran at sapat na pagbabayad ng dapat sa kanila, ayon sa Korte Suprema.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161450.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161442.

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

03/03/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the manning agency for the payment of disability benefits to seafarers under Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Special First Division granted the motion for partial reconsideration of its earlier Decision, which had held that only Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) and Princess Cruises Ltd. (Princess Cruises) are liable for the disability benefits of its seafarer. The SC ruled that Magsaysay Fleet Director Sorwin Joy G. Rivera (Rivera) is also solidarily liable, meaning he can be made to pay the full amount due.

Magsaysay, a manning agency, hired Ruthgar T. Parce as an electrical fitter for its foreign principal, Princess Cruises. After he was injured while working on board, he was sent back to Manila, where the company-designated doctor diagnosed him with rotator tendinitis in his shoulder and recommended physical therapy.

Months later, Parce was told he had reached the maximum medical treatment and that his sickness allowance would be discontinued. Based on this, Princess Cruises found him fit to work.

Parce continued to feel pain, so he sought a second medical opinion. The doctor he consulted found him unfit for sea duty. Parce then requested Magsaysay for a referral to a third doctor, as required under the rules, and for copies of his medical records. Magsaysay refused and asked instead for a copy of the second doctor’s report to explore a possible settlement. Parce then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses.

The LA ruled in his favor, ordering Magsaysay and Princess Cruises to pay Parce USD 60,000 in disability benefits. The LA considered the company-designated doctor’s report incomplete because it failed to clearly state that Parce was fit to work. The National Labor Relations Commission upheld the LA and also stated that Rivera was liable alongside Magsaysay and Princess Cruises.

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, noting that Parce did not immediately question his medical assessment, which weakened his case.

The SC disagreed. It held Magsaysay and Princess Cruises liable because the company-designated doctor’s report was incomplete, giving Parce nothing to properly contest. The SC affirmed the LA’s ruling that he was already deemed permanently disabled under the law.

Parce filed a motion for partial reconsideration, asking the SC to also declare Rivera solidarily liable with the companies. The SC granted the motion.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, clearly provides that when a recruitment agency is a corporation or partnership, its officers, directors, or partners are liable with the company for any money claims awarded to overseas Filipino workers.

The SC explained that while corporate officers are generally not personally liable for contracts entered into by their company, an exception applies when a law specifically makes them accountable. In this case, Rivera, a corporate officer of Magsaysay, was held solidarily liable with the company for Parce’s permanent disability benefits. Rivera was named in the complaint as “Owner/President/Manager” and had signed the employment contract on behalf of the company.

The SC added that when Magsaysay applied for its license to operate as a manning agency, its officers and directors were required, under Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Rules, to submit a verified undertaking, making them solidarily liable for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship.

The SC emphasized that Section 10 of RA 8042 and the relevant POEA Rules are considered part of every seafarer’s employment contract. “These provisions are in line with the State’s policy of affording protection to labor and alleviating the workers’ plight and are meant to assure overseas Filipino workers immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them,” the SC said.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161450

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161442

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

02/03/2026

For the guidelines on the assignment of judges for night court duty, please see A.M. No. 25-10-18-SC (https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161361).

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161372.

02/03/2026

25/02/2026

On March 3, 2026, the (SC), led by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, will formally launch Phase 1 of the 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘪𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 (𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚) 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘭, a centralized digital platform that will streamline how lawyers report and monitor compliance with the mandatory delivery of 𝘱𝘳𝘰 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘰 legal aid services to underprivileged and indigent Filipinos.

The launch will be held at the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Session Hall at 1 PM.

In the same event, the ULAS Office (ULASO) will also hold an Inter-agency Partnership Ceremony and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Anti-Poverty Commission, Commission on Human Rights, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, and the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor. These agencies will coordinate with ULASO in identifying and referring individuals who may be qualified beneficiaries of free legal services.

The Launch will be livestreamed on the SC’s official social media accounts. Lawyers are encouraged to join online, as the program will feature instructional videos on how to navigate the Portal, along with insights and best practices from lawyers on how to comply effectively with the ULAS requirement.

The public is also invited to view the livestreamed Launch to learn how qualified beneficiaries can access the free legal services available through ULAS.

Under the 𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴, covered lawyers must render at least 60 hours of legal aid services every three years to individuals who cannot afford adequate legal representation.

For more information on ULAS, visit the ULAS Microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ulas/.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161202

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

20/01/2026

The (SC) has found Francis Leo Marcos guilty of indirect contempt and ordered him to pay a fine of PHP 30,000 after the Court held him liable for flagrant disrespect of the authority of the Court when he filed a Petition, asked for injunctive relief, only to withdraw his senatorial candidacy in the 2025 elections after the Court has already issued the temporary restraining order (TRO) he sought.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 held that Marcos abused court processes when he withdrew his senatorial candidacy in the 2025 elections, days after the SC issued the TRO he requested to stop the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from declaring him a nuisance candidate.

Marcos filed his candidacy for Senator in the 2025 elections. However, the COMELEC declared him a nuisance candidate due to his lack of political affiliation and governmental platform and the similarity of his surname to that of another candidate, Senator Imee Marcos, which could cause confusion among voters.

Marcos challenged this before the SC, arguing that the COMELEC violated his right to due process and equal protection when he was not afforded a chance to defend himself. He also asked for a TRO to prevent the COMELEC from excluding his name from the official ballots while the case was pending.

The SC issued the TRO, temporarily prohibiting the COMELEC from implementing its decision.

But only two days later, the COMELEC informed the SC that Marcos had withdrawn his candidacy, rendering his petition moot. The COMELEC deleted his name from the candidates’ database and began printing the ballots.

The SC ordered Marcos to explain why he should not be cited in contempt for his actions that showed disrespect for the SC’s processes.

Marcos apologized to the SC. He explained that he withdrew his candidacy after learning that ballot printing had already begun and that including his name would delay the process and be costly to the government.

The SC dismissed his argument saying that Marcos should have considered the consequences of filing a petition before the SC or withdrawing his candidacy immediately after obtaining a TRO.

The SC cited Rule 71, Section 3 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 punishing conduct that disrespects the dignity and authority of the court. The SC emphasized that this is necessary to preserve order in judicial proceedings and ensure the stability of the courts.

The SC said that individuals cannot simply bend the legal system to suit their personal whims. Otherwise, this would undermine the rule of law and set a “dangerous precedent of chaos over order.”

The SC ruled that Marcos’ actions amounted to indirect contempt for misusing its processes and wasting its time. It found his actions weakened public confidence in the electoral process and diminished the respect owed to judicial authority, effectively making a mockery of both the COMELEC and the SC.

Aside from imposing the PHP 30,000 fine, the SC dismissed Marcos’ petition challenging the COMELEC’s decision that declared him a nuisance candidate for being moot. The SC also lifted the TRO it had earlier issued against the poll body.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159349

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159333

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

26/12/2025

Naglabas ang ng mga gabay sa pagpapatunay ng pagkakakilanlan ng may-ari o gumagamit sa isang 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa mga kasong kriminal.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol sa isang indibidwal (###) dahil sa nagawa nitong psychological violence sa ilalim ng Section 5 (i) ng 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 laban sa dating kasintahan (AAA) sa pamamagitan ng mapanlait na 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 sa 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

Hinatulan si ### ng hanggang walong taong pagkakakulong at pinagmumulta ng PHP 100,000. Ipinag-utos din nitong sumailalim si ### sa 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 o 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na sa mga kasong kriminal, dapat patunayan ng prosekusyon hindi lamang ang mga elemento ng krimen kundi pati na rin ang pagkakakilanlan ng nagkasala.

Sa mga krimeng ginawa sa pamamagitan ng social media, sabi ng Korte, kailangang isaalang-alang ang mga katangian ng platform gaya ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬. Paliwanag ng Korte, madaling makagawa ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa Pilipinas, kahit ang mga nagpapanggap na labintatlong taong gulang na may 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 at 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳. Dahil sa mga pekeng 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, madali ring kumalat ang pekeng impormasyon, pagnanakaw ng pagkakakilanlan, o krimen.

Para matukoy ang pagmamay-ari o pagkakakilanlan ng may hawak ng 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, kailangan patunayan ang alinman sa mga sumusunod:

1. Pag-amin ng pagmamay-ari o pagiging may-akda;
2. May nakakitang ginagamit ang account o sinusulat ang 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵;
3. Paglalaman ng impormasyon na alam lang ng nagkasala o ng iilang tao;
4. Lenggwaheng naaayon sa katangian ng maysala;
5. Mga rekord mula sa 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺, o 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦, at mga resulta sa 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 na nagpapakita ng lokasyon at iba pang katangiang nag-uugnay sa 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa maysala;
6. Mga kilos na naaayon sa mga dating 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵; o
7. Iba pang mga bagay na nagpapakita ng pagmamay-ari, pag-access o pagiging may-akda.

Gamit ng mga gabay na ito, napatunayan ng Korte na may ilang elemento nagpapakita na si ### ang nagsulat ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. Buong pangalan niya ang nasa 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 at kasama niya sa 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰 ang anak niya sa kanyang kasalukuyang kinakasama.

Nakatanggap din ang kapatid ni AAA ng mga mensahe mula sa kaparehong 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa loob ng ilang taon. Magkapareho ang sitwasyon ng mga mensahe na nagtuturo kay ### bilang siyang gumagamit ng 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵.

Basahin ang Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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