Atty. Marion Romina Tuliao

05/12/2025

G.R. No. 274778, Aquilino Pimentel III et al. v. House of Representatives et al.
G.R. No. 275405, Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Colmenares et al. v. Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin et al.
G.R. No. 276233, 1Sambayan Coalition et al. v. House of Representatives et al.

The , during its session on December 3, 2025, unanimously ordered the return of PhilHealth funds previously transferred to the National Treasury in the amount of PHP 60 billion and permanently prohibited the transfer of the remaining PHP 29.9 billion fund balance.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the Court En Banc, by a majority vote, also declared void Special Provision 1(d), Chapter XLIII of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (2024 GAA), and Department of Finance (DOF) Circular No. 003-2024 for having been issued and implemented with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Special Provision 1(d) authorized the return of the fund balance or the excess reserve funds of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) to the National Treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 GAA.

The DOF issued Circular No. 003-2024, directing the transfer of PHP 89.8 billion to the National Treasury, representing the fund balance or excess reserve funds of the PhilHealth. In compliance, the PhilHealth remitted PHP 60 billion to the National Treasury in three tranches.

The SC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the transfer of the remaining PHP 29.9 billion PhilHealth funds and the further implementation of Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA and DOF Circular No. 003-2024.

The SC struck down Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 GAA for being a rider—a provision not germane or related to the bill’s purpose. The Constitution requires all provisions of the GAA to be germane to its purpose to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature and to fairly inform the people of the bills’ subject.

While Special Provision 1(d) is particular in that it relates to the unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA, the Court found the provision ambiguous because it introduced the concept of a “fund balance”—a term not defined in the 2024 GAA.

The SC also ruled that Special Provision (1)d is unconstitutional because it impliedly repeals Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) and the Sin Tax Laws.

The SC ruled that reallocating PhilHealth’s supposed “excess reserve funds” through Special Provision 1(d) and DOF Circular No. 003-2024 makes compliance with Section 11 impossible as they undermine the very nature of PhilHealth funds as pooled resources for social health insurance, among others.

The SC stressed that Congress cannot repeal Section 11 through the General Appropriations Act.

The SC further found that Special Provision 1(d) contradicts the Sin Tax Laws, which earmark specific percentages of excise taxes on sweetened beverages, alcohol, and to***co products exclusively for the UHCA.

The SC also ruled that the Finance Secretary cannot, in any capacity, augment any item in the GAA because this power belongs to the President.

The SC also ruled that the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he certified as urgent House Bill No. 8980, now the 2024 GAA, which dispensed with the requirement of reading on three separate days and the printing and distribution of copies in advance.

The SC also denied the petitioners’ request to determine the liability of the DOF Secretary for technical malversation and/or plunder, ruling that such matters are improper for resolution in this case. The only issue properly before it is the validity of the issuances and whether they were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Justices who submitted their respective separate opinions also noted that no criminal liability can attach to the Finance Secretary, who they found to have acted in good faith in implementing Special Provision 1(d).

The SC ordered that the remitted funds amounting to PHP 60 billion be returned to PhilHealth through the 2026 GAA.

Separate Opinions

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen held that the presidential declaration of urgency should be considered invalid, noting that no emergency or public calamity justified dispensing with the constitutional requirement of three readings on separate days.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa emphasized that Congress exceeded its authority when it increased the unprogrammed appropriations proposed by the President, describing the move as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against increasing the President’s proposed appropriations.

Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando held that unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA are unconstitutional and that the entire amount should be removed.

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting stated that the President’s certification of the bill as urgent was based on a reasonable assessment of the country’s needs and not an act of grave abuse of discretion.

Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda expressed reservation on the wholesale invalidation of Special Provision No. 1 (d) and DOF Circular No. 003-2024, saying that while he agreed that the transfer was unconstitutional, he held that the government may nonetheless be considered to have acted in good faith.

Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan held that declaring the issuances invalid does not negate the good faith of the Finance Secretary in implementing Special Provision No. 1 (d) through DOF Circular No. 003-2024, nor does it automatically create a basis for his liability.

Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario emphasized that a finding of grave abuse of discretion by a public official does not equate to criminal liability.

Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez disagreed with striking down Special Provision No. 1 (d) and DOF Circular No. 003-2024 in their entirety, asserting that the ruling should be limited solely to the transfer of PhilHealth funds.

Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao held that the wholesale invalidation of Special Provision No. 1 (d) and DOF Circular No. 003-2024 should be avoided as these can be reconciled with the UHCA and the Sin Tax Laws.

Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez likewise disagreed with the broad invalidation of the issuances. He held that Special Provision No. 1 (d) enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and should be harmonized with the Constitution.

Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh noted that the transfer diverted funds intended for indigents, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities, weakening PhilHealth’s capacity to provide universal healthcare and marginalized Filipinos of essential support.

Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva disagreed with declaring Special Provision No. 1 (d) unconstitutional, arguing that it did not directly repeal the UHCA and Sin Tax Laws. He added that Special Provision No. 1 (d) should be applied to GOCCs whose charters do not prohibit such transfer of funds.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156834

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156755

Read the Separate Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156760

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156766

Read the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156771

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156776

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156781

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156786

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156792

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156797

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156802

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156807

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156812

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156820

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

28/09/2025

‼️Kailangan talagang maging bukas sa publiko ang investigation dahil hindi lang ito tungkol sa ebidensya at witnesses, kundi pati na rin sa tiwala ng tao sa mga miyembro ng commission. Since taxpayers’ money ang pinanggagalingan ng pondo, karapatan ng publiko na makita kung paano ginagastos ang pera nila at kung paano pinapatakbo ang proceedings.

Bukod pa rito, ang transparency ay paraan para makita ng tao kung unbiased, competent, at united ang ICI sa paghahanap ng accountability. Kapag nakikita ng publiko ang takbo ng proseso, mas madali para sa kanila magbigay ng informed na opinyon kung credible ba ang witnesses at kung maayos bang nagagampanan ng commission ang kanilang tungkulin.

Sa huli, dahil ang investigation ay may pinakamataas na level ng public interest, mas matimbang ang pangangailangan ng openness kaysa anumang rason para gawing closed-door ang proceedings.

THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. The investigation must be viewed by the public. THE REASONS ARE EASILY EXPLAINABLE:

FIRST. Not only are the people interested in what the evidence, documents and witnesses will show. The people are also wary about the investigators. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE that the investigators or the members of the commission themselves ARE trustworthy, capable, honest , and unbiased. These are all subject to proof. And the only proof is correct performance of the job. The people must witness that performance for the commission to earn a measure of true legitimacy.

SECOND. The people must clearly see that the members of the ICI are unified in the objective in holding the culprits accountable. Nakikita naman natin ang nangyayari sa senate. Maganda rin nakikita ng mga tao ang proceeding para sila makapag-bigay ng opinyon kung ang witness ay kapanipaniwala.

THIRD. The people do not know the members totally. Sino ba sila? The people can give them the benefit of the doubt kung nakikita nila ang performance ng ICI.

FOURTH. Lumabas na nga yung puna sa mismong head nila na si former Justice Andres Reyes, Jr that he had occassion to join the concurring and dissenting opinion of then former Justice Peralta in the case of "Estrada vs. Ombudsman G.R. NO. 212761-62", promulgated on July 31, 2018. Justice Peralta said "I also express my dissent with respect to the correctness of charging petitioner Senator Jose "Jinggoy" P. Ejercito Estrada separately for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. ###xThus, to hold petitioner Estrada liable and indict him separately under a different law (R.A. No. 3019) for the same acts executed as a means of committing plunder would run afoul of the intent of R.A. No. 7080." Republic Act No. 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Although sa kasong iyon, na-file pa rin yung kaso against Estrada, this particular dissent joined by Justice ANdres Reyes, Jr, does not help clear the perception of the public that bias might, whether true or not, occur.

FIFTH. If the ICI is truly competent, it can manage and control the proceeding very well. Hindi ba sila confident sa kanilang kakayahan ma-supervise ng maiigi ang proceeding.

SIXTH. Taxpayers money ang magpapa-andar niyang investigatiion na iyan. Taxpayers money rin ang magbabayad ng sweldo nyo dyan. Karapatan nang taong bayan masaksihan kung paano ginagastos ang pera nila.

SEVENTH. Yung concern na baka daw magkaroon ng "trial by publicity" ay mali. Sangkot dito ay sukdulang laking halaga ng pera. Ang pag-view nito ng public will put the necessary pressure on the commission to do the right thing. Public trust will be enhanced. There are times when public opinion is also necessary to preserve decency in government.

EIGHTH This investigation is VESTED WITH THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF PUBLIC INTEREST. This trumps all excuses for a closed-proceeding.

28/09/2025

‼️Lacson: Almost all 19th Congress senators allegedly made individual insertions totaling at least ₱100,000,000,000 in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA). This colossal sum was initially hidden under the status: 'For Later Release' (FLR).

The scale is alarming: Before "pork barrel" was banned, amounts were in the millions. Now, individual lawmakers are allegedly pushing for ₱5 Billion to ₱9 Billion each. This bypasses proper planning and creates an enormous financial risk for the nation.

If the Senate alone accounts for ₱100 Billion in questionable funds, how much more could be tucked away in the House—or even the Executive budget? We must demand full transparency.

Swipe for the full breakdown! 👇 Where do you think this ₱100,000,000,000 could have been better spent? Tell us your thoughts!

(Photo Credit: Voltaire Domingo/ Senate PRIB)

09/09/2025

30/08/2025

📌ALAM MO BA? Estafa & Illegal Contracting Without a PCAB License

❌Do you know that signing a construction agreement without a PCAB license can be considered an offense, and even lead to a conviction for Estafa?”

✅Case Highlight
Ernesto S. Mallari v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 249374, June 22, 2022)
- Petitioner Ernesto Mallari entered into a construction agreement with spouses Rodolfo and Cynthia Yumang, representing himself as a licensed and experienced contractor.

- But the truth? His company, E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction, had long been disqualified, blacklisted, and delisted by DPWH, CIAP, and PCAB.

✅Supreme Court Ruling
The Court affirmed his conviction for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code due to deceit and the resulting financial damage to the complainants.

- Engaging in construction contracting without a PCAB license is also an offense under Section 35 of RA 4566 (Contractors’ License Law).

- According to the SC: “Engaging in construction contracting sans the required license is considered an offense under Section 35 of RA 4566.

As a contractor himself, petitioner is required to secure a PCAB license. The exemption under Section 143 of RA 4566 applies to civil engineers or licensed architects only when acting solely in their professional capacity, i.e., design and supervision.”

✅Key Court Findings
- While Mallari signed the agreement in his personal capacity, evidence showed that he negotiated not only as an engineer but also as the sole proprietor of E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction.

- He used his company as a bargaining tool, claiming it had a history of implementing various projects, but he failed to show any separate PCAB license of his own.

✅The Court emphasized:
A sole proprietorship does not have a separate juridical personality from its owner. Thus, the disqualification of E.S. Mallari Trading and Construction also pertains to petitioner as they are one and the same person. With more reason, petitioner should have disclosed such disqualification or lack of qualification to complainants.

📌Concealing this fact amounted to deceit, which is the gravamen of Estafa.

⚖️NOTE: The gravamen of Estafa is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. While concealment is the unlawful suppression of any fact or circumstance, by one of the parties to a contract, from the other, which in justice ought to be made known.

28/08/2025

📌The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is automatically terminated upon the death of the principal, and any act by the agent thereafter is void, except under narrow Civil Code exceptions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost authority to act for her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998. Despite this, Jessica used the SPA in 2003 to mortgage the property for a credit line from San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI), which later foreclosed due to unpaid obligations.

The SC affirmed that the SPA ended with Meliton’s death and rejected claims that it was executed for the parties’ common interest or under good faith of agency continuation. However, it upheld the mortgage and foreclosure sale only with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property, as she became a co-owner upon her father’s death. The mortgage was invalid as to Meliton’s estate and his wife Felicidad’s share, since the deed was not executed in their names.

Read the Full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc.../

17/08/2025

From paper to digital, technology is transforming the way notarization works. will soon offer convenience without compromising legality. Find out the scope, limitations, and requirements for its use.

Details to follow.

For questions, contact us at [email protected].

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, or the eNotarization Rules, at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/24-10-14-sc-rules-on-electronic-notarization/

06/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

17/07/2025

‼️May bago na namang TAX?

📌 Flat 20% Tax Rate sa ilalim ng Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA) at ang mga Posibleng Negatibong Epekto Nito.

Sa pagpapatupad ng Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA) o Republic Act No. 12214, nagkaroon ng malaking pagbabago sa sistema ng pagbubuwis sa Pilipinas. Simula Hulyo 1, 2025, ipinataw na ang flat 20% final withholding tax sa lahat ng interest income mula sa savings accounts, time deposits, trust funds, at iba pang kaparehong investment instruments.

Sa ilalim ng dating sistema, ang mga long-term deposits na may maturity na hindi bababa sa limang taon ay hindi pinapatawan ng buwis. Mayroon ding iba’t ibang tax rates (5%, 7.5%, 10%, 15%, o 20%) depende sa uri at haba ng deposito. Ngayon, pantay-pantay na lahat, ito ay ang 20% buwis kahit gaano katagal ang deposito.

Mga Posibleng Negatibong Epekto ng Flat 20% Tax Rate:
🔻 1. Mawawala ang gana ng mga tao sa long-term savings
Dati, may magandang insentibo ang mga Pilipino na mag-ipon nang matagal dahil sa tax exemption sa long-term deposits. Ngayon, dahil pareho na ang tax rate sa short-term at long-term, wala nang dagdag na benepisyo sa pagtatabi ng pera sa bangko nang maraming taon.

🔻 2. Mas mababa ang kita ng mga retirees at fixed-income earners
Ang mga senior citizens at iba pang umaasa sa interest bilang regular na kita ay maaapektuhan nang husto. Sa bawat kinikitang interest, 20% agad ang kaltas para sa buwis, na magreresulta sa mas maliit na natitirang pera para sa kanilang pang-araw-araw na gastusin.

🔻 3. Posibleng lumipat ang mga tao sa mas delikadong investments
Dahil lumiit ang kita mula sa traditional savings, maaaring humanap ang iba ng alternatibong investments na mas mataas ang tubo pero mas malaki rin ang panganib. Maaari itong magbukas ng pinto sa mga scam, Ponzi schemes, at iba pang hindi rehistradong investment products na paboritong puntirya ng mga scammer.

🔻 4. Epekto sa mga bangko at financial institutions
Posibleng bumaba ang bilang ng mga nagtatabi ng pera sa bangko, lalo na sa long-term deposits. Kung mangyari ito, maaapektuhan ang kakayahan ng mga bangko na magpautang o pondohan ang iba pang aktibidad pang-ekonomiya.

Example:
Mayroon kang ₱1,000,000 na naka-time deposit.
Sa loob ng isang taon, kumita ito ng ₱20,000 interest.

📌 Under CMEPA (Flat 20% Tax):
✔️ Interest earned = ₱20,000
✔️ Tax (20%) = ₱20,000 × 20% = ₱4,000
✔️ Net interest income = ₱20,000 − ₱4,000 = ₱16,000

Resulta:
Dati, kung long-term deposit ito (5 years or more), walang tax, kaya buong ₱20,000 ang makukuha mo.
Ngayon, dahil sa CMEPA, ₱4,000 ang mawawala dahil sa bagong buwis.

Okay lang naman sana ang mag TAX! Pero nakikita naman natin kung saan napupunta ang mga buwis na ating binabayaran at pinagpaguran.

Ano na Pilipinas??? Gising!

16/07/2025

‼️

Tinanggal ng sa serbisyo ang isang sheriff ng hukuman na napatunayang tumanggap ng pera kaugnay sa isang kasong may kinalaman sa droga.

Sa isang desisyon, tinanggal ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema si Dwight Aldwin S. Geronimo (Geronimo), Sheriff IV ng Branch 121, Regional Trial Court, Imus City, Cavite, at binawi ang lahat ng kanyang mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro. Permanenteng pinagbawalan din siya na magtrabaho pa sa gobyerno.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa reklamo ni Antolyn Dones Gonzales (Gonzales), na hiningan umano ni Geronimo ng PHP 200,000 kapalit ng pagpapabilis sa kaso ng droga ng kanyang kaibigang si Monib Saadoning Amatonding (Monib). Sinabi ni Geronimo na ang hukom na humahawak sa kaso ay kanyang tiyahin at nangako siyang papayagang makapagpiyansa si Monib.

Binayaran ni Gonzales si Geronimo ng paunang bayad na PHP 115,000. Pinanatili nila ang kanilang ugnayan sa pamamagitan ng Facebook Messenger kung saan paulit-ulit na nangako si Geronimo ng magandang resulta. Pero nang hindi pinagbigyan ng korte ang hiling na piyansa ni Monib, biglang hindi nagpakita si Geronimo, pinutol ang ugnayan nila ni Gonzales sa Facebook at pinalitan ang kanyang numero.

Hinatulang maysala ng Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) si Geronimo sa gross misconduct at inirekomenda nito ang kanyang pagkakatanggal sa trabaho.

Sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema sa JIB at ipinataw kay Geronimo ang pinakamabigat na parusa ng pagkakatanggal sa trabaho dahil sa kalubhaan ng kanyang ginawa pati na rin ang kanyang nakaraang talaan ng maling pag-uugali.

Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 1, Canon I ng Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Code), hindi dapat gamitin ng mga tauhan ng hukuman ang kanilang posisyon para sa personal na pakinabang. Ang Seksyon 2 ng parehong Canon ay nagbabawal sa kanila na tumanggap ng mga regalo na maaaring maka-impluwensya sa kanilang mga opisyal na gawain.

Inamin ni Geronimo na tumanggap siya ng pera mula kay Gonzales bilang personal na utang. Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na may paglabag pa rin ito sa Seksyon 2 ng Code dahil ang pagtanggap ng pera mula sa isang taong may nakabinbing kaso ay tahasang ipinagbabawal.

Suportado rin ito ng mga mensahe sa Facebook Messenger na hindi itinanggi ni Geronimo na kanyang ipinadala.

Nagpaalala ang Korte Suprema sa lahat ng kawani ng korte na maging huwaran ng responsibilidad, kakayahan, at kahusayan. Inaasahang gagawin nila ang kanilang mga trabaho nang may pinakamataas na antas ng pangangalaga bilang mga opisyal ng korte at mga alagad ng batas.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/46rt8tvs.

Ang Desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa JIB FPI No. 21-071-P ay ia-upload sa website ng Korte Suprema kapag available na.

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

10/07/2025

❓Atty., pwede ko bang kasuhan ang asawa kong lalaki na may karelasyon sa ibang bansa?

⚖️Can Philippine courts take action against a husband’s marital infidelity that happened outside the country, if it causes psychological violence to his wife back home?

Pakinggan 👇

___________________
📌Philippine courts can hear cases of psychological violence under R.A. 9262 even if the cheating happened abroad, as long as the wife suffered emotionally in the Philippines, especially where she lives.

This protects women and children from emotional harm no matter where the abusive act took place. It also prevents offenders from escaping accountability by hiding behind international borders.

🔹 Disclaimer:
This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or solicitation of legal services. No attorney-client relationship is created by listening to this episode.