ASLC LAW

Good development in Cebu City.

❤️

Well-deserved gold medals for our Carlos Edriel Yulo!

Mabuhay ka!🇵🇭

MAKABAGONG BAYANI KA, CALOY 🇵🇭

Carlos Yulo continues to rewrite Philippine sports history, achieving several FIRSTS after a back-to-back Olympic gold medal run in the floor exercise and vault final at the Olympic Games Paris 2024!

𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩: 𝐀 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐀 𝐍𝐨. 𝟗𝟐𝟔𝟐⁣
⁣
If you are a victim of domestic abuse, know that you are not alone, and there are laws in place to protect you and your children. Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, has been designed to help you regain control of your life and ensure your safety. This guide aims to walk you through the steps to avail the remedies provided by this law, emphasizing the importance of your well-being and that of your child.⁣
⁣
𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩⁣
Experiencing abuse is traumatic, but acknowledging it is the first step towards seeking help. Under RA 9262, you have the right to protection from all forms of abuse—physical, sexual, psychological, and economic. This law is your shield against the pain and fear inflicted by your partner.⁣
⁣
𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞⁣
To make your case stronger, gather evidence of the abuse. This might include medical reports detailing any physical injuries, photographs of your injuries, recordings or testimonies that document verbal abuse, and any other relevant documents such as threatening messages. Remember, every piece of evidence can help in building a solid case against your abuser.⁣
⁣
𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞⁣
Navigating the legal process can be overwhelming, but you don’t have to do it alone. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) provides free legal assistance to those who cannot afford a private lawyer. Having legal support can make a significant difference in ensuring your rights are upheld and your case is presented effectively.⁣
⁣
𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 ⁣
Even before filing a criminal case against your abuser, you can get yourself protected by getting a Barangay Protective Order (BPO) from your nearest Barangay. There are different kinds of protective order that you can avail in RA No. 9262, such as the following:

𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐁𝐏𝐎): If you need immediate protection, go to your local barangay. You or a trusted representative can file for a BPO, which will prohibit your abuser from approaching or contacting you and your child. This immediate step can provide a sense of safety and prevent further harm.⁣
⁣
𝐓𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐓𝐏𝐎): For more comprehensive protection, you can file for a TPO at your nearest Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court. The TPO can provide various forms of relief, such as custody of your children and financial support. It is effective for 30 days, giving you crucial time to prepare for a longer-term solution.⁣
⁣
𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐏𝐏𝐎): After a court hearing, a PPO can be issued to offer long-term protection and support. This order remains effective until revoked by the court and can ensure your abuser is legally kept away from you and your children.
⁣
𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞⁣
Reporting the abuse to the authorities is a courageous and critical step. You can file a criminal case against your abuser at the nearest police station or directly at the Prosecutor’s Office. With the help of a lawyer, you can prepare an affidavit detailing all incidents of abuse and attach your collected evidence. The Women and Children's Protection Desk (WCPD) at the police station is specifically trained to handle these cases with the sensitivity and seriousness they deserve.⁣
⁣
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧⁣
Break the cycle of abuse and speak up. Taking these steps can help you break free from the cycle of abuse and build a safer, more secure future for yourself and your child. Republic Act No. 9262 is a testament to your right to live without fear and harm. By utilizing the provisions of this law, you can seek justice and start the journey towards healing and recovery. Remember, you are not alone—there are resources and people ready to support you every step of the way.⁣

Supreme Court PH Recent Update!

The Supreme Court has ruled that when parental authority is granted solely to the mother, as in the case of illegitimate children, the substitute parental authority shall be exercised by grandparents or the other persons specified in the Family Code.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-clarifies-application-of-substitute-parental-authority-under-family-code

Latest jurisprudence on illegally dismissed probationary workers' entitlement for backwages.

The Supreme Court has ruled that backwages due illegally dismissed probationary employees are not limited to the unexpired portion of the probationary period but cover the time when compensation was withheld up to reinstatement.

READ: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-illegally-dismissed-probationary-employees-entitled-to-backwages-from-time-compensation-withheld-up-to-actual-reinstatement/

SC Dismisses Roxas Judge for Soliciting Bribes from Lawyers, Litigants |

The Supreme Court has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on a judge who directly solicited bribes from lawyers, litigants, and even local elective officials in exchange for favorable actions.

In a per curiam Decision, the Court En Banc found Judge Edralin C. Reyes (Reyes), Presiding Judge of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro guilty of Gross Misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court also ordered the forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, and his perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The Court likewise ordered Reyes to pay a fine of PHP 17,500 for Simple Misconduct, for his negligence in supervising his court staff and ensuring proper and safe record- and evidence-keeping system in his court, resulting in missing fi****ms, exhibits, and pieces of evidence that were in court custody.

The Court, in determining Reyes’ administrative liability, emphasized that a government-issued computer, even if privately controlled, is subject to regulation and monitoring by the government employer.

It ruled that the SMS/iMessage exchanges and the findings of the audit team were not excludable as there was no violation of Reyes’ right to privacy.
For one, Reyes had no expectation of privacy for electronic communications stored in the subject laptop. The Court stressed that for judges and court employees, laptops and computers are provided to facilitate the courts’ function of adjudicating cases, and are not meant for private purposes.

In Reyes’ case, the SMS/iMessage correspondence were stored in the subject laptop and not in his private computer. Neither did it appear that the laptop was forcibly taken from him. “These circumstances convince this Court that Judge Reyes cannot successfully claim that the State unduly intruded into a personal matter,” said the Court.

The Court also held that since there is no violation of Reyes’ right to privacy, the information obtained through the judicial audit cannot be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

“Further, even if the Court considered the MISO and OCA’s retrieval of the iPhone messages as violation of Judge Reyes’s right to privacy, this Court finds that the information obtained by the judicial audit team should be treated as an exception, as it is an inevitable discovery,” said the Court. “Indeed, an administrative investigation would have been conducted, and the judicial audit team would have found the incriminating information even without the SMS/iMessage exchanges from the laptop…Thus, in the natural course of events, the evidence and information contained in the judicial audit team report would have reached this Court.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-roxas-city-judge-for-soliciting-bribes-from-lawyers-litigants/. Read A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtj-20-2579-office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-judge-edralin-c-reyes-presiding-judge-branch-43-regional-trial-court-roxas-city-oriental-mindoro/.

SC Dismisses Sheriff Who Punched Litigant |

A sheriff who inflicted bodily harm on a litigant while enforcing a writ of ex*****on has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) that Christopher T. Perez, Sheriff IV of Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Zambales (Sheriff Perez) should be penalized for grave abuse of authority and gross insubordination.

The Court concluded that Sheriff Perez indeed inflicted bodily harm upon Hanif and is hence guilty of grave abuse of authority, which is defined as a misdemeanor by a public officer, who under color of his or her office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury.

The Court also underscored how sheriffs, who serve and implement court writs, execute processes, and carry into effect orders of the court, are expected to know the rules of procedure pertaining to their functions as court officers and show a high degree of professionalism at all times.

The Court similarly found Sheriff Perez guilty of gross insubordination for his repeated non-compliance with the OCA’s directive to furnish his comment. Such defiance constituted clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA, held the Court.

The Court further stressed that court personnel subject to administrative complaints cannot just ignore directives for them to comment on a complaint as such shows utter lack of respect for the Court and the institution they represent.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-sheriff-who-punched-litigant/.

SC Finds Lawyer Guilty of Grave Misconduct for Unlawful Taking of Case Records re: Murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez |

The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a former lawyer in the then Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty after being found in possession of the missing case records in connection with the murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez (Barrameda), whose body was found covered in hardened concrete inside a steel drum in Navotas City in 2009.

In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court En Banc denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Jerik Roderick V. Jacoba and granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and former Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. (ES Ochoa). The consolidated petitions assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding Jacoba guilty of simple misconduct.

In resolving the petitions, the Court first stressed that findings of facts of administrative bodies and quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CSC, when supported by substantial evidence, are treated with great respect and even finality by courts in recognition of the former’s specialty in their respective fields. The CSC, in particular, as the central personnel agency of the Government, is empowered to discipline its officials and employees in accordance with law, to ensure that only persons with proven integrity and fitness get the privilege of serving the public.

Among the transgressions investigated by the CSC are misconduct, or such unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. When attended with corruption, willful intent, or disregard of established rules, such misconduct is considered grave. Dishonesty, on the other hand, is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, which is considered serious when it causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government, exhibits moral depravity, or employs fraud, among other analogous circumstances.

In the present case, the Court found that the evidence on record substantially supports the CSC’s findings of fact that Jacoba committed grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. As noted by the CSC, the missing case records were never previously assigned to Jacoba, yet they were found in a cabinet owned and controlled by him.

Such grave misconduct and serious dishonesty warrant Jacoba’s dismissal and perpetual disqualification from government service, concluded the Court.

The Court also imposed the following accessory penalties on Jacoba: forfeiture of all retirement benefits; perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service; cancellation of civil service eligibility; and bar from taking the civil service examinations.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-finds-lawyer-guilty-of-grave-misconduct-for-unlawful-taking-of-case-records-re-murder-of-ruby-rose-barrameda-jimenez/. Read G.R. No. 240517 (CSC v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr.) and G.R. No. 240688 (Jacoba v. CSC and Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr., June 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/240517-240688-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-executive-secretary-vs-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-vs-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-exec/.

📢 Stay informed with the latest Court Decisions uploaded to the Supreme Court Website.

Read the Decisions in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions-and-resolutions/, or scan the QR codes.

PH SC: Law Cannot Alter Blood Relationships

SC: Law Cannot Alter Blood Relationships

While the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.

Thus held the Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by James Cua Ko. The petition challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) denial of Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.

The case involved a petition by James Cua Ko to recognize a minor child, Jamie Shaye, whose birth certificate indicated him as the father. Jamie Shaye was born during a marriage between Shalimar Abellera and Kerwin Cruz Par. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy, as provided by Article 164 of the Family Code, which considers children born during a valid marriage as legitimate for their best interest. Additionally, Article 170 of the Family Code stipulates that only certain individuals, primarily the husband, can challenge a child's legitimacy directly.

While James Cua Ko's petition was denied due to his lack of standing under the law, the Supreme Court clarified that Jamie Shaye still has the right to establish her filiation to him if she chooses to do so. The court acknowledged the complexity between legitimacy, which is a civil status established by marriage, and filiation, which is the biological relationship. It stressed that children born during a valid marriage but not necessarily to their biological parents may have doubts about their filiation and identity. Consequently, the law allows such children to establish their filiation, and this choice should ultimately belong to the child.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-law-cannot-alter-blood-relationships/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/210984-jame-cua-ko-vs-republic-of-the-philippines/.