Atty. K Ponce

📣 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲

The Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted the 2026 Rules of Procedure through Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 2026.

The updated Rules align SEC processes with recent laws, including the Securities Regulation Code, Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines, Financing Company Act of 1998, Lending Company Regulation Act of 2007, and Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act, while streamlining procedures to ensure the just, prompt, and efficient resolution of cases before the Commission.

Read the full Memorandum Circular here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/mc-2026/sec-mc-no-08-series-of-2026rules-of-procedure-of-the-securities-and-exchange-commission/

⚠️ 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗢𝗥𝗬: 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗩𝗜𝗢𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗕𝗬 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗/𝗢𝗥 𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warns the public against fraudulent activities involving the creation of eSECURE accounts.

The eSECURE system is a secure credentialing service under the Commission’s eKYC module, which includes biometric verification and liveness detection. Each account is 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 and must be created and completed solely by the applicant.

The submission of false or manipulated biometric data, forged or misleading documents, and inaccurate personal information is strictly prohibited. Violators may be subject to appropriate regulatory actions, including fines under the Revised Corporation Code.

The public is strongly advised to personally open their eSECURE accounts and refrain from engaging third parties for this purpose.

Reports of similar fraudulent activities may be submitted to the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department at [email protected].

Read the full notice here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/advisories-2026/esecure-advisory/

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has issued guidelines in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, clarifying that it must be evaluated based on the person’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC granted the accused’s petition and reduced his sentence, recognizing his surrender as voluntary even if he surrendered after learning of the issuance of arrest warrant against him.

The accused went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for clearance. During processing, his name registered a “hit”, indicating he had a pending case. He admitted this to the NBI officer.

He was instructed to return after one week while the records were being verified. When he came back, the NBI officer confirmed he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued 13 years earlier. He then told the officer, “masuko na lang ako” (I will surrender) and asked help in posting bail. The arrest warrant was then served on him.

The NBI later issued a certificate stating that he voluntarily surrendered to their office. However, the return of the warrant and order of release described him as having been “arrested.”

During arraignment, the accused first pleaded not guilty but later entered into a plea bargain, asking the court to consider his voluntary surrender and guilty plea.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of bigamy and considered his plea of guilt, but ruled that he did not voluntarily surrender. It relied on the warrant’s return and release order, which stated that he was “arrested,” and noted that the case had been pending for 13 years because he could not be located. The Court of Appeals affirmed this, finding that he went to the NBI not to surrender but to apply for clearance, and that when he said he would surrender, he had no choice because he was already inside the NBI office.

The SC disagreed.

Under Article 13(7) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been arrested; they surrendered themselves to a person in authority or its agent; and the surrender was voluntary.

In this case, the accused returned to the NBI and said he would surrender before the arrest warrant was actually served on him. He had not yet been arrested. He also surrendered to an NBI officer, a person in authority.

The SC ruled that voluntary surrender must be viewed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established. It stressed that voluntary surrender must be assessed through the totality of circumstances, laying down the following guiding principles:

1. The voluntariness and spontaneity of the surrender must show that offender either admits their guilt or wish to spare authorities the trouble of searching for and arresting them.

2. The circumstances of the voluntary surrender is independent of the fact of the issuance of the arrest warrant. The mere fact of the arrest warrant’s prior issuance should not be taken against the accused’s claim of voluntary surrender when other circumstances point to the fulfillment of all requirements, including voluntariness. However, knowledge of the accused of the existence of an arrest warrant against them and their continued evasion of justice can negate voluntariness and spontaneity.

3. The lapse of time an accused used to evade the law could be a criterion in negating spontaneity.

4. Voluntariness is not negated by the fact that there is likelihood that the accused may be arrested anytime before they surrendered. Imminence of arrest should be coupled with an indication that the accused fled or could further escape and evade, before it could deny voluntariness.

5. The intention of the accused at the time of surrender must be considered with other circumstances in determining entitlement to mitigating circumstance. The offender is not required to surrender at the first opportunity.

6. If the records do not clearly show that the offender voluntarily surrendered, that doubt cannot be resolved in their favor.

As to the voluntariness of his surrender, the SC emphasized that if he intended to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI. While his first visit was to secure a clearance, his decision to return despite knowing there might be an active case shows his willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

The SC also clarified that while he knew about the pending case, there was no proof that he knew a warrant for his arrest had already been issued. It also noted the absence of any attempt to flee, his open use of his real name, and the fact that he returned to the NBI on his own.

The SC also reminded judges to avoid making quick or premature conclusions, emphasizing:

“What the Court asks and expects of magistrates on the frontlines of justice is to adjudge each case wholly, fully, and fairly as discerning persons learned in the law and literate in life experience, and not as cold-hearted automatons or soulless supercomputers, for even a single judge’s role in the administration of our penal laws can indeed have far-reaching consequences for the parties and for human society as a whole… The law may be harsh, but it need not be harsher.”

The accused’s sentence was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of four years in prison.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160857

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160836

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258592-formerly-udk-no-17170-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

What I mean to say is thank you for the trust and confidence, my dear clients. 🙏🏼

SC:
At any rate, records show that Mother Goose School was indeed grossly negligent, as shown in the following manner:

Foremost, the teachers in Mother Goose School were ill-equipped in addressing a student's complaints of physical harm. Rhys initially reported the incident to his Hekasi teacher but he was just ignored. Rhys's classmate then reported the matter to their class adviser who merely confirmed with Noel and Mark, the offenders, whether they had indeed punched Rhys;

Second, despite learning about the punching incident, Mother Goose School did not inform Rhys's parents about the harm committed against him.Had the offender's mother, Gloria, not called Rhys's mother, Rhys's parents would not have known about the incident. Rhys would not have been able to undergo medical checkup;

Third, Mother Goose School itself does not have a protocol in addressing any harm committed by one student against another, which explains why its teachers also did not know how to handle the situation;

Fourth, Mother Goose School conducted an investigation only upon
the request and prodding of Rhys's father, Samuel;

Fifth, Mother Goose School did not update Rhys's parents regarding the investigation, which led Samuel to send a second letter requesting for an investigation;

Sixth, the results of Mother Goose School's investigation was replete with inaccurate information. No disciplinary action was taken against the offenders despite their own admission that they punched Rhys multiple times.

The (SC) has held a school civilly liable for negligence after a bullying incident led to the assault of a student during class.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found that Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. (Mother Goose School) failed to address a punching incident involving three grade school students inside one of its classrooms.

When the victim’s parents raised the matter with the school, their complaints were ignored, prompting them to file formal requests for investigation. Mother Goose School ultimately concluded the incident was mere "teasing" or "rough play" and took no disciplinary action.

Dissatisfied, the parents filed a complaint for damages against the school, the teachers, and the other students’ fathers.

Ordering Mother Goose School to pay the victim’s parents PHP 650,000 in damages and attorney’s fees, the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Mother Goose School was grossly negligent in handling the punching incident.

The SC emphasized that schools have a contractual obligation to ensure a safe learning environment. It also reiterated that schools must maintain peace and order within their premises, and even outside campus during school activities. They may avoid liability only upon proof they exercised due diligence.

The SC found Mother Goose School negligent for its lack of proper protocols, failure to inform the victim’s parents promptly, and inaccuracies in its investigation.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/m86ufzwa.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mparp5dp.

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

📣 Welcome to My Official Legal Page! ⚖️

Hello everyone,

I’m excited to officially welcome you to my page, where I’ll be sharing insights from my journey as a practicing lawyer, legal tips you can trust, and updates that matter to you.

Whether you're looking for legal guidance, curious about your rights, or just want to stay informed, this page is here to empower and educate.

Feel free to connect, ask questions, or simply follow along as we navigate the legal world together.

Thank you for your support — let’s build a community where knowledge is power and justice is within reach.

📬 Stay tuned and don’t hesitate to reach out!