BCA Law and Accounting Office

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

29/06/2026

19/05/2026

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMC’s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMC’s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employees’ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

14/05/2026

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:

We would like to congratulate one of the partners of this office, Atty. Rolly Q. Cainta, on his most recent appointment as one of the lawyers of a government agency.

Further, considering that said office does not grant an authority to undertake limited private practice nor notarial services, in most cases, then it is with a heavy heart that we are announcing that he will no longer be connected with this office, effective immediately.

In view of the foregoing, this office will no longer maintain the name BCCA Law and Accounting Office, instead, it will be maintaining the name BCA Law and Accounting Office (i.e. Bantilan, Chua, and Alcarez Law and Accounting Office), hereon forward.

Any and all pleadings, court submissions and documents originating from this office shall now bear the revised name aforementioned.

Thank you very much!

12/05/2026

The has clarified that a contractor’s lack of tools, equipment, or machinery does not automatically amount to prohibited labor-only contracting when the contracted work does not require them.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC's Third Division held that MMA Competent Manpower & General Services, Inc. (MMA) is a legitimate job contractor and the employer of petitioners Richard Delera and Dionel Quiling.

MMA is a domestic corporation that offers human resource and support services to clients, including Philippine Foremost Milling Corp. (PFMC), which is involved in flour milling, and Amigo Logistics Corp. (Amigo), which manages logistics such as warehousing and trucking.

MMA assigned petitioners to PFMC and Amigo as feed mill bagger and pollard stacker, respectively. After they were reported for policy violations, MMA preventively suspended but later cleared them of charges.

PFMC and Amigo requested the petitioners’ reassignment. MMA initially had to place them on floating status, but later offered their reassignment to Cavite and Bataan, which they declined. They instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that MMA was a labor-only contractor and that they were regular employees of PFMC and Amigo.

The SC ruled that MMA, which had substantial funds of PHP 27 million, was a legitimate labor contractor even though it lacked tools, equipment, or machinery.

It distinguished between 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, wherein employers may hire a contractor to perform specific jobs provided it has sufficient funds and tools, and prohibited 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿-𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, where a contractor merely provides workers without having sufficient funds and tools, and the workers perform tasks directly related to the employer’s main business.

Citing the case of 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨, which provides a limited exception where the work is merely supportive and does not require tools, the SC found that petitioners performed post-production tasks similar to packaging and storing, which merely supported PFMC’s and Amigo’s operations.

Since these duties do not require specialized machinery or technical expertise, the SC ruled that they could be contracted out even without major investment in tools or equipment.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165353.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164807.

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

14/09/2025

In view of the most recently concluded Bar Examinations 2025, we can't help but revisit memory lane.

We were then four hopefuls who lacked sleep, lacked financial stability and were emotionally topsy-turvy after taking on the Bar Examinations 2024, dubbed as .
We may have been a mess, but there's one thing that we were not: we were not quitters and we clawed our way through until the very end.

It all started out as a dream, now were here. It was also because of this that the BCCA Law and Accounting Office, after everything in between, finally came to fruition.

Congrats to us guys, but moreso, congrats to all the takers of the Bar Examinations 2025! You deserve a big hug, and a pat on the shoulder!

Now, the waiting game starts.

14/07/2025

𝐈𝐁𝐏-𝐙𝐍 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐬
|| For 2025-2027

08/07/2025

The very essence of the legal profession is ingrained in the same oath that all lawyers fervently recite: that we are "officers of the Court" and put forth the "interest of our people."

As such, no race, nor creed, nor [office] affiliations shall set us, lawyers, apart in the pursuit of our sworn endeavors.

Thank you for the warm felicitations from the CGTC Law Office!

We hope to learn from your example and work hand in hand with you towards "promoting the rule of law in a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace."

Marckey Cielo , Fevie Anne Gador , Patrice Tan , Frank Lloyd Angelo Cadorna , Kent Alexis Raterta Vallecer