D&D Law and Accounting Office

04/04/2026

Happy Easter everyone! 🌅🙏💛

27/01/2026

ADULTERY CASES CAN BE FILED ONLY BY THE OFFENDED PARTY—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has junked an adultery case, noting that under the law, the offense is classified as a private crime and that only the offended spouse has the legal standing to initiate and file a criminal complaint.

In a 9-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had ordered the reinstatement of the adultery case against Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba and Michael Llona.

In 2022, Aurel’s husband, Jin Chiba through his authorized representative, Marvin Ayende filed a complaint affidavit charging Aurel Ann and Michael Llona of the crimes of adultery and grave threats before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasay City.

Following a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor found probable cause to indict Aurel and Michael of adultery and grave threats. As a result, they face grave threats and adultery complaints.

The lower court issued the corresponding warrant of arrest with a recommended PHP 36,000.00 bail against them. Subsequently, Aurel and Michael posted cash bonds for their provisional liberty.

Aurel filed a motion to dismiss before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) seeking the dismissal of the adultery case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the case cannot be prosecuted by a complete stranger even if aided by a special power of attorney, and the grave threats case in view of the alleged deprivation of due process.

The MeTC granted the petition and dismissed the adultery charge, citing that only the offended spouse can initiate it. The RTC overturned the MeTC’s decision, confirming that the filing met legal standards because Jin’s complaint-affidavit was actually attached to the complaint submitted by his representative. Dissatisfied, Aurel took a direct recourse before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the RTC decision, the high court cited Rule 110, Section 5, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which provides that adultery and concubinage are private crimes that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

It noted that this requirement exists “out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.” The law allows the offended spouse to decide whether to bring the matter to court or handle it privately.

The SC explained that in the case of Aurel, the complaint for adultery was not initiated by the offended spouse but by his representative. Although Jin submitted his own complaint-affidavit, it was only included as an annex to his representative’s complaint.

"Therefore, since no valid complaint for adultery was filed against Aurel and Michael, the MeTC Pasay City-Branch 167 was correct in granting the motion to dismiss," the Supreme Court added.

02/01/2026

Happy Birthday to our wonderful lawyer, Atty. Raamah Elisha M. Dadhwal-Matammu!

May your year ahead be filled with continued professional triumphs. Your passion for the law and sharp insights continue to inspire us all. God bless! 😇

Love,

Your D&D Law and Accounting Office Family! 💛

31/12/2025

Wishing you and your loved ones a year filled with joy, love and endless happiness! May the year ahead bring clarity, progress, and positive outcomes!

Here’s to goals, growth, success and gratitude 🙌🙏

Happy New Year everyone! 🎆

27/12/2025

Belated Happy Birthday to our esteemed attorney, Atty. Jesa T. Dumocloy-Galay!

Wishing you continued growth, success, and fulfillment in the year ahead! God bless! 😇

Love,

Your D&D Law and Accounting Office Family! 💛

26/12/2025

RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the doctrine of res judicata, or the prohibition against being tried twice for the same offense, is also applicable in administrative cases against government officials.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division dismissed the administrative complaint against public school teacher Sheila Soliva, who had been accused of immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for allegedly contracting a marriage with a married man on the ground of res judicata.

Sheila Soliva entered into a marriage with Joemer Soliva in 1998 and subsequently had a child with him. But prior to the said marriage, Joemer already contracted two marriages, with Maria Lilane Soliva in 1980 and with Marissa Cabungcal in 1985. Marissa and Joemer had three children.

Marissa then filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for disgraceful and immoral conduct against Sheila. At that time, Sheila was a public school teacher.

In its decision, the CSC Regional Office VI found Sheila administratively liable and imposed the penalty of a one-year suspension. Then, Lilane filed a complaint with the Department of Education (DepEd) Regional Office VI for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

In 2013, the DepEd RO VI issued a ruling finding Sheila administratively liable and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service subject to the confirmation of the DepEd Secretary. Later on, the DepEd Secretary issued a resolution modifying the ruling and finding Sheila administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and meted a penalty of suspension for 1 year.

In 2014, the daughter of Joemer and Maria Lilane, Krystelle Rose Sarmen-Soliva, filed an administrative complaint against Sheila, who was at that time a head teacher, for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, alleging that Sheila continued to have an amorous relationship with her father, Joemar, despite her prior conviction for a similar administrative offense.

The CSC Regional Office VI found Sheila guilty anew of disgraceful and immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This paved the way for her to elevate the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA eventually ruled in Sheila's favor, emphasizing that Krystelle's complaint against her was based on the same set of facts as the previous cases filed by Marissa; hence, the present complaint is barred by prior judgement.

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, stressing that res judicata "precludes parties from relitigating issues actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment." It emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to administrative cases.

The highest bench underscored that the subject complaint of Krystelle, although anchored on the alleged continuous relationship that Shiela maintains with her father, Joemar, is just the same as the complaint previously filed by Marissa.

It held that Sheila had already been convicted of the similar offense of immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

"[Krystelle's] case is but a continuation of the previous cases where judgments were already rendered and penalties were already imposed upon and served by the respondent," the Supreme Court said.

"As a consequence of the finding that the complaint in the instant case should be dismissed due to res judicata," it added.

20/12/2025

DISCLOSURE OF BANK INFORMATION IN CYBERCRIME PROBES NOT A VIOLATION OF BANK SECRECY LAW—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that while bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act under Republic Act No. 10175 allows the disclosure of certain information if necessary in the investigation of cybercrimes.

In a 26-page decision authored by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division noted that while the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, it does not prevent the disclosure of basic identifying information when allowed by law.

The case stemmed from the report made by complainant Leonard Vendiola, who said he lost P10,000 to a phishing scam.

A caller posing as a bank employee convinced Vendiola to divulge his email credentials and a one-time password, allowing the illegal transfer of funds from his account to an EastWest account.

Vendiola reported the incident to the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group, which sought and obtained a court-issued WDCD directing EastWest to preserve and disclose data related to the recipient account.

EastWest countered the issuance of the warrant, emphasizing that the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not repeal the Bank Secrecy Law and that, as a financial institution, it should not be treated as a communications service provider subject to disclosure requirements.

In rejecting the bank's arguments, the high court held that the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, but it does not bar the disclosure of basic identifying information when such disclosure is expressly allowed by law.

It underscored that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, law enforcement agencies may, upon securing a court-issued warrant, require the disclosure of computer data that is necessary and relevant to the investigation of cybercrime offenses.

“Moreover, as a banking institution, petitioner undeniably processes and stores substantial amounts of computer data, both for its own operations and for its customers,” the Supreme Court said.

“Given that petitioner, by virtue of its function as a banking institution, processes and stores significant volumes of computerized data—both in its operational capacity and on behalf of its customers—it clearly meets the statutory definition of ‘service provider,’” it added.

The SC also drew clear lines on the scope of disclosure of bank information. It emphasized that while the Bank Secrecy Law continues to safeguard the confidentiality of deposits and specific financial histories, it does not prohibit the disclosure of identifying information when such disclosure is supported by a court-issued warrant.

It emphasized that the Cybercrime Prevention Act expressly authorizes law enforcement to obtain such data when necessary to investigate cyber offenses.

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

25/06/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that while written notice is generally required for co-owners selling their share of a property, the same is not needed if they are properly informed about the sale and fail to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days.

In a 10-page decision written by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. And Rafael Azurin, who are co-owners of a property, to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua.

Court records revealed that the Azurin siblings, along with their aunt Adelaida, co-owned the land. Adelaida subsequently sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided. Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals junked the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period stipulated under the Civil Code. This prompted the Azurin siblings to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the ruling of the CA, the high court said that the written notice requirement can be dispensed with under “unusual circumstances” where co-owners are clearly aware of the sale and demonstrate negligence or inaction in exercising their right to redeem.

It found out that since Antonio and Rafael were in possession of the land, they were informed of the survey conducted on it, adding that they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession, which explicitly indicated the sale had occurred.

“The Court finds that petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale at the latest on January 27, 2010. They filed the complaint for legal redemption with damages only on March 28, 2016. It took them six years and two months to file their complaint,” the SC said.

The court also emphasized that the Azurin siblings waived their rights to reclaim the subject lot since, despite their knowledge, they waited over six years before attempting to redeem the property.

“The written notice requirement may be dispensed with in the instant case due to the peculiar circumstances involved and the laches that had set in against petitioners. It would be the height of inequity to allow them to redeem despite their inaction of six years and two months,” the SC added.

12/06/2025

Happy 127th Philippine Independence Day! 🇵🇭

12/05/2025

"bumoto nang may puso at isip" 🇵🇭

ELECTION DAY 🖊

Ngayong Araw ng Halalan, gamitin natin ang ating kapangyarihan bilang mamamayan. Ang bawat boto ay may saysay—ito’y boses ng pag-asa, pagbabago, at pagkakaisa. Huwag tayong manahimik sa oras na ang ating tinig ang pinaka-kailangan.

Maging mapanuri, maging responsable, at higit sa lahat, bumoto nang may puso at isip. Dahil ang kinabukasan ng ating bansa ay nasa ating mga kamay.

Alam mo ba kung ilan ang registered voters sa ating bansa? Alamin sa 2023 Philippine Statistical Yearbook: https://psa.gov.ph/philippine-statistical-yearbook

01/05/2025

Today, we honor and appreciate the hard work and dedication of all workers.
Happy Labor Day!