Bite-sized law, faster review

In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (1998), the Court re-examined the mode of appeals from the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in relation to the passing of R.A. No. 7902 (1995) amending the Court of Appeals jurisdiction. The Court abandoned the long-standing practice of appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court in view of the said amendment, thereby holding that Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 shall be intially filed before the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

[J. Regalado] St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (1968) is a landmark Philippine Supreme Court case establishing that a party is barred by laches from questioning a court's jurisdiction after voluntarily participating in the case for 15 years and receiving an adverse ruling. It limits the rule that jurisdiction over subject matter is non-waivable.

[J. Dizon] Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005

In the landmark case of Pulido v. People (2021), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine which had required that a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of a prior void ab initio marriage to be considered a valid defense in the prosecution of bigamy. Pulido contracted his first marriage in 1983, prior to the enactment of the Family Code (1988). In 1995, Pulido contracted his second marriage without first legally dissolving the first. His first marriage was later declared void for lack of marriage license, and his second marriage was also void for being bigamous. The Court held that a judicial declaration is no longer necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. "Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured."

[J. Hernando] Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021

In Neypes v. CA (2005), the issue stemmed from the denial of a notice of appeal, the CA holding that the reckoning point of the 15-day appeal period should have been on the day the petitioners received the order of the trial court dismissing their case. In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court standardized the period of appeal, allowing a "fresh period" of 15 days to file a notice of appeal counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial or any final order or resolution. The standardized "fresh period rule" applies to Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45, of the Rules of Court.

[J. Corona] Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005

In affirming the conviction of a Meycauayan City government accountant for malversation of public funds after tampering with checks and in finding a barangay chairperson guilty of corrupt practices for borrowing money allegedly for public use, the Supreme Court explained that a public officer's failure to account for public funds for which they are accountable, upon demand, gives rise to a statutory presumption of malversation under Art. 217, RPC, which can only be rebutted by satisfactory evidence that the funds were properly applied for a public purpose. The Supreme Court likewise stated that reliance on the stated purpose or intention for public funds to be used for a public purpose is insufficient to overcome this presumption absent concrete proof of actual application to such purpose.

People v. Reyes (2025)

In affirming the graft conviction of former Pagsanjan, Laguna Mayor Jeorge “ER” Ejercito Estregan, for illegally awarding a contract to an unlicensed insurance company without public bidding, the Supreme Court ruled that there is “manifest partiality” when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. This was seen when Estregan made FRCV present despite the absence of public bidding and despite irregularities surrounding it.

People v. Estregan (2025)

In resolving whether the phrase "among other firearms" converts a warrant to be a void general warrant, the Supreme Court explained that a general description does not automatically convert the whole warrant to be a general warrant. In this case, the warrant still specified and authorized the seizure of "Cal. 9MM Pistol" that petitioner illegally keeps in his residence. A search warrant that merely contains a general statement will not be nullified as a whole as the items not particularly described will be cut off without destroying the entire warrant.

Comamo v. People (2025

In acquitting the accused from the charge of homicide, the Supreme Court clarified that a documented history of a psychiatric condition is not, and should never be, an element required to prove legal insanity. This was in reference to the CA conviction which observed that pieces of evidence offered by the defense failed to prove Ruiz's insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and that such evidence were gathered after the commission of the crime.

Ruiz v. People (2024)

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified and categorically ruled that the term qualified statutory rape is not consistent with the basic precepts of criminal law in defining and treating the nature of crimes, and hereby abandons the set of case law adopting such nomenclature. The crime shall be denominated as QUALIFIED RAPE of a minor and not qualified statutory rape if any of the special qualifying aggravating circumstances is present, i.e., twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the age of the victim being below 7 years old, or the accused's knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape.

People v. ABC260708 (2024)

In reminding the public that conspiracy should be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court acquitted Isagani Nicolas as his involvement was based on mere inferences and presumption. This comes after the fact of his acquiescence to the requests of Leonardo and Representative Espino to be introduced to each other, as well as his presence in both meetings given his knowledge of the subject matter. Such was not sufficient as Soriano himself testified that after Isagani introduced him to Leonardo in said meeting, Isagani no longer called him or sent him any text messages, making Isagani's presence limited to making the two meet.

People v. Nicolas, et al. (2023)

In Mamugay v. Atty. Dela Rosa (2023), the Supreme Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment for the sole purpose of recording in Atty. Dela Rosa's personal file, since he was already disbarred and declared ineligible for judicial clemency. Atty. Dela Rosa was found guilty of gross misconduct for disposing Mamugay's property without their consent and notarizing a Special Power of Attorney supposedly executed by two deceased affiants.

[En Banc] Mamugay, et al. v. Atty. Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 11093 [Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6044], November 14, 2023

In the case of Malapit v. Watin (2024), the Supreme Court held that Atty. Watin was disqualified from notarizing the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in question. Atty. Watin notarized the SPA which enabled the eventual transfer of the subject properties to his sons. According to the Court, the prohibition under the 2004 Notarial Rules covers not only direct benefits but also indirect benefits resulting from the notarial act, thus covering a notary public's immediate family.

[J. Gaerlan] Malapit v. Watin, A.C. No. 11777, October 01, 2024

In the case of Mangubat v. Atty. Herrera (2022), the Supreme Court (Court) imposed the penalty of disbarment against Atty. Herrera. In rendering this decision, the Court noted the respondent's repeated and brazen disregard for the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, Rules of Court, and the Lawyer's Oath despite his 43 years in the legal profession.

[Per Curiam] Mangubat v. Herrera, A.C. No. 9457, April 5, 2022

The case of Laurente v. Helenar Construction provides that an employment status is determined by the nature of the work performed and not by contract labels. An employee is regular if they perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's usual business. Continuously rehiring a painter for various projects over several years establishes regular employment, especially when the employer fails to inform the worker of a project-based status at the time of initial engagement.

Laurente v. Helenar Construction, et al. (2021)

The Supreme Court, in the case of Aragones v. Alltech Biotechnology Corporation, explained that the acceptance of a job offer perfects the employment contract and establishes an employer-employee relationship. A future start date is a suspensive period that merely defers when work and wages become demandable and does not prevent the relationship from existing upon acceptance of the offer. Consequently, the unilateral withdrawal by the employer of a job offer after it has been accepted constitutes illegal dismissal.

Aragones v. Alltech Biotechnology Corporation (2025)