NMMJ Law Office

⚖️ Can the State take your rights just like that? Article III, Sec. 1: 👉 No deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process 👉 No denial of equal protection of the laws 🎯 In short: Government must be FAIR — and treat equals EQUALLY. 📚 Remegio v. People (2017); Hing v. Choachuy (2013); PBM v. Blooming Mills (1973); Rubi v. Mindoro (1919); Bernas (2009) #Article3Section1 #DueProcess #EqualProtection #BarReview #ConstiLaw #LawReels #PhilippineLaw #bartips #consti2 #firstyearlaw #PhilConsti

Me waiting for Alluvium to increase my land area because I can't afford a new lot in this economy. 🤡📈 Remember: If it’s gradual, it’s Alluvium. If it’s a sudden flood-driven chunk of land, it’s Avulsion. Know the difference or lose the land! 🌊💼 #lawstudentlife #BarNiJojo #civillaw #alluvium #futureattorneys #lawrecallph #barreview

Working ka sa adlaw? Pwede na sa gabii.

NMMJ Law Office nag-offer og special after-work appointments para sa mga nagatrabaho.

🕡 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
📅 Monday to Friday
📌 Appointment basis only

📞 Tawag o text para magpa-schedule:
+63 939 928 1717

Hello neighbors!

NMMJ LAW OFFICE
Serbisyong Legal para sa Buhangin – Indangan – Cabantian - Mandug - Bunawan

Ang NMMJ Law Office naghatag og kasaligan ug duol-duol nga serbisyong legal alang sa mga indibidwal, pamilya, ug gagmay nga negosyo sa komunidad.

MGA SERBISYO:
• Legal consultation and advice
• Drafting of affidavits and legal documents
• Contracts and agreements (lease, sale, etc.)
• Family law (custody, support, etc.)
• Property and land matters
• Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
• Civil, administrative, and criminal cases
• Labor and employment concerns
• Notarial services
• Company/Business retainer

ORAS SA OPISINA:
Lunes–Biyernes: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Sabado: 9:00 AM – 12:00 NN

The Supreme Court has reiterated that disciplining children, even if it results in physical injuries, does not automatically amount to child abuse. For such to be considered abuse, there must be clear intent to harm a child’s dignity.

This was the ruling of the Court in a Decision upholding the conviction of a father for child abuse after subjecting his 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son to violent and excessive discipline.

Under Section 3(b) of RA 7610, or the 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵, any act that debases, degrades, or demeans a child’s dignity is considered child abuse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the father’s actions went beyond reasonable discipline, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

The Court emphasized that while parents have the right to discipline their children, such measures must not be violent, excessive, or disproportionate to their misbehavior.

The Court also noted that without the clear intent to harm a child’s dignity, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but can be charged with other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.

The Decision is from the Second Division of the Supreme Court, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-excessive-discipline-that-harms-a-childs-dignity-is-child-abuse/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268457- # # #-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.



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

Beware of fake Notary Publics

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

Papasok ka ba ngayong Holy Week? April 17 at 18 ay Regular Holidays — kaya siguraduhin mong tama ang bayad sa'yo! Ayon sa Article 94 ng Labor Code: • 100% kahit naka-rest ka • 200% kapag nagtrabaho sa holiday • 260% kung pumasok kahit rest day mo! Panalo ang may alam! #PanaloAngMayAlam #LaborLawPH #HolyWeekPay