Victor and Cayaban Law Office

31/10/2026

Happy Birthday to one of our esteemed Partners, Atty. Caryll Cebritas Cayaban!

Wishing you continued success, good health, and happiness. May you remain a source of inspiration, wisdom, and dedication in the legal profession.

Greetings from Victor & Cayaban Law Office! ⚖️

30/10/2026

The has ruled that men can also be victims of sexual violence, stressing that the law must protect all victims of abuse regardless of gender.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc found a woman guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew.

The incident happened while the child was visiting the home of his father’s relatives. While the child was asleep, the woman woke him up, ordered him to remove his clothes, and made him lie on her bed. She then engaged in sexual in*******se with him. The child did not protest at first because he was curious about what was happening. But after the incident, he felt ashamed and considered ending his life.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found the woman guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.

Before the SC, the woman argued that the child had consented to the sexual act.

The SC disagreed. It explained that at the time of the incident in 2018, the age of sexual consent was 12 years old. Because the child was only 11, he was deemed legally incapable of giving consent.

The SC clarified, however, that the proper offense is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not RA 7610.

The SC explained that RA 7610 applies when a minor appears to consent to sexual activity due to the coercion or influence of an adult. It does not apply when a minor is entirely unaware, unconscious, or unable to give legal consent, as in this case.

The SC also noted that the woman was charged with statutory acts of lasciviousness because, at the time of the offense, her acts did not fall within the legal definition of r**e under Article 266-A of the RPC. The law then limited the act of r**e to a man inserting his p***s into a woman’s va**na, as well as the insertion of a p***s or any object into another person’s ge***al.

However, RA 11648, enacted in 2022, expanded the definition of r**e, now stating that it may be committed by any person who has carnal knowledge of another person under the circumstances specified by law.

The SC said the use of the term person in the law instead of specifying the perpetrator’s gender allows for the commission of r**e even by women.

The SC noted that despite this amendment, some rulings continue to describe r**e as a crime committed by men against women. It traced this view to older, patriarchal r**e laws that were originally designed not to protect women from violence, but to punish men for taking women—who were considered the property of their fathers or husbands—through r**e.

The SC held that these beliefs about r**e are not only sexist, but also exclude male victims who suffer the same trauma. The failure to recognize that they can be victims of r**e can also make it harder for them to realize that they were violated.

The woman was sentenced to prison for nine to 16 years and ordered to pay PHP 250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=176034

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=175664

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=175672

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

29/10/2026

27/10/2026

The (SC) has ruled that employees cannot be retired before the compulsory retirement age of 65 without their clear and voluntary consent.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division partly granted the petition of Rodolfo C. Ondevilla and found Colegio de San Juan de Letran in Laguna (CSJL) guilty of illegal dismissal.

Ondevilla joined CSJL as Comptroller in 2004 and later became Assistant Vice President for Finance. His appointment was renewed several times.

In 2018, CSJL underwent a management reorganization, and Ondevilla was reassigned as Controller. Although he objected to the reassignment, claiming it was a demotion, he continued working at the same salary and benefits.

When Ondevilla turned 60 on August 29, 2019, CSJL considered his appointment expired. Ondevilla then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The SC agreed with Ondevilla, emphasizing that an optional retirement plan must be based on a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee.

The employee must freely and expressly agree to it, without pressure or coercion, because accepting optional retirement means giving up the right to security of tenure.

In this case, the Court found that Ondevilla's early retirement was not the result of a mutual agreement between him and CSJL.

The SC noted that CSJL never made any offer or proposal for a retirement plan that Ondevilla could freely accept or reject. There was also no indication that CSJL was willing to discuss his retirement.

The SC thus ruled that Ondevilla was entitled to full backwages and separation pay instead of reinstatement. The SC also awarded him retirement benefits covering his employment from June 16, 2004, until August 29, 2024, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=175829.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168800.

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

21/10/2026

The has ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman may investigate officials on its own, even if the Commission on Audit (COA) is conducting a separate investigation involving the same facts and transactions. The Ombudsman does not need to wait for COA to complete its audit before investigating possible wrongdoing by public officials.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 found several former officials of the Provincial Government of Palawan liable for irregularities in the use of the province’s share in the Malampaya Fund.

The cases stemmed from the release of PHP 2.572 billion from the Malampaya Fund for development projects in Palawan. Of this amount, PHP 966 million was allocated to the province to fund projects involving electrification, healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Following a COA special audit, four administrative complaints were filed before the Ombudsman against the provincial officials over alleged irregularities in the projects’ procurement and implementation.

The complaints alleged, among others, inadequate publication and posting of invitations to bid, improper evaluation of bidders’ eligibility, and awarding of contracts despite incomplete requirements.

They also cited the assignment of the same personnel to multiple projects with overlapping schedules, incomplete disbursement documents, and inaccurate accomplishment reports that overstated project progress, resulting in payments to contractors.

The SC upheld the findings of the Ombudsman that the officials were administratively liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and gross neglect of duty. It ordered the officials’ dismissal from service and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, with forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Citing Article XI, Section 13(1) of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, which empowers the Ombudsman to investigate, on its own initiative or upon a complaint, acts or omissions of public officials that appear illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient, the SC explained that the Ombudsman and the COA exercise separate and independent powers.

While the COA audits government funds and transactions, the Ombudsman investigates possible wrongdoing by public officials. The COA’s finding may help the Ombudsman in its investigation, but they are not binding on the Ombudsman.

In this case, the SC held that the Ombudsman may proceed with its own inquiry even if the COA report involving similar allegations has not yet become final. The SC ruled that the Ombudsman acted properly and promptly in investigating the complaints against the officers and determining their administrative liability based on the evidence.

The SC also stressed that the Ombudsman did not rely solely on the COA audit report. It independently evaluated the complaints and their supporting documents, including bidding records, contracts, inspection reports, resolutions of the Bids and Awards Committee, and other relevant records.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=175267.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=175261.

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

14/10/2026

The En Banc, during its session today, October 14, 2026, ruled that senior citizens cannot claim an additional 20% discount on top of an existing promotional or negotiated discount.

The SC explained that when goods or services are offered at promotional prices, senior citizens may choose either the promotional discount or the 20% senior citizen discount, whichever gives them greater savings.

The ruling came as the SC acquitted Orville U. Ong (Ong), general manager of a hotel in Bacolod City, of violating the Senior Citizens Act for allegedly refusing to grant the mandatory 20% discount to hotel guests Atty. Paul S. Alcazaren, 66, and Eric Gadiana, 70.

Ong argued that the hotel had already applied a 20% discount on the room rate negotiated for the Cebu Bikers Club, of which the guests were members. The discount was not separately reflected on the official receipt because it had already been deducted from the total amount.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals found Ong guilty.

The SC reversed the lower courts’ rulings, finding that the guests had already received the 20% discount through the club’s negotiated rate. The hotel was therefore not required to grant an additional 20% discount.

The SC emphasized that while the Senior Citizens Act aims to protect and support senior citizens, its implementation must also be fair and reasonable to businesses.

As the SC explained, “[t]he State’s pursuit of public welfare cannot be allowed to impose undue or confiscatory burdens on private establishments, whose continued viability is essential to the long-term effectiveness of the law.”

Read the full Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174900

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

13/10/2026

09/10/2026

The (SC) has ruled that probate courts, which settle a deceased person’s estate, may require banks to explain withdrawals from the deceased person’s accounts to determine whether the funds are part of the estate.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) order requiring Union Bank of the Philippines (UnionBank) to explain withdrawals from the accounts of the late Ignacio T. Arroyo and submit related email exchanges.

During the settlement of Arroyo’s estate, the estate administrators discovered that money had been withdrawn from his UnionBank accounts after his death without the heirs’ knowledge.

The RTC, upon motion of the heirs, required UnionBank to explain the withdrawals and submit additional records, including emails exchanged between bank officers and a certain Atty. Fe. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

UnionBank challenged the ruling before the SC, arguing that the RTC had exceeded its authority as a probate court. The bank claimed that the withdrawals were made under a survivorship agreement and were used, among others, to settle Arroyo’s existing obligations. It also argued that any attempt to recover the funds should be brought in a separate civil case.

In upholding the RTC, the SC explained that while probate courts have limited powers, they may provisionally determine whether property belongs to a deceased person’s estate. Under Rule 87 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, they may also require persons suspected of concealing or taking estate property to answer questions and account for it.

In this case, the bank accounts were admittedly in Arroyo’s name. The RTC merely sought to determine how much money was in the accounts when he died and whether the funds should be included in the estate.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174678

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/e-02776-union-bank-of-the-philippines-vs-bernardina-arroyo-tantoco-and-alicia-rita-m-arroyo/

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

08/10/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on October 7, 2026, approved amendments to the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC) to make it easier for Filipino spouses to prove a foreign divorce when seeking its recognition in Philippine courts.

Under the amendments, which will take effect 15 days after they are posted on the Supreme Court Website, Filipino spouses seeking recognition of a foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 will no longer need to prove the applicable foreign law when filing their petition. They will only need to prove that the foreign divorce took place.

The amendments introduce Section 48-A of Rule 39, which presumes that a foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreign spouse allows the foreign spouse to remarry under foreign law, unless the divorce decree itself states that it is only a limited divorce.

The party opposing the petition now bears the burden of proving that the divorce is not absolute.

The new rule also presumes that an English translation of a foreign divorce document is accurate if the translator certifies its accuracy under oath.

These presumptions are disputable; they may be challenged with contrary evidence, under Section 3 of Rule 131.

The amendments, however, leave the existing legal framework unchanged. A petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce is still required, and the substantive requirements of Article 26(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 remain the same.

Recognition of a foreign divorce may still be opposed on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, fraud, or a clear mistake of law or fact.

The amendments were approved upon the recommendation of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and in consultation with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Jhosep Y. Lopez, and the Sub-Technical Working Group on the Concerns of Overseas Working Filipinos Regarding the Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees/Reports (Sub-TWG).

During consultations with the Sub-TWG, the Department of Foreign Affairs identified several challenges. Foreign family laws are often spread across different jurisdictions, making them difficult to obtain. Some countries have no designated official who can certify these laws, while foreign ministries generally do not provide official English translations.

Through these amendments, the Supreme Court aims to remove unnecessary barriers and make it easier for Filipinos to exercise their rights under the law.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174621.

The full text of the Supreme Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Resolution A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court Website once available.