Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm

August 2023

Sexual Harassment and the Safe Spaces Act: Escandor vs People of the Philippines

The case of Escandor vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211962, reminds us that the core of sexual harassment in the workplace is the abuse of power by a superior over a subordinate. This is specified and penalized by Republic Act No. 7877, also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.  Mrs. Cindy Sheila Cobarde-Gamallo was a Contractual Employee of the NEDA Regional Office No. 7 for the UNICEF-assisted Fifth Country Program for Children. Meanwhile, Jose Romeo C. Escandor was a public officer and the Regional Director of ENDA Regional Office No. 7.  Escandor was charged with violating Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. Allegedly, he committed several acts of sexual harassment from July 1999 until November 2003, when Gamallo resigned from her job. These acts include but are not limited to: touching her without her consent, such as grabbing her hands or thigh, embracing her and kissing her on the forehead; telling her that if it were possible, he would have prevented her marriage with her husband; asking her on dates; sending her sexually suggestive messages; telling her that he was in love with her; giving her gifts of chocolates, wine, and a bracelet on Christmas; and grabbing her on a stairway and kissing her on the lips during an office Christmas party in 2002.  In his defense, Escandor testified that he never committed any of the acts that Gamallo accused him of doing. In fact, he asserted that the case was a plan hatched by several employees to oust him and his wife from the office.  The Sandiganbayan found Escandor guilty of sexual harassment. It gave credence to Gamallo’s testimony, noting that “there is nothing in the records that would indicate that Gamallo is dishonest or untruthful.” Escandor was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, as well as a fine of Php20,000.00. Escandor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the Sandingbayan, leading to the creation of this petition. Despite his attempts to reconsider his verdict, Escandor’s guilt for sexual harassment was established beyond reasonable doubt. According to the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, three requirements must be met before someone can be convicted fo sexual harassment. Firstly, the accused must have authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over the victim. Secondly, the authority, influence, or moral ascendancy must be in a work, training, or education-related environment. Finally, the accused must make a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor from the victim. This case fulfills all three requirements to convict Escandor for sexual harassment. Though Escandor was not her immediate superior, he nonetheless had authority over Gamallo at their workplace. This fulfills the first two requirements. His actions, such as asking her out on dates and sending her unsolicited text messages alluding to sex, amounted to a request for sexual favors, fulfilling the third requirement. It should also be noted that R.A. No. 11313, also known as the Safe Spaces Act, does not undo or abandon the definition of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877, or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995. Instead, these two acts cover separate instances of sexual harassment. While the Safe Spaces Act punished acts of sexually harassing someone based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 punishes abuse of authority, influence or moral ascendancy to enable the sexual harassment of a subordinate. As a result, Escandor’s Petition for Review on Certiorari was DENIED by the Supreme Court. His punishment of imprisonment of six months and a fine of P20,000.00 remained.

Sexual Harassment and the Safe Spaces Act: Escandor vs People of the Philippines Read More »

Your Best Guide to VAWC Laws in the Philippines

Household and relationship abuse are terrifying, yet all too common occurrences all over the country. It’s crucial to ensure that those perpetuating abuse are unable to escape the consequences of their actions. Republic Act No. 9262, or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”, seeks to address some of these issues.  In the event that you, your children, or a loved one faces any form of physical or psychological violence, It’s crucial to know your rights. This article aims to break down each part of R.A. 9262 for your ease of understanding. The Basics The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 defines violence against women and their children, lists out protective measures for the victims, and prescribes penalties for the perpetrators. The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law.  It should be noted that lesbian relationships, whether sexual or dating, are not exempt from the law. This means that women are also liable under RA 9262. Meanwhile, a male spouse or partner suffering the abuse of his wife or partner does not fall under this law. Instead, he would have to file a complaint or case under the Revised Penal Code. Definition of Terms Section 3 of RA 9262 defines all of the terms used in this act so that it’s easier to understand going forward. These terms include the following: Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children Section 5 of RA 9262 clarifies which acts qualify as a crime of Violence Against Women and their Children. These include the following: Penalties The penalties of committing an act listed in RA 9262 vary and depend on the severity of the act.  Act of Violence Duration of Penalty Attempt to harm the victim 1 month and 1 day – 6 months  Place the victim in fear of imminent physical harm 1 month and 1 day – 6 months Threaten to or does self-harm to control the victim’s actions or decisions 1 month and 1 day – 6 months Restrict the victim from doing something through force or intimidation 6 months and 1 day – 6 years Force the victim into doing something through force or intimidation 6 months and 1 day – 6 years Attempt to or do any form of sexual violence on the victim 6 years and 1 day – 12 years Cause emotional or psychological distress to the victim through behaviors such as stalking, destroying the victims property, etc. 6 years and 1 day – 12 years Cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the victim 6 years and 1 day – 12 years If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section. In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall pay a fine of not less than P100,000.00, but not more than P300,000.00. He or she must also undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. Protection Orders While a victim can file a case against his or her perpetrator for his or her act of violence, it doesn’t guarantee with certainty that the perpetrator won’t endanger the victim again. To prevent this from happening, the victim can apply for a protection order. A protection order prevents further acts of violence against a woman or her child. It also provides these victims other forms of necessary relief. A protection order aims to safeguard the victim from further harm, minimizes disruption in the victim’s daily life, and facilitates the victim’s opportunity and ability to independently regain control over her life. There are three types of protection orders that may be issued under this Act: the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order (PPO). Types of Protection Orders As aforementioned, there are three types of protection orders: the temporary protection order, permanent protection order, and barangay protection order. Barangay Protection Orders, or BPOs, refer to the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist. A Punong Barangay shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the date of filing. If the Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the BPO application, the application shall be acted upon by any available Barangay Kagawad. BPOs are effective for fifteen days. Temporary Protection Orders, or TPOs, refer to the protection order issued by the court on the date of filing of the application. They are effective for thirty days. The court shall also schedule a hearing on the issuance of a PPO prior to or on the TPO’s expiration date.  Finally, Permanent Protection Orders, or PPOs, refer to protection orders issued by the court after a notice and hearing. The court shall conduct the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a PPO in one day. If the court is unable to conduct the hearing within one day and the TPO issued before is due to expire, the court shall continuously extend or renew the TPO for a period of thirty days.  These protection orders shall include any, some, or all of the following reliefs: All TPOs and PPOs issued under this act shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. A violation shall be punishable with a fine ranging from P5,000.00 to P50,000.00 and/or imprisonment of six months. Who can file for a Protection Order? While the victim can file a Petition for Protection Order, other parties can also file it for him or her. These include his or her parents; other relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; social workers; police officers; Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad; the victim’s lawyer, counselor, therapist, or healthcare provider; or at least two concerned citizens of the municipality who have personal knowledge of the offense committed. Where can I

Your Best Guide to VAWC Laws in the Philippines Read More »

LBC Express-Vis, Inc. vs. Palco

The case of LBC Express-Vis, Inc. vs. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, reminds that an employee is considered constructively dismissed if he or she was sexually harassed by her superior and her employer failed to act on his or her complaint with prompt and sensitivity. Monica C. Palco started working for LBC Express-Vis Inc. on January 16, 2009 as a customer associate in its Gaisano Danao Branch. Her immediate superior, Arturo A. Batucan, then started to flirt with and sexually harass her. The final straw, however, was when Batucan sneaked in on Palco while she was working, held her on her hips and attempted to kiss her lips. While she shielded herself on his first attempt, he managed to kiss her lips on his second.  Bothered by the incident, she reported the incident to the LBC Head Office in Lapu Lapu City. When management did not immediately act on her complaint, Palco resigned. She asserted that she was forced to quit since she no longer felt safe at work. She then filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against the company and a Complaint for sexual harassment before the Danao City Prosecutor’s Office.  The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Palco.  The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed with modification but reduced the amount of moral damages to P50,000.00. This decision was also upheld by the Court of Appeals.  LBC then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that it should not be held liable for constructive dismissal. It pointed out that it did not know of, participate, or consent to Batucan’s acts towards Palco and only learned of his acts after Palco reported it. It also asserted that four months was not an unreasonable period to resolve a sexual harassment complaint.  Palco maintained that she was constructively dismissed. Constructive dismissal is a situation that occurs when an employee is forced to leave or quit his or her job due to the employer creating a hostile working environment. The resignation was not voluntary but was instead done to protect the employer, effectively making it a termination. If an employee wishes to assert that his or her resignation is a constructive dismissal, he or she will have to show how the employer created a hostile working environment for him or her. One of the ways a hostile working environment can be created is through the sexual harassment of an employee.  Batucan held a high position in the company and was Palco’s immediate supervisor when he sexually harassed her. Thus, he represented the company when he created a hostile working environment for Palco. Although the company cannot be solely held liable for Batucan’s actions, R.A. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act, states that if the employer was informed of the acts of its managerial staff and does not contest or question it, it is deemed to have authorized or be complicit to the acts of its erring employee. Palco contends that LBC was insensible and acted in bad faith in failing to immediately act on her complaint. It took management four months and three weeks to resolve the matter, when a constructive dismissal case had already been filed.  As a result, the petition was DENIED by the Supreme Court. Monica C. Palco is found to have been constructively dismissed. LBC Express-Vis, Inc., is hereby adjudged liable to Monica C. Palco for separation pay, backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, as awarded by the National Labor Relations Commission in its Decision dated May 31, 2012.

LBC Express-Vis, Inc. vs. Palco Read More »

How to File an Income Tax Return

How do you earn your income? A majority of people make a living by gaining employment at a company. By working at a company, you’ll be able to earn compensation income. Those who make a living solely through compensation income usually don’t have to worry about filing their own income tax returns, as their employer handles it for them. However, many people aspire to gain income from multiple sources, such as through freelancing. If you’re thinking of doing the same, you must first learn about the basics of filing an income tax return. What is an Income Tax Return? Income tax refers to the tax on any salary or income, regardless of its source, that corresponds to an income tax rate. According to the BIR, the annual income tax return “summarizes all the transactions covering the calendar year of the taxpayer.” Individuals and enterprises alike must pay their taxes on or before April 15 every year. It’s crucial to follow this deadline to the letter. Depending on the severity, purposely missing your ITR could either result in a fine or a few years of imprisonment. Ensure that you stay on top of your income tax if you’re required to file them yourself. Who is required to and exempted from filing an ITR? As a general rule of thumb, all Filipino citizens with a source of income are required to file an ITR. Aliens and foreigners only need to file an ITR for any sources of income inside the Philippines. Again, employees of companies are still required to file an ITR, but their taxes are usually taken care of by their employers. In specifics, those who are required to file an ITR include: Those who are not required to file an ITR include: What are the methods of filing an ITR? There are many ways you can file your ITR, making it easily accessible for everyone. However, do note that you may be required to use a specific method, depending on your circumstances. 

How to File an Income Tax Return Read More »

Cecilia D. Mendoza vs. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr.

Cecilia D. Mendoza vs. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr., A.C. No. 13548, reminds notaries public that the act of notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined. The complainant, Celia D. Mendoza, claims she is one of the heirs of Adela Espiritu-Barlaan, who died intestate on September 4, 2020. Adela Espiritu-Barlaan had no descendant or ascendant, but she did have siblings. She also left a parcel of land with an area of 247 square meters. On October 25, 2013, Gemma S. Barlaan executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver and Transfer of Rights (EJS), adjudicating to themselves the subject property. The EJS was acknowledged before and notarized by the respondent, Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, in his notarial book. A Transfer Certificate of Title was then issued in the name of John Alexander Barlaan. John Alexander Barlaan sold 147 square meters of the subject property to Monette Abac Ramos for P3,130,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 26, 2014. On March 12, 2015, John Alexander Barlaan executed another Deed of Absolute Sale covering the same subject property in favor of Monette Abac Ramos for Pl,500,000.00. Both Deeds of Sale were acknowledged before and notarized by Atty. Cesar R. Santiago in his notarial book. Monette Abac Ramos then filed a Complaint for Ejectment dated May 12, 2015 after discovering that the 147-square meter property was occupied by other relatives of Adela Espiritu-Barlaan. Attached to the Complaint was her Judicial Affidavit, showing her first deed of sale. She won the ejectment case, making the defendants vacate the property. On June 23, 2017, Celia D. Mendoza filed the instant Complaint, claiming that his act of notarizing the two Deeds of Sale is a violation of 2004 Notarial Practice Rule and CPR. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago then argued that:  The IBP-CBD found the act of notarizing the First and Second Deeds of Sale violated the 2004 Notarial Practice Rule and CPR, especially as the act was done to minimize his client’s liability from paying taxes. Thus, they recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, and that his notarial commission be revoked for two years. The IBP Board of Governors recommended that Atty. Cesar R. Santiago should additionally be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. Thus, respondent Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Cecilia D. Mendoza vs. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. Read More »

3 Types of Separation: Everything You Need to Know

Because the Philippines currently doesn’t have a divorce law, you may find your options limited if you wish to separate from your spouse. Currently, a separating couple has three options under the Family Code: legal separation, nullity of marriage, or annulment. The best course of action varies case to case. The couple will have to take several factors into account, such as the circumstances of their marriage, the grounds for their separation, the cost of the legal process, and whether they want the marital ties to be severed or not.  In this article, we break down everything you need to know about legal separation, nullity of marriage, and annulment. Nullity of Marriage A Declaration of Nullity of Marriage applies to a marriage that is null and void from the beginning, due to it missing one or more of the essential or formal requisites of marriage. Because the marriage was never valid, the marital ties are severed and both parties will be able to remarry.  Grounds for Nullity of Marriage Again, a married couple can file for nullity of marriage if said marriage is considered void ab initio, or void from the beginning. According to Article 35 of the Family Code, the following marriages fall into this category: In addition to those under Article 35, the following marriages are also considered void from the beginning:  Annulment You can get your marriage annulled if it was valid at first, but because of the existence of the grounds under Article 45 of the Family Code, the marriage will be annulled. This is in contrast to the declaration of nullity of marriage, which can only apply to marriages that are null from the beginning. Grounds for Annulment According to Article 45 of the Family Code, you can get an annulment on any of the following grounds: Process of Annulment and Nullity of Marriage  The main difference between annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage is whether or not the marriage was considered valid from the beginning. Because of this, there are many similarities between the steps in filing for the two separation procedures. With that in mind, here is a rough outline of the steps in filing for annulment of declaration of nullity of marriage. However, note that there will still be differences between the two procedures and that some situations may add or skip over certain steps, depending on the circumstances. Legal Separation Legal separation is a legal remedy for couples suffering from a problematic marriage. It differs from both annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage in that the marriage is still considered valid and subsisting. Because of this, neither party is allowed to remarry in the future.  However, it does allow them to live apart and own separate assets. By doing this, the guilty party cannot inherit any of the innocent party’s assets. One difference between a legal separation, an annulment, and a declaration of nullity of marriage is that legal separations are almost always borne from a conflict between the two parties. In contrast, a separating couple doesn’t necessarily have to have conflict to get annulled or file for a declaration of nullity of marriage. Grounds for Legal Separation The primary purpose of a legal separation is to provide a way for problematic marriages to separate safely, even if the marriage bond is not dissolved. Under Article 55 of the Family Code, one may file a petition for legal separation within 5 years from the time of the occurrence of the following grounds: Process of Legal Separation In contrast to the process of an annulment, legal separation is a more combative court case. Here is an overview of how a legal separation is processed. Note that these steps may vary depending on the situation and circumstances. Conclusion Whether or not the Philippines will ever get a divorce law remains unclear, though there are steps being taken to legalize it. For now, any couple looking to get separated can still consider their existing options carefully, so they can decide which is the best move for them. If you are in need of a lawyer specializing in Family Law, you can contact Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm’s team of lawyers today.

3 Types of Separation: Everything You Need to Know Read More »

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC

FACTS Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (a.k.a. Grace Poe) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo in 1968. At age 5, she was adopted by celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (a.k.a Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesus Sonora Poe (a.k.a Susan Roces). She initially pursued a degree in Developmental Studies at the University of the Philippines but opted to continue her studies abroad and left for the United States of America (U.S.) in 1988. She immigrated to the U.S. in 1991 after her marriage to Theodore Llamanzares, who was based in the U.S. at the time. In 2001, she became a naturalized American citizen and obtained an American passport. In 2004, Grace Poe returned to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy for President. However, after a few months, she rushed back to the Philippines upon learning of her father’s deteriorating medical condition, who slipped into a coma and eventually expired. In her desire to be with her grieving mother, she and her husband decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines in 2005.  On 7 July 2006, Grace Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. The BI declared that she is deemed to have reacquired her Philippine citizenship while her children are considered as citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, the BI issued Identification Certificates (ICs) in her name and in the names of her three children. In 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III appointed Grace Poe as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). Before assuming her post, she executed an “Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of American Citizenship” before a notary public in Pasig City on 20 October 2010, in satisfaction of the legal requisites stated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 9225. The following day, she submitted the said affidavit to the BI and took her oath of office as Chairperson of the MTRCB. From then on, Grace Poe stopped using her American passport. On 2 October 2012, she filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered “6 years and 6 months” to the question “Period of residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013.” She obtained the highest number of votes and was proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013. On 15 October 2015, Grace Poe filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her COC, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May 2005. Her filing of her COC for President in the upcoming elections triggered the filing of several COMELEC cases against her which were the subject of these consolidated cases. These cases argued that Grace Poe cannot be considered as a natural-born Filipino on account of the fact that she was a foundling, and that international law does not confer natural-born status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings. They also argued that she fell short of the ten-year residency requirement of the Constitution as her residence could only be counted at the earliest from July 2006, when she reacquired Philippine citizenship under the said Act. ISSUE RULING The petition was thus GRANTED. MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES is DECLARED QUALIFIED to be a candidate for President in the National and Local Elections of 9 May 2016.

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC Read More »

What to Know About: Grave and Light Threats

Have you ever been on the other end of a threat? Many people throw threats left and right without ever meaning to follow up on them. More often than not, they’re are lightly given to friends as a joke. But a serious threat that causes fear or mental disturbance should not be taken lightly. Threats come in three separate categories. These can help differentiate the gravity and intention of each one that you may come across. Here’s what you need to know about the difference between grave threats, light threats, and other light threats. What are Grave Threats? You receive a grave threat if someone threatens to commit a crime that could potentially harm you, your family, or your property. It must amount to some form of legal crime to be considered a grave threat. Grave threats are punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. This type is further divided into three categories: An example is from Caluag vs People, G.R. No. 171511, in which the petitioner held a gun to one of the two private complainants and verbally threatened her by uttering, to wit, “Saan ka pupunta gusto mo ito?” What are Light Threats? A light threat does not amount to a crime, but still causes fear or mental disturbance. This type of threat also always comes with a condition that the victim must fulfill. For example, instead of being threatened with murder or property damage, the offender might instead threaten to share the victim’s darkest secret if he/she doesn’t do what the offender says.  Light threats are punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. What are Other Light Threats? Finally, other light threats also do not amount to a crime, nor is there ever a condition for the victim to fulfill. The offender should also never have intended to follow through with the threat that he/she made towards the victim. Other light threats are punishable under Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code. An example is from Ignacio vs People, G.R. No. 226991, wherein Ignacio was found guilty of Other Light Threats by brandishing a bolo knife to the private complainants and threatening them with it. No condition was given, and the petitioner never intended to follow through with her threat. If you feel fearful for your safety after receiving a threat, remember that you have the power to seek legal help. Here at Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm, we will always strive for a positive and just outcome for their clients, for their future and peace of mind. Book a consultation with our team of lawyers today.

What to Know About: Grave and Light Threats Read More »

https://157.245.54.109/ https://128.199.163.73/ https://cadizguru.com/ https://167.71.213.43/
Scroll to Top