2026

In this case, the heirs of a registered landowner sought to recover possession of a property occupied by their relatives, who claimed they had purchased the land decades earlier through an oral agreement with the deceased owner. Although no written deed of sale existed, the buyers had long possessed and cultivated the property and presented tax declarations and receipts showing payment of taxes over the years. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Civil Code requires sales of real property to be in writing for enforceability, an oral sale that has already been partially or fully executed may still be considered valid and binding. The Court emphasized that delivery of the property and continued possession are strong indicators that the sale had been consummated.

In this case, a Regional Trial Court judge confronted a PAO lawyer who briefly parked near a PWD access ramp inside the Justice Hall of Marikina. Although the lawyer repeatedly apologized, the judge publicly berated him using harsh and demeaning language, later proceeding to the PAO office to continue his tirade in front of witnesses. While the Supreme Court recognized that the judge’s concern for maintaining order and accessibility within court premises was legitimate, it held that his manner of enforcement was improper and disproportionate. The Court ultimately admonished the judge, reminding members of the judiciary that they must always exercise courtesy, restraint, and conduct consistent with the dignity of judicial office.

In this case, incriminating iPhone message backups were discovered in a government-issued laptop previously assigned to a judge and later returned to the Supreme Court for repair. Subsequent forensic examination and judicial audits uncovered evidence of bribery, improper dealings with lawyers and litigants, and negligence in handling court exhibits. The Supreme Court ruled that judges and government employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy over files stored in government-issued devices, especially where official policies allow monitoring and audits. The Court further held that the exclusionary rule and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine do not apply in administrative proceedings involving evidence obtained from government property.

In this case, TOPROS alleged that its president and director, together with several individuals, formed competing corporations and diverted corporate assets, resources, clients, and business opportunities for their own benefit. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a corporate officer or director may be held liable for violating fiduciary duties when he appropriates a business opportunity that rightfully belongs to the corporation. The Court reiterated that liability may arise when the corporation is financially capable of pursuing the opportunity, the opportunity falls within its line of business, the corporation has an interest or expectancy in it, and the officer’s actions place him in conflict with his duties to the corporation.

In this case, a laborer-carpenter was repeatedly and successively rehired by a construction corporation a total of 38 times for various projects spanning nearly 31 years. Upon the completion of his last project, the company terminated his services, claiming he was merely a project employee whose employment automatically ceased. The Supreme Court ruled that he had attained regular employment status, holding that continuous and successive rehiring for tasks that are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the employer’s usual business transforms a project employee into a regular employee, regardless of the execution of project contracts.