June 2026

In this case, production operators assigned to an electronics company were told they would be absorbed as regular employees if they passed an exam. When they failed, their services were terminated, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization against the manpower provider and the principal company. While the manpower agency brandished its official DOLE registration, the Supreme Court ruled that a certificate of registration alone is not conclusive proof of legitimacy, and the totality of the facts proved they were engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting.

In this case, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a final tax deficiency assessment against a corporation based on two executed waivers meant to extend the legal prescriptive period. The corporation protested, arguing the waivers were void due to structural defects, including missing tax amounts, an unauthorized corporate signature, and the lack of the Commissioner’s signature. The Supreme Court ruled that because the BIR failed in its mandatory duty to ensure strict legal compliance before accepting the waivers, the extensions were void, the assessments had prescribed, and the doctrine of estoppel could not save the BIR’s inaction.

In this landmark case, a same-sex couple purchased a house and lot, registering it solely under one partner’s name for bank convenience. Upon separating, the registered partner executed an “Acknowledgement” recognizing the other’s 50% financial contribution, but later refused to sell the property or split the proceeds. The Supreme Court ruled that because same-sex couples are legally incapacitated to marry under Philippine law, their property relations are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code. The signed Acknowledgement constituted valid proof of actual contribution, making them legal co-owners.

In this case, a trial court motu proprio (on its own initiative) dismissed a petition for the probate of a will because the decedent allegedly resided in a different city at the time of death. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that venue is procedural and waivable. The Supreme Court ruled that improper venue is not jurisdictional, and a court cannot dismiss a case on this ground unless an interested party seasonably raises an objection.

In this case, an individual was arrested, detained for two years for non-bailable offenses, and later acquitted after the prosecution failed to identify him. Following his release, he filed a claim for state compensation under R.A. No. 7309, arguing that he was mistakenly identified and unjustly accused. However, the Court strictly applied the verba legis rule, clarifying that the essential element of a prior conviction was lacking.