ORIAS LAW

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/.

24/10/2026

𝐏𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐃: Alamin ang mga importanteng impormasyon na nakasaad sa Land Registration Authority (LRA) Circular No. 03-2026, "Rationalization of Fees and Charges Payable to the Clerk of Court, Sheriff, Register of Deeds, and Land Registration Authority."

Nagpapasalamat po ang LRA sa lahat ng nakibahagi sa public consultation ukol dito at nagbahagi ng kanilang feedback. Lubos pong pinahahalagahan ng LRA ang mga ito na naging bahagi ng pagbuo ng nasabing Circular.

Ipatutupad po ang rationalized fees and charges na nakasaad sa Circular simula Nobyembre 3, 2026.

Para sa iba pang opisyal na issuances ng LRA, bisitahin lamang po ang LRA website sa pamamagitan ng link na nasa ibaba:

https://lra.gov.ph/lra-issuances/

16/10/2026

Yes, we are open tomorrow, October 17, 2026 (Saturday)! 😉

Stop by for your consultations, legal inquiries, or notarization needs. See you tomorrow!

15/10/2026

The has 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.

The Amendments will take effect on October 31, 2026, after 15 calendar days from posting on the Supreme Court Website.

15/10/2026

📢 READ | REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC

Pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 114, s. 2026, issued by the Office of the President, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Central Office reminds the public that it CONTINUES to implement the COMPRESSED FOUR-DAY WORKWEEK ARRANGEMENT under DILG Circular No. 2026-015, dated August 3, 2026.

📌 OPERATING AND OFFICE HOURS

🗓️ Monday to Thursday
🕖 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM

⚠️ IMPORTANT REMINDER: If a holiday or work suspension falls on a Friday, the work schedule from Monday to Thursday of that week shall revert to the regular office hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

The public and all DILG stakeholders are advised to take note of this schedule and plan their visits and transactions accordingly to facilitate smooth and efficient service delivery.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

12/10/2026

ANNOUNCEMENT 📢

Please be advised that our Office is CLOSED TODAY for an important event. We’ll be back open tomorrow to serve you!

Thank you for your continued support and understanding.

10/10/2026

08/10/2026

A significant milestone for Filipinos who were previously married to foreign nationals! The process to update their civil status through Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce is now streamlined, eliminating the burdensome requirement of proving foreign laws. ✨🇵🇭

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.

06/10/2026

The has upheld the cancellation of a man’s life insurance policy for failing to disclose important information about his medical condition, reiterating that proof he intended to deceive the insurer is not required.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Supreme Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the petition for review on 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪 of the Heirs of Indalicio Monera (“Heirs”) and dismissed their complaint against Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (MB Life) and Meycauayan Rural Bank, Inc. (Meycauayan Bank).

Monera took out loans from Meycauayan Bank, some of which were secured by a mortgage on a parcel of land and a group credit life insurance policy issued by MB Life. Under the policy, the insurance proceeds would be paid to the bank in case of Monera’s death.

When Monera applied for another credit life insurance policy, he signed a health declaration stating that he had not been sick for seven or more consecutive days, nor had he consulted a doctor for any illness in the last five years.

Less than a month after getting the second policy, Monera died. When his loans became due, Meycauayan Bank filed a claim with MB Life, but the insurer denied it after learning that before applying for the policy, Monera had been diagnosed with cancer.

In denying the petition of the Heirs, the Supreme Court cited the 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which allows an insurer to cancel an insurance policy when an applicant fails to disclose information, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Information is considered material if it could have affected the insurer’s decision to issue the policy.

In this case, Monera did not state that he had undergone surgery, consulted doctors, and had been diagnosed with cancer, even though he declared otherwise in the health declaration form.

The Supreme Court explained that Monera’s failure to disclose his true health status was material because it would have influenced MB Life’s assessment of his insurance application, including whether to approve it and under what terms.

The Supreme Court also clarified that insurers do not need to prove that the insured intended to deceive them.

Read the full text of the Press Release:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174351

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168794

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172227

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172230

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172233

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