In the case of Lanuza v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 242362, April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court held that unjustified absence from the marital home for decades may be considered as part of the totality of evidence that a person is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

In the case of TOMAS N. OROLA AND PHIL. NIPPON AOI INDUSTRY, INC. VS. ATTY. ARCHIE S. BARIBAR, A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance and purpose of notarization. It said that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act .of acknowledging documents executed by parties who. are willing to pay fees for notarization. Notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

In addition to leave privileges under existing laws, Section 8 of the Solo Parents’ Welfare Act grants parental leave of not more than seven (7) working days to any solo parent employee who has rendered service of at least one (1) year.

Jurisprudence dictates that the corpus delicti in illegal possession of firearms is the lack of license to own or possess a firearm. However, for the Court to rule that there is no need to present the firearm as evidence would have dangerous consequences. It would be easy for anyone to plant a firearm as evidence, arrest the person, then charge them for illegal possession if their name does not appear in the database of the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police. Anyone could easily be convicted by the mere issuance of a certification that they do not have a license to own and possess a firearm. Thus, the preservation of the integrity of the confiscated firearm is crucial.

In recent months, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been under harsh scrutiny by many Filipinos. Therefore, to give us a better understanding of what the ICC is and whether or not it has jurisdiction to try criminal cases here in our country, here are some key points gathered from the ICC’s booklet “Understanding the International Criminal Court”, published in 2020.

In the case of Austria v. AAA (G.R. No. 205275) the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its exclusive rule-making authority and the symbolic function to instruct the bench and the bar, formulated guidelines on the private offended parties’ legal personality to question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings.

In Lingganay v. Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company, G.R. No. 254976, August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a bus driver involved in multiple road accidents is valid for transgressing the company rules and regulations on health and safety and for his gross and habitual neglect of his duties under Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code.

In the case of Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, the Supreme Court explained what happens to the votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose name was still included or printed in the official ballots on election day. Should the votes cast for such a nuisance candidate be considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?

Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166 requires every candidate to file his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE). No person elected to any public offices shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the same. In PDP-Laban v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 225152), the Supreme Court noted that the word “until” as used in Section 14 signifies that the prohibition to assume office is conditional and subject to the filing of the SOCEs.