May a Lawyer Perform Notarial Practice Outside the Jurisdiction of His Notarial Commission?

Lawyers are required to follow certain rules in notarial practice. Lawyers engaged in notarial practice are not merely signing a piece of document – they are executing an act that will transform documents into pieces of evidences that can be used by people against other people.

In this January 21, 2015 decision by the Supreme Court, Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. “Evelyn”. 

Facts of the Case Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno 

Atty. Siapno was alleged to be maintaining a notarial office along Alvear St. East, Lingayen Pangasinan and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. Atty. Siapno applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission was never renewed upon expiration.

Lawyer Making a Fake NLRC Decision in Favor of His Client Resulted to his Disbarment.

In representing clients, lawyers have the ultimate responsibility to be trustworthy with their clients and efficient in their work. In addition, as officers in the administration of justice, lawyers must also act lawfully and without malice in doing their legal work with the bench. A lawyer must not manipulate the law and the legal system to attain his client's favor (and get some additional money in the process) Playing with this well-entrenched rules in the legal profession is dangerous, as it may result to a lawyer's suspension or worse, disbarment. This is what happened to this January 13, 2015 case filed by Fernando Chu against Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr.

Dismissal by Reason of Pregnancy in the Airline Industry - Valid or Not?

Being a flight attendant in an international airline company has its perks. Just imagine, your work office is high up in the air at 41,000 feet above ground. But just like any work place, discrimination is still present in this occupation. In a previous post, we tackled a labor issue concerning the dismissal of an employee by reason of pregnancy. This 2015 case tackles on discrimination of women in the airline industry.

How to Determine if You are a Project Employee of a Call Center Company.

BPOs in the Philippines are thriving. Most Yuppies (young professionals) today start their working career in call centers. Call Center work provides good working opportunities, training, and of course salary. Being a very competitive and rewarding job, call center employees should be aware of the circumstances of their employment. Are they regular employees or project-employees that can be terminated after a project is done? The Supreme Court tackled that question in this 2015 case about call center employees terminated by Sykes Asia.

Disclosure Policy of Philippine Jurisprudence Digest.

This policy is valid from 23 March 2016


This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation. If you have any questions, you can contact me on philjurisdigest@gmail.com.

The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space or post may not always be identified as paid or sponsored content.

Dismissing an Employee on the Ground of Pregnancy Out of Wedlock – Valid or Not?

May an employer dismiss an employee on the ground that the latter got pregnant out of wedlock? What if the employer is a strict Catholic school that imposes strict religious regulations, will this alone validate the dismissal made to the erring employee?

This situation has been raised many times before the Supreme Court, including this 2015 case concerning a well known Catholic school for girls.

When is Substitution of a Candidate in Philippine Elections Valid?

Elections in the Philippines is like a game of basketball; it has teams that is backed up by fans (the electorate), it concerns huge money (just imagine the advertisement fees basketball players receive), and everyone loves to see their teams make it in the finals.

Like in basketball, there is also substitution in elections.

This is the primary issue in the 2013 case of Tagolino vs. HRET (G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013). Reading through this pillar case will make you understand when a substitution of a candidate is proper.