Atty. Phil Juris

A motion to suspend criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent conflicting decisions between civil and criminal courts. This mechanism ensures that a criminal case does not move forward when its resolution is inextricably linked to a civil issue that must first be settled. The rationale is rooted in judicial economy and fairness: it would be unjust and inefficient for a criminal court to render a decision that could later be contradicted by a civil court’s findings on a closely related matter. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that not every civil case related to a criminal case warrants the suspension of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that only those civil cases that meet the strict elements of a prejudicial question, as defined by the rules, can justify such suspension. What, then, are the elements of a prejudicial question? Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a pr...

SC Dismisses Disbarment Case Against Lawyers, Sets Guidelines on Proving Screenshots as Evidence in Court | BY ATTY. PHIL JURIS  | June 27, 2025 In Serrano v. Cruz-Angeles (A.C. No. 10985, July 29, 2024), the Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George Ahmed Paglinawan after the complainant failed to establish the authenticity and authorship of Facebook posts allegedly made by the respondents. While the complaint was dismissed, the decision is notable for reaffirming and clarifying the rules governing the admissibility of screenshots and digital printouts as evidence in court proceedings. At the heart of the decision is a critical reminder: screenshots and digital documents are not self-authenticating . Their admissibility hinges on compliance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) , particularly Rule 5 on authentication. Authentication Requirements Under the Rules on Electr...

The Supreme Court, through the Office of the 2025 Bar Chairperson, has officially released the list of Local Testing Centers (LTCs) for the 2025 Bar Examinations.  According to Bar Bulletin No. 3, signed by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, fourteen LTCs have been designated nationwide to facilitate greater accessibility for Bar applicants. The selected LTCs in Metro Manila are: -University of Santo Tomas,  -San Beda University-Mendiola,  -New Era University,  -Manila Adventist College,  -San Beda College-Alabang,  -University of the Philippines-BGC, and -Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. For Luzon , the centers are Saint Louis University and University of Nueva Caceres.  In the Visayas , the designated LTCs are University of San Jose-Recoletos, Dr. V. Orestes Romualdez Educational Foundation, and Central Philippine University.  Mindanao applicants may take the Bar at Ateneo de Davao University or Mindanao State University-Iligan Inst...

A lawyer shall not share, split, or divide, or stipulate to divide, directly or indirectly, a fee for legal services with persons or organizations not licensed or authorized to practice law. – Supreme Court reminds lawyers. T an Tek Beng v. David  (1983) By ATTY. PHIL JURIS  June 17, 2025 Manila, Philippines —  The Supreme Court has once again underscored a fundamental ethical rule in the legal profession: lawyers are strictly prohibited from sharing, splitting, or dividing legal fees with individuals or organizations not licensed or authorized to practice law. This reminder draws from the landmark case of  Tan Tek Beng v. David (1983) , where the Court reprimanded a lawyer for entering into a fee-sharing agreement with a non-lawyer intermediary, declaring such arrangements void and unethical. The Court emphasized that the prohibition is rooted in public policy and the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession. Allowing non-lawyers to profit from legal se...

  Supreme Court Acquits Man of Usurpation for Pretending to Be a Lawyer High Court rules that a lawyer is not a “person in authority” under criminal law By ATTY. PHIL JURIS  June 17, 2025 MANILA, Philippines — In a decision promulgated on August 7, 2024 , the Supreme Court acquitted a man of usurpation of authority after he impersonated a lawyer, finding that such impersonation does not qualify as usurpation under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reversed the conviction of Pedro Pequero y Nollora for usurpation of authority. Pequero, who introduced himself under the name “Atty. Epafrodito Nollora,” had been found guilty by the lower courts for using a fictitious name, using an illegal alias, and for falsely representing himself as a lawyer. While his convictions for the use of fictitious name and alias were upheld, the Supreme Court ruled that usurpation of authority was improperly applied in this case. “A lawyer is not considered a ‘person in authority’...

Duterte Allies in Senate Should Inhibit VP Sara’s Impeachment Trial By Atty. Phil Juris June 16, 2025 With the Senate now convened as an impeachment court to try Vice President Sara Duterte, one thing must be said plainly: senators closely allied with the Duterte family should voluntarily inhibit themselves from the trial. This is not about political rivalry or personal attacks. This is about protecting constitutional integrity and ensuring public accountability —both of which are at the very heart of what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they gave the Senate the power to try impeachment cases. The Constitution is clear. “Public office is a public trust.” (Article XI, Section 1). Public officers—senators included—are expected to be accountable to the people at all times, to act with responsibility, integrity, and justice. In an impeachment trial, those values matter more than ever. Senator-judges are not acting as legislators in this context. They are judges. And...

  Supreme Court Clarifies One-Year Bar Rule in Impeachment Proceedings Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459 | February 15, 2011 By Atty. Phil Juris  Published: June 12, 2025 MANILA, Philippines — In a landmark ruling that has since become a cornerstone in constitutional law and bar examinations, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "initiation" in impeachment proceedings under the 1987 Constitution, settling a critical issue in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice (G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011). At the center of the case was then-Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, who in 2010 faced two impeachment complaints filed just months apart before the House of Representatives. She sought to halt the second complaint, citing the constitutional prohibition against initiating more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a one-year period. Gutierrez argued that the first complain...