Legal Insights
Plain-language guides and case briefs on Philippine law — researched from the firm's law library of 184,000+ statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and agency issuances, and written so non-lawyers can understand and act on them.
Get a cited, plain-language answer from 184,000+ statutes and decisions — free, no sign-up.
Judicial Delay, Negligence, and Falsified Certificates: Lessons from a Philippine Judge's Administrative Case
A Supreme Court ruling on a judge fined for gross negligence and falsified certificates of service—key lessons for judicial accountability and integrity.
Due Process in Administrative Cases: Lessons on Summary Dismissals from De Guzman v. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court's ruling in De Guzman v. CA underscores that proper service of summons is essential to due process, even in summary proceedings.
Losing Control: Understanding Loss of Jurisdiction After Appeal in Philippine Courts
When a case is appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction. This administrative case explains the rule and its limits.
Execution Pending Appeal: When Philippine Courts Can Enforce Judgments Immediately
Philippine courts can order execution pending appeal only with good reasons stated in a special order. Learn the rules from a Supreme Court administrative case.
Sheriffs Authority: Understanding the Limits of Property Attachment in the Philippines
Learn the limits of a sheriff's authority in property attachment in the Philippines, based on a landmark Supreme Court administrative case.
Judicial Accountability: Understanding Culpable Negligence in Philippine Courts
A Supreme Court ruling explains when a judge's error becomes culpable negligence, and why good faith matters in administrative cases.
Preliminary Investigation Essentials: A Judge's Duty and Probable Cause
What a landmark administrative case teaches about a judge's non-negotiable duties in preliminary investigation and probable cause determination.
Mismanaging Judiciary Funds: A Cautionary Tale for Court Personnel
The Supreme Court's ruling in a 1996 administrative case shows the severe consequences of mishandling Judiciary Development Fund collections.