Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court Guimbal, Iloilo

21/07/2026

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

01/06/2026

This June, the Philippines marks Judiciary Month, celebrating the 125th anniversary of the Supreme Court.

Declared under Presidential Proclamation No. 1265, s. 2026, the observance calls on government agencies, local government units, the private sector, and civil society to support and partake in the commemoration.

Established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, the Supreme Court has stood as a pillar of justice—first led by Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano.

In line with this milestone year, the Court unveils a series of activities under the theme: “SC: 125 Years of Tradition and Innovation.”

Stay tuned for updates through the official social media channels of the Supreme Court.

26/05/2026

Newly uploaded resolution in current cases involving public interest:

G.R. No. 278747 (Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Senator Ronald Dela Rosa v. Hon. Lucas Bersamin, et al.)

Resolution - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166639

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen - Separate Concurring Opinion -
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166646

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa - Concurring Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166652

Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando - Dissenting Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166658

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier - Dissenting Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166663

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting - Dissenting Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166668

Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda - Separate Concurring Opinion -
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166673

Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario - Dissenting Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166678

Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. - Dissenting Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166683

Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh - Concurring Opinion - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166688

Copies of recent decisions and resolutions are regularly uploaded on the Supreme Court website. SCAN the QR Code for the latest uploads.

25/05/2026

To highlight the vital role of the Judiciary as the (SC) marks its 125th anniversary this year, Presidential Proclamation No. 1265 (PP 1265) declares June of every year as 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩.

The Proclamation aims to “strengthen public awareness and appreciation of the Judiciary as a pillar of democratic governance by providing a longer period for the conduct of programs and activities that promote judicial integrity, independence, accountability, and efficiency.”

PP 1265 amends PP 47 (s. 2001), which designates June 4 to 11 every year as 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘞𝘦𝘦𝘬.

Extending the observance to the entire month will give the Judiciary greater flexibility in organizing activities and encourage broader stakeholder participation, while keeping the celebration anchored on the SC’s founding anniversary.

The Proclamation also directs agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and state universities and colleges to participate and provide the necessary assistance for its effective implementation. Local government units, non-government organizations, and the private sector are also encouraged to take part and extend support.

Throughout the 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩, several commemorative initiatives will be unveiled. These include historical markers from the National Historical Commission of the Philippines at the SC New Building, which has served as the SC’s principal seat since 1991.

Read the full text of PP 1265 at the https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2026/05/21/proclamation-no-1265-s-2026/.

Read the full Press Release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166542

20/05/2026

09/03/2026

NOTICE TO THE PUBLICE

In view Memorandum Circular No. 02-2026 (RE: Flexible Work Arrangements and Energy Conservation Measures)

Until further notice.

For your Concern in RTC-branch 67 you may reach through Land Line No. (033) 5045-932 or through official email address: [email protected]

For your Concern in RTC-branch 72 you may reach through Mobile No. 0961-528-2452 or through official email address: [email protected]

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

16/02/2026

On this occasion, we honor the birthday of Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez. Happy birthday, Your Honor.

Learn more about Justice Marquez, the 192nd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/justice-jose-midas-p-marquez/