IVCruz Law Office - Notary Public

12/06/2026

Happy 127th Independence day to all. Amidst all the political chaos our country is facing, may we all remember to honor the price our ancestors paid to pay our most precious freedom.

Anyway, on another note, we, at IVCruz Law Office is happy to announce that we are open and ready to accommodate your legal concerns today June 12, 2026, 8am to 5pm.

Pic:ctto Manila Bulletin.

02/06/2026

Intellectual Property Law is always interesting.

The has ruled that similarities in trademark or logo designs that may confuse purchasers prevent the registration of later marks, even if new words are added.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC’s (Starwood) consolidated petitions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings allowing the registration of Oceanic Empire Limited’s (Oceanic) marks.

Oceanic filed to register the trademarks “𝐖 𝐆𝐋𝐎𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑” and “𝐖 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐔𝐄” and had earlier secured registration for “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑.”

Starwood, owner of several registered "𝐖” trademarks for hotels and entertainment services, opposed the applications and sought the cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑,” arguing that Oceanic’s marks were confusingly similar to its trademarks.

Starwood argued that Oceanic would benefit from the popularity and reputation of its brand and that this would mislead the public into believing that Oceanic’s business was connected with Starwood.

Ruling in favor of Starwood, the SC explained that trademark protection prevents confusion of goods and businesses, and that only the likelihood, not actual proof, of confusion is required. Each case must be assessed based on the resemblance of the marks and the relatedness of the services.

Under the 𝗗𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁, emphasis is placed on the dominant or most striking features of the marks rather than on minor differences.

In this case, the SC ruled that "𝐖" is the dominant feature of both Starwood’s and Oceanic’s marks. While Starwood’s "𝐖" is registered as a word mark, the Court clarified that Starwood cannot claim the letter "𝐖," but only its distinct stylized version.

The Court stressed that purchasers would immediately notice the similarity between the parties’ "𝐖" marks. It held that minor textual differences do not change the fact that both use the same style, which looks visually similar.

The SC thus directed the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks to deny Oceanic’s application for registration of trademark, and to grant Starwood’s petition for cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑” mark.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166975.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164983.

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

02/06/2026

Be informed.

Motion for Reconsideration Not Always Required Before Filing Certiorari — SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that while a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the requirement is not absolute and admits of recognized exceptions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s First Division reversed the Court of Appeals' (CA) dismissal of a petition for certiorari that challenged orders issued by a probate court. The CA had dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to first file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari.

Read the full discussion in the comments.

06/05/2026

Its best to be kept abreast of new Jurisprudence. 😊👍

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name, was marked "𝘕/𝘈" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.

In reversing the accused’s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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

09/04/2026

Maligayang araw ng kagitingan!

Ating bigyang pugay ang ating mga bayani at beterano na nag alaya ng kanilang buhay para sa ating bayan!

17/03/2026

Atty. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis, Member of the Philippine Judicial Academy Department of Civil Law, and Dean of the College of Law of Lyceum of the Philippines University, discusses the evolution of the Philippine Supreme Court's interpretation of psychological incapacity in Episode 109: Marriage on Trial: Psychological Incapacity – Law not Diagnosis.

What is Article 36 of the Family Code? How does it treat psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring a marriage void? Who can bring the petition to have the marriage voided on the ground of psychological incapacity?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1AiWpT7qljJUEMCj4cbhfF

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/episode-109-marriage-on-trial-psychological-incapacity/id1852172756?i=1000755034786

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04IVBb4Uzfk

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reel/922545123856906

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

13/03/2026

Be informed.

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

In a Decision written by written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024 containing the 2024 𝘋𝘖𝘑-𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 (𝘋𝘖𝘑 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴), is a valid exercise of the DOJ’s authority over prosecutorial processes.

Under the DOJ Rules’ new standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest, prosecutors must ensure that the evidence to charge a person with a crime must sufficiently establish all the elements and consequently warrant a conviction.

Atty. Hazel L. Meking questioned the DOJ Rules before the SC, claiming that the DOJ encroached on the SC’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. She argued that the DOJ Rules effectively revised Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦, which provides that the quantum of evidence in preliminary investigations is probable cause.

The SC dismissed her petition and reiterated its ruling in 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, which recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The SC held that the DOJ Rules govern only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive functions. These Rules, however, do not extend to judicial proceedings as the power to promulgate rules of procedure over them remains under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The SC noted it had already recognized preliminary investigation as the exclusive domain of prosecutors when it revised the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005.

In 2024, through 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, the SC also ordered the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 which are inconsistent with the DOJ Rules to harmonize them.

The SC’s constitutional rule-making authority over judicial proceedings remains supreme, as well as its power to correct grave abuse of discretion in any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

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

06/03/2026

Be informed.

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Limcoma Labor Organization vs. Limcoma Multi-Purpose Coop
G.R. No. 239746, November 29, 2021

ISSUE: Whether managerial employees are allowed to share concession agreement obtained by labor union.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that managerial employees cannot be allowed to share in the concessions obtained by the labor union through collective negotiation as this would expose them to the temptation of colluding with the union during the negotiations to the detriment of the employer.

It cited Article 245 of the Labor Code which provides that: managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.

In the case at bar, there was nowhere in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that prohibits the herein employer to give relatively higher benefit to other employees not covered by the CBA. The SC noted that the grant of a bonus is basically a management prerogative and there is nothing to prevent the employer from granting benefits to managerial employees equal to or higher than those afforded to union members.

06/03/2026

Be informed.

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Carlu Alfonso Realiza vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 228745, August 26, 2020

ISSUE: Whether community service may be imposed as penalty in lieu of imprisonment for petty crimes.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that the penalty of community service may be imposed in lieu of service in jail for offenses that have penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case. Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity which inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the improvement of a public work or promotion of a public service. The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in jail shall be availed of only once.

It cited R.A. No. 11362, also known as the Community Service Act, which provides that the court in its discretion may, in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed, under such terms as the court shall determine, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case, which shall be under the supervision of a probation officer. The SC emphasized that the imposition of the penalty of community service is merely a privilege since the offended cannot choose it over imprisonment as a matter of right. The law's objective is to uphold the State's policy of promoting restorative justice & decongesting overcrowded jails.

06/03/2026

Be informed.

SC Rules Forgery Cannot Be Presumed, Finds Deed of Donation Used by Municipality Was Forged

After examining the signatures appearing on the documents, the Court agreed with the CA that the signature on the Deed of Donation was forged.

The Court reiterated that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In determining whether forgery exists, courts are not bound by the opinion of handwriting experts. Judges may conduct their own visual comparison of the questioned signature and authentic signatures appearing on other documents in the record.

Read the full story in the comment section.