Taño & Albat Legal and Financial Services

14/06/2026

As global tax rules evolve, so must we. The BIR is gearing up to strengthen compliance and protect the Philippines’ rightful share of tax revenues. 💼🇵🇭

10/06/2026

💡 DID YOU KNOW?

Not every charge appearing on your electric bill is taxable.

Under BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 60-2026, the Lifeline Subsidy and the Green Energy Auction Allowance (GEA-All) are not subject to VAT or withholding tax. These are government-mandated charges that distribution utilities and electric cooperatives merely collect and remit, and therefore do not form part of their taxable income.

This clarification highlights an important legal principle: not all amounts collected by a business automatically constitute taxable revenue.

Understanding the law can help businesses, professionals, and consumers protect their rights, avoid costly mistakes, and ensure compliance with tax regulations.

Hindi lahat ng charge sa inyong electric bill ay dapat patawan ng buwis.

Nilinaw ng BIR sa RMC No. 60-2026 na ang Lifeline Subsidy at Green Energy Auction Allowance (GEA-All) ay hindi sakop ng VAT at withholding tax dahil ang mga ito ay government-mandated charges na kinokolekta lamang at hindi bahagi ng kita ng mga distribution utilities at electric cooperatives.

Basahin ang buong Revenue Memorandum Circular dito:
https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/.../RMC%20No.%2060%20-%202026.pdf

04/06/2026

IBP Sets the Record Straight: What Legally Constitutes a Valid Senate Quorum for the Conduct of Official Business

30/05/2026

The Supreme Court underscores that abuse in marriage is not always physical. A pattern of conduct that creates a hostile and intimidating home environment may constitute “grossly abusive conduct” and justify legal separation under the Family Code.

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s acts creating a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children may constitute “grossly abusive conduct” under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 which serves as a ground for legal separation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division granted the petition for legal separation filed by a husband against his wife, after finding that her actions constituted grossly abusive conduct under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

The couple married in 2003 and later had two children. To support their family, the wife started selling coffee, but they still faced financial hardships. The husband studied nursing with hopes of eventually relocating their family abroad. However, his plan to move abroad never materialized.

During the marriage, the husband claimed he faced various abusive behaviors from his wife. He reported that she controlled their finances and refused to provide financial help, even when he needed treatment for his toothache and was advised to get a root canal.

The husband also claimed that at a party, his wife told their friends she wanted to cut off his p***s because they were no longer having s*x. He also alleged that she shared stories about him with family and friends, often twisting the facts to make him look bad.

The husband also said that his wife refused marriage counseling, prohibited him from seeing his friends, manipulated their children to force him to provide more financial support, and maintained a controlling attitude throughout their marriage.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition for legal separation after finding that the wife’s behavior amounted to grossly abusive conduct. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that their disagreements were ordinary marital disputes.

The SC affirmed the RTC defining acts constituting “grossly abusive conduct”, which is a ground for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, to include those acts by a spouse that create a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse or the children.

The SC also stressed that courts must decide this issue on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts and evidence presented.

While the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 does not allow absolute divorce, spouses may legally separate by order of a court without ending their marriage. Unlike a declaration that a marriage is void, a legal separation does not break the marital bond.

Among the grounds for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 is repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct against the spouse, their common child, or the spouse’s child.

The SC added that this interpretation is consistent with the State’s constitutional duty to protect marriage as a basic social institution.

In this case, the SC found that the wife’s actions, taken together, created a hostile and intimidating environment for the husband. He was made to constantly follow her lead, and his efforts to fix the marriage through counseling and other interventions were unsuccessful. Witnesses also confirmed her controlling behavior, which supported the finding of a hostile home environment. Because of this, the SC ruled that the husband was justified in seeking reassignment to another province to distance himself from the situation at home.

The SC granted the legal separation and sent the case back to the RTC for the dissolution and division of the couple’s property. It also directed the RTC to decide on the custody and support of their children.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166927

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164913

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164917

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.

27/05/2026

DOLE reminds employers to observe proper holiday pay rules for the regular holiday on May 27, 2026, in observance of Eid’l Adha. 💼✨

19/05/2026

The Supreme Court of the Philippines firmly ruled that the unilateral reduction of workdays, absent employees’ voluntary consent, DOLE notification, and proof of genuine economic hardship, constitutes constructive dismissal. While flexible work arrangements may be adopted in good faith, they must not undermine workers’ rights or diminish their lawful compensation.

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMC’s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMC’s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employees’ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

14/05/2026

Good news for businesses and registered entities! 🎉

The Securities and Exchange Commission has suspended the imposition of monthly penalties for the late or non-filing of reportorial requirements until December 31, 2026. This move is expected to help lessen transaction costs, encourage compliance, and make doing business easier and more convenient for everyone.

A welcome development for companies working to stay on track while focusing on growth and recovery. 📈✨

📣 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is suspending until December 31, 2026 the imposition of monthly penalties in the late or non-filing of reportorial requirements, as it seeks to reduce transaction costs and promote the ease of doing business.

In its meeting on May 5, the Commission En Banc approved the suspension of penalties imposed for every month of delay for the late or non-filing of reportorial requirements, as provided under SEC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 2024 (MC 6).

“As we celebrate the Ease of Doing Business month this May, the SEC reaffirms its commitment to foster a robust and responsive business environment,” SEC Chairperson Francis Lim said.

“By suspending the compounding monthly penalties, we are providing corporations an opportunity to get back their good standing without the burden of mounting transaction costs, as part of our goal of pushing corporations toward full compliance and sustainable growth,” he added.

The suspension will apply to corporations with pending monitoring applications. Corporations that have received final assessments but have not yet settled payment will be issued updated assessments excluding the per month of delay components.

Read the full memorandum circular here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/mc-2026/sec-mc-no-16-series-of-2026suspension-of-the-per-month-of-delay-penalty-for-late-and-non-filing-of-reportorial-requirements-under-sec-memorandum-circular-no-6-series-of-2024/

Read the full press release here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/pr-2026/sec-suspends-monthly-penalties-for-late-non-filing-of-reports/

11/05/2026

Did you know? The Supreme Court has clarified that a contractor’s lack of tools, equipment, or machinery does not automatically mean it is engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting — especially if those items are not actually necessary for the job or service being performed.

This important clarification highlights that the true nature of the work and the actual circumstances of the arrangement matter more than mere technicalities.

Nilinaw ng na ang kawalan ng isang kontraktor ng mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya ay hindi agad nangangahulugan na sangkot ito sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting kung hindi naman kailangan ang mga kagamitam sa mismong trabahong ipinakontrata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, idineklara ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong job contractor ang MMA Competent Manpower & General Services, Inc. (MMA) at siyang tunay na employer nina Richard Delera at Dionel Quiling (mga nagpetisyon).

Isang domestic corporation ang MMA na nag-aalok ng human resource at support services sa mga kliyente, kabilang ang Philippine Foremost Milling Corp. (PFMC) kaugnay sa flour milling at Amigo Logistics Corp. (Amigo) na namamahala sa logistics tulad ng warehousing at trucking.

Itinalaga ng MMA ang mga nagpetisyon sa PFMC at Amigo bilang feed mill bagger at pollard stacker. Matapos silang maiulat dahil sa mga paglabag sa patakaran, isinailalim sila sa preventive suspension ng MMA ngunit napawalang-sala at napawalang-bisa ang mga paratang laban sa kanila.

Hiniling ng PFMC at Amigo ang reassignment ng mga nagpetisyon. Kinailangan silang ilagay ng MMA sa floating status noong una pero kalaunan ay inalok ng reassignment sa Cavite at Bataan, na kanilang tinanggihan. Nagsampa sila ng reklamo para sa iligal na dismissal. Sinabi nilang isang labor-only contractor ang MMA at mga regular na empleyado sila ng PFMC at Amigo.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong kontraktor ng paggawa ang MMA, na may malaking pondo na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 27 milyon, kahit na wala itong mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya.

Kinilala ng Korte Suprema ang pagkakaiba ng legitimate labor contracting (lehitimong pangongontrata ng paggawa) at ng ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting. Sa lehitimong pangongontrata, maaaring kumuha ang mga employer ng isang kontraktor para magsagawa ng mga partikular na trabaho, basta’t sapat ang pondo at mga kagamitan ng kontraktor. Sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting, nagbibigay lamang ang kontraktor ng mga manggagawa nang walang sapat na pondo at kagamitan, at nagsasagawa ang mga manggagawa ng mga tungkuling direktang may kaugnayan sa pangunahing negosyo ng employer.

Sa kasong Conqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v. Balingbing, na nagbibigay ng limitadong eksepsiyon kung saan ang trabaho ay pansuporta lamang at hindi nangangailangan ng mga kagamitan, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na nagsagawa ang mga nagpetisyon ng mga post-production na gawain katulad ng pagpapakete at pag-iimbak, na sumusuporta lamang sa operasyon ng PFMC at Amigo.

Dahil hindi nangangailangan ng espesyal na makinarya o teknikal na kadalubhasaan ang mga tungkuling ito, nagpasya ang Korte na maaari itong ipakontrata kahit walang malaking pamumuhunan sa mga kagamitan.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165353.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164807.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

10/05/2026

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the State is enjoined to prioritize the elderly and ensure access to affordable social services, including funeral assistance. The extension of the senior citizen discount to funeral and interment services embodies this constitutional policy, grounded on social justice and the protection of human dignity even at life’s end.

Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, a member of the Taxation Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, a certified public accountant, and a former Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, discusses the extent of the 20% discount for senior citizens in Episode 116: Senior Citizens’ Discount in Burial Benefits: What Does the Law Cover?

What is the rationale behind the 20% discount granted to senior citizens? While this benefit is widely recognized, were “funeral and burial services” covered by the original Senior Citizens Act, and what specific changes did the subsequent expanded acts introduce?

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

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4mx4JgMmNYCJHATU1ZFYTT?si=MZXAZ6XIQVOHb9mcVl_vAg

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000766754483

YouTube: https://youtu.be/jT3Ffq7tSoU

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CvEHM9psr/

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

07/05/2026

⏳ ONLY 8 DAYS LEFT! | Pay As You File

The Bureau of Internal Revenue reminds all taxpayers to timely file and pay the exact amount of their 2025 Annual Income Tax due upon filing of the corresponding return.

📌 Deadline for filing and payment: On or before May 15, 2026.

Avoid penalties, surcharges, and interest by ensuring compliance within the prescribed period.

8 DAYS LEFT! Pay as you file!

With the deadline fast approaching, the BIR is reminding taxpayers to pay their exact 2025 Annual Income Tax on the day of filing their Return.

Deadline: on or before May 15, 2026.