Taño & Albat Legal and Financial Services

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.

06/05/2026

A legal reminder: the obligation to provide financial support does not arise automatically—it begins only once filiation or paternity has been clearly established under the law. Knowing your rights and responsibilities helps ensure fairness and proper due process for everyone involved.

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.

05/05/2026

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has firmly ruled that the President is without authority to remove the Deputy Ombudsman from office, consistent with the safeguards enshrined in law and the Constitution. This reaffirmation underscores the independence of constitutional offices and the principle that removal from such positions must strictly adhere to the processes and grounds provided by law.

Pinagtibay ng na ang Pangulo ay walang kapangyarihang tanggalin sa puwesto ang Deputy Ombudsman.

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petition for review o apela na inihain ng Office of the President (OP). Kinuwestiyon ng naturang apela ang desisyon ng Court of Appeals (CA) na nagpawalang-bisa sa pagpapatalsik ng OP kay dating Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang (Carandang).

Bagama’t hindi na maaaring maibalik sa tungkulin si Carandang dahil natapos na ang kanyang termino bilang Overall Deputy Ombudsman noong 2020, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na walang legal na bisa ang mga parusang ipinataw sa kanya, kabilang ang pagbawi sa kanyang mga benepisyo sa pagreretiro. Nagpasya ito na may karapatan si Carandang na makuha ang kanyang buong retirement benefits at ang mga sahod na natanggap niya dapat sa panahon ng kanyang preventive suspension at pagkakaalis sa puwesto, hanggang sa pagtatapos ng kanyang termino.

Noong 2017, naibalita na nagbigay ng pahayag diumano si Carandang sa isang ambush interview na may hawak na ebidensiya ang Office of the Ombudsman hinggil sa umano’y hindi maipaliwanag na kayamanan ni dating Pangulong Rodrigo R. Duterte at ng kanyang pamilya, kabilang ang mga rekord ng transaksiyon sa bangko na ayon sa kanya ay ipinadala ng Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) sa Ombudsman. May kaugnayan ang mga pahayag na ito sa reklamo na inihain ni dating Senador Antonio F. Trillanes IV tungkol sa umano'y naipong yaman ni Pangulong Duterte.

Dahil dito, dalawang administratibong reklamo ang inihain laban kay Carandang sa OP na nag-aakusa sa kanya ng maling paglalabas ng kumpidensiyal na impormasyon at pagpapakita ng kinikilingan habang nasa panayam. Iniutos ng OP ang preventive suspension ni Carandang pero hindi ito ipinatupad ni dating Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

Kinuwestiyon ni Carandang ang mga reklamo at iginiit na nagpasya na ang Korte Suprema sa kaso noong 2014 na Gonzales III v. OP (Gonzales) na ang Section 8(2) ng Republic Act No. 6770 o ang Ombudsman Act of 1989 ay labag sa Konstitusyon dahil sa pagbibigay nito ng kapangyarihang pangdisiplina sa Pangulo sa mga Deputy Ombudsman.

Nanindigan ang OP na tinalikuran na ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon nito sa Gonzales sa kaso noong 2016 na Agustin-Se v. OP (Agustin-Se) kaya itinuloy nito ang paghatol kay Carandang na may pananagutan sa graft and corruption at betrayal of public trust at tuluyan siyang tinanggal sa serbisyo. Pagkatapos nito, inatasan ng bagong talagang Ombudsman na si Samuel Martires si Carandang na itigil ang pagganap sa kanyang mga tungkulin at idineklarang bakante na ang kanyang posisyon.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na hindi inabandona o tinalikuran ng desisyon sa Agustin-Se ang Gonzales dahil ang kasong iyon ay kinatigan lamang ang pagsantabi sa isang reklamo laban kay dating Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro nang hindi nagpapataw ng anumang parusa. Hindi naging isyu rito ang kapangyarihang pandisiplina ng Pangulo at ang konstitusyonalidad ng Section 8(2). Bukod dito, pinagpasyahan ng En Banc o ng buong Korte Suprema ang Gonzales kaya hindi ito maaaring baguhin o baliktarin ng desisyon ng isang Dibisyon lamang gaya ng sa Agustin-Se.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, nang mapagpasyahan ang Gonzales noong 2014, naging bahagi ito ng batas ng bansa kung saan matibay na itinakda na ang Pangulo ay walang awtoridad na magtanggal ng Deputy Ombudsman.

Sa muling pagpapatibay sa Gonzales, binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na malinaw na inilalarawan ng Konstitusyon ang Ombudsman bilang malaya: walang kontrol, superbisyon, o impluwensiyang politikal mula sa sangay ng Ehekutibo.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164549.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164531.

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

04/05/2026

Can you appoint a relative to a government position? 🤔

It might be allowed in certain situations—but as a general rule, nepotism is prohibited. Why? Because it can compromise fairness and transparency, taking opportunities away from those who are truly qualified.

Public service works best when positions are earned through merit—not family connections. Let’s keep it fair for everyone. 💼✨

02/05/2026

Big news from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)! 🎉

The latest Offline eBIRForms Package Version 7.9.6.0 is now available—featuring stronger, safer eFiling and the new BIR Form No. 1701-MS designed to make filing easier for micro and small taxpayers.

Less hassle, more convenience—update now and file with confidence! ✅

30/04/2026

Money matters can be stressful—know your rights and the proper complaint process to keep your finances protected.

29/04/2026

Sa sesyon nito ngayong araw, ika-29 ng Abril 2026, isinantabi ng ang petition for mandamus na inihain ni Catalino Aldea Generillo, Jr. (Generillo). Nilalayon ng petisyon na pilitin ang Senado na agarang magpulong bilang isang impeachment court para litisin ang mga sakdal laban kay Bise Presidente Sara Duterte.

Sa Desisyong 14-0-1 na isinulat ni Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi tamang remedyo ang mandamus na naglalayong magpatupad ng isang malinaw na legal na tungkulin. Nagpasya ang Korte na hindi maaaring baguhin o kontrolin ng Hudikatura sa pamamagitan ng mandamus ang mga aksiyon ng Senado sa loob ng sarili nitong saklaw. Bilang isang kapantay na constitutional body, labas sa kapangyarihan ng pagsusuri ng Korte Suprema ang pagganap ng Senado sa mga tungkulin nito maliban na lamang kung mayroong grave abuse of discretion.

Gayunpaman, partikular para sa kasong ito at alang-alang sa interest of equity, itinuring ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon bilang isang petition for certiorari at sinuri kung kumilos ba ang Senado nang labag sa batas o labis sa diskresyon nito nang hindi ito agad nagpulong bilang isang impeachment court habang nasa session break.

Salungat sa posisyon ng petitioner, napatunayan ng Korte Suprema na umaksiyon ang Senado sa reklamo ng impeachment sa tamang panahon.

Bagama’t itinatakda ng Konstitusyon na dapat kumilos sa loob ng tiyak na bilang ng mga araw ng sesyon ukol sa reklamo ng impeachment ang House of Representatives o Mababang Kapulungan, walang tinukoy na takdang panahon para sa Senado para simulan ang paglilitis. Isinasaad lamang nito na dapat ito ay “shall forthwith proceed” o agad na ituloy ang paglilitis na nag-iiwan sa Senado ng diskresyon pagdating sa tiyempo nito.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na ang salitang "forthwith" sa Article XI, Section 3(4) ng Konstitusyon ay nangangahulugang sa loob ng makatuwirang panahon, na maaaring mas mahaba o mas maikli depende sa mga pangyayari ng bawat kaso. Nagbibigay ito ng pagkakataon sa Senado na gawin ang mga kinakailangang paghahanda bago magpulong bilang isang impeachment court.

Bagama’t hindi nagtatakda ang Konstitusyon ng eksaktong petsa para sa paglilitis, dapat iwasan ng Senado ang hindi nararapat na pagkaantala para panindigan ang prinsipyo na dapat na may pananagutan sa mamamayan sa lahat ng oras ang mga opisyal ng bayan.

Itinuring ng Korte Suprema na moot na ang petisyon dahil nagsimula na ang Senado sa mga paghahanda para sa impeachment, at ang Articles of Impeachment laban kay Bise Presidente Duterte ay napawalang-bisa na ng Korte Suprema sa kanilang Desisyon noong Hulyo 25, 2025, at Resolusyon noong Enero 28, 2026, sa kasong Duterte v. House of Representatives. Itinuturing na moot ang isang kaso kapag naalis na sa anumang isyu ang mga sumunod na pangyayari kaya hindi na kinakailangan ang pasya ng Hukuman. Dahil wala nang natitirang Articles of Impeachment, wala nang dahilan ang Korte Suprema para utusan ang Senado na magpulong bilang isang impeachment court.

Nakiayon lamang si Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa naging resulta na moot na ang petisyon. Gayunpaman, nanindigan siya na dapat agad binuo ang impeachment court at dapat ang buong Senado at hindi lang ang Senate President ang nanguna sa pag-oorganisa nito. (Na-update ng ika-5:30 ng hapon, ngayong Abril 29, 2026.)

Hindi lumahok sa sesyon si Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.

Ia-upload ang Desisyon at iba pang mga Opinyon kapag available na.

Basahin ang press briefer sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164510.

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

29/04/2026

𝗕𝗜𝗥 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧, 𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗩𝗔𝗜𝗟𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗔𝗠𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗬

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 33-2026 to clarify specific rules on filing and payment of estate tax under the Estate Tax Amnesty.

The Circular, posted on April 27, 2026, provides guidance on the submission of proof of settlement, treatment of undeclared estate properties, and installment payment arrangements for taxpayers who availed of the Estate Tax Amnesty.

On the submission of proof of estate settlement, the Circular states:

“There is no deadline to submit the proof of settlement of estate. Non-submission of such proof on or before the June 16, 2025 deadline for availing the Estate Tax Amnesty does not invalidate the application. However, it is important to note that the proof of settlement is required for the processing and issuance of the eCAR, which is necessary for the transfer of the estate’s assets.”

The Circular also addresses cases where additional estate properties are discovered after the filing of the Estate Tax Amnesty Return. It clarifies that properties not included in the original return are not covered by the Estate Tax Amnesty and shall be taxed under the applicable estate tax laws in effect at the time of the decedent’s death.

RMC No. 33-2026 further provides that installment payment may be allowed, subject to prior approval of the concerned Revenue District Officer. Payment may be made within two years from the statutory date of payment, without civil penalties and interest, provided that the first installment was paid on or before June 16, 2025.

Failure to pay any installment on time will result in the forfeiture of the amnesty availment. The estate will then be subject to the applicable estate tax laws at the time of the decedent’s death, including corresponding penalties.

“This Circular is meant to remove confusion for taxpayers who already availed of the Estate Tax Amnesty before the deadline and are now completing the settlement and transfer of estate properties,” Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza said.