In the case Argelyn M. Labargan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 246824, December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized that statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties, unless the prosecution establishes that they were uttered with actual malice.

In the case People of the People of the Philippines vs. Adrian Adrales y Jurado a.k.a. “Alicia Bakla”, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (RECW), evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior, or offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that contract of service or job order workers hired by the Philippine Amusement Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) are not considered employees under the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that a trademark registered in bad faith is considered as unfair competition under the IP Code. Fraud and bad faith, in terms of trademark, go hand-in-hand. There is no distinction between these concepts since one necessarily presupposes the existence of the other. Under Section 151 of the IP Code, a certificate of registration may be canceled if, among others, it was fraudulently made.

Anselmo Bulanon alleged he was hired as a Welder/Fabricator by Eric Ng Mendoza, who owned several furniture businesses including Mendco Development Corporation, Pinnacle Casting Corporation, Mastercraft Phil., Inc., and Jacquer International. On January 6, 2006, Bulanon filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against Eric and his companies for various unpaid benefits and lack of social security coverage.

The court clarified that copyright infringement occurs when an unauthorized party exercises economic rights, including communication to the public, without consent. Filscap, accredited to enforce copyright, had valid standing to sue. The court noted that Home Cable’s broadcast of music through cable TV constituted a public communication of copyrighted works.

The conviction required proof of: (1) Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, with or without consent; (2) use of coercion, deception, or exploitation methods; (3) exploitation for purposes such as sexual exploitation, forced labor, or organ removal; and (4) the victim being under 18 years old. The court confirmed that all these elements were met in this case, establishing the guilt of the accused.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of Revenue Memorandum Circulars No. 46-2008 and No. 31-2011, which imposed additional requirements for VAT zero-rating on services provided to entities engaged in international air transport operations. Manila Peninsula argued that VAT zero-rating for such services required only two conditions: the service must be provided by a VAT-registered service provider in the Philippines and rendered to persons engaged in international air transport. In contrast, the CIR contended that the additional conditions stipulated in the circulars—namely, that the services must pertain to the transport of goods or passengers directly from a Philippine port to a foreign port without stopping at any other Philippine port—were also required.

The case revolves around the legality of benefits granted by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) under Notices of Disallowance (NDs). The central issue is whether PHIC had the authority to grant these benefits, which include productivity bonuses and allowances, beyond its standard compensation.

According to the Civil Code, property acquired before marriage remains the exclusive property of the individual, unless proven otherwise. The presumption of conjugal ownership only applies to property acquired during the marriage. Since Lani admitted the property was bought before the marriage and was purchased with Stephen’s personal funds, she could not claim it as conjugal.