Atty. Jen Estabillo

24/08/2026

𝐍𝐨, the Supreme Court ruled against BDO and held that the bank cannot recover the withdrawn funds from Barcellano.

𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤: While the law generally requires the return of money received by mistake (solutio indebiti), this rule does not apply when the mistake was caused by the payor's own gross negligence. BDO credited the check before it properly cleared, incorrectly processed a regional check as local, and failed to check the error until the stop payment order arrived.

𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝: The Court found no evidence of fraud, deceit, or bad faith on Barcellano's part. BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knew the check would bounce; she merely withdrew the money after the bank itself made the funds available to her.

𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝: The Court emphasized that banking is a business imbued with public interest. Banks are legally required to exercise the "highest degree of diligence." By disregarding established clearing procedures and paying out funds prematurely, BDO fell below this standard and must bear the loss.

Thus, the Court acquitted Barcellano of any civil liability to return the money, as the premature withdrawal was entirely the fault of the bank's gross negligence in processing.

𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐚𝐭: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭: https://youtube.com/?si=W_fvlTDCxcOIDQ0E

24/08/2026

Learn the law with my colleague and fellow lawyer, Atty. Joshua Borres 😊 Atty. Joshua D. Borres - Usapang Legal

24/08/2026

This is the complete lecture material for my pre-week session on Le...

23/08/2026

𝗠𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗯𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄:

Marco and Paulo have been best friends since law school. Paulo was chosen to be the Best Man at Marco’s upcoming wedding. Knowing Paulo’s notorious habit of being tardy, Marco drafted a written agreement which they both willingly signed. The agreement stipulated that if Paulo arrives late to the church on the wedding day, he shall pay Marco a penalty of ₱50,000.00. On the day of the wedding, Paulo arrived an hour late, missing the entourage march. After the honeymoon, Marco demanded the payment of ₱50,000.00. Paulo refused to pay, arguing that the agreement was merely a joke among friends and that such a stipulation is void for being contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆? 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻.

_____________________________________________________

𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀:

𝙊𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 (𝙋𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙎𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖) - This is the principle that agreements must be kept. Article 1159 of the Civil Code dictates that a valid contract is effectively the private law between the parties who agreed to it, and its terms must be executed in good faith. Neither party can unilaterally withdraw from the obligations they've accepted.

𝘼𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 (𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙤𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩) - Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that parties are free to establish any stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions they find mutually convenient. The state will not interfere with this freedom unless the agreed-upon terms violate the five limitations: law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

𝗢𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁: https://youtu.be/dbaxNniD5No?si=l5rxd29L5IH4JoD_

23/08/2026

𝑺𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑨𝒏𝒔𝒘𝒆𝒓:

𝗬𝗲𝘀, the OSG is correct.

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄, the exercise of judicial power is limited to the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. An enrolled bill submitted to the President is not yet a law; it remains a mere legislative proposal in the process of enactment. Until the President signs it into law or allows it to lapse into law, the judicial challenge is premature. Courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues on mere proposals or render advisory opinions on hypothetical state of facts.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲, the petition filed by the members of the XYZ Partylist challenges an enrolled bill that is still pending the President's executive approval or veto. Because the bill has not yet been enacted or given legal effect, no law has been promulgated, and no legal rights or liabilities have been created, infringed, or threatened. Consequently, there is no actual case or justiciable controversy ripe for judicial determination, rendering the petition a premature request for an advisory opinion.

𝗧𝗵𝘂𝘀, the OSG is correct.

𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁: https://www.youtube.com/

22/08/2026

Don’t forget! The synchronous sample exam runs from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon. Take it just as you would take the actual Bar Exam. 💪🏻

📢 The Office of the Chairperson, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, enjoins examinees to take the synchronous Sample Examination on Examplify TODAY, starting at 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon only.

21/08/2026

𝙎𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝘼𝙣𝙨𝙬𝙚𝙧:

𝗡𝗼, the prosecution is not correct.

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲, one of the requisites of self-defense is reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression. 𝗦𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲, PO2 A was alone and had already been knocked to the ground by X. Before he could even stand up, X and Y had positioned themselves to launch another attack. The fact that they were unarmed does not, by itself, render his use of his service firearm unreasonable, considering his disadvantaged position and the continuing danger he faced.

𝗧𝗵𝘂𝘀, the prosecution is not correct.

𝑴𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒌𝒃𝒂𝒓 𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒕: https://youtu.be/EJ3MHxvV0sA?si=VMOftdb5MAoOF7Ya

21/08/2026

Take note: The period to download, install, and register Examplify ENDS TODAY at 5:00 p.m.

📢 The Office of the Chairperson, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, informs examinees that the period to download, install, and register Examplify ENDS TODAY at 5:00 p.m.

Examinees who have not yet completed this step must do so before the deadline to ensure access on examination day.

17/08/2026

𝐌𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞-𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬:

https://youtu.be/S3sbtP9lDIo

This is the complete lecture material for my pre-week session on Le...