REPUBLIC ACT NO.

9710
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN

Republic Act No. 9710 otherwise known as An Act Providing for the Magna
Carta of Women (MCW) is the affirmation of an all-encompassing women’s human
rights law that envisions to eradicate discrimination by recognizing, protecting,
fulfilling and promoting the rights of Filipino women especially those who fall under
the marginalized sectors of the society. It illustrates a framework of rights for women
which is based directly on international laws.
The MCW institutes the Philippine government’s commitment to
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’s
(CEDAW) Committee during its 36th Session in 2006 and to the United Nations’ Human
Rights Council on its first Universal Periodic Review in 2009. It is the localize translation
of the provisions of the CEDAW, in particular, the accentuation of gender
discrimination, state obligations, substantive equality, and temporary special measures.
It also recognizes human rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
The rights of women under MCW consist of all the rights accorded in the
Constitution which are hereby recognized by the International organizations.
The prominent features of the law include:
 The increase of the number of women in third level positions in the government
to realize a fifty-fifty (50-50) gender balance within the next five (5) years while
the composition of women in all levels of development planning and program
implementation will be at least 40 percent;
 The leave benefits of two (2) months with full pay which is based on the gross
monthly compensation for women employees who underwent surgery caused
by gynecological disorders, provided that they rendered continuous aggregate
employment service of at least six (6) months for the last twelve (12) months;
 The non-discrimination in employment in the fields of military, police and other
similar services that includes the same promotional privileges and opportunities
as their men counterpart, including pay increases, additional benefits, and
awards, based on competency and quality of performance;
 The provision for equal access and removal of discrimination in education,
scholarships, and training. “Expulsion, non-readmission, prohibiting enrollment,
 and other related discrimination of women students and faculty due to
pregnancy out of marriage shall be illicit;
 The non-discriminatory and non-derogatory portrayal of women in media and
film to raise the consciousness of the general public in recognizing the dignity
of women and the role and contribution of women in family, community, and
the society through the strategic use of mass media and
 The equal status given to men and women on the titling of the land and issuance
of stewardship contracts and patents.
Furthermore, to guarantee substantive rights, Magna Carta for Women establishes
the responsibility of the government to take immediate actions to end discrimination
against women; to “ensure the substantive equality of men and women” and mandates
the State to take steps to review, amend or repeal existing laws that are discriminatory
towards women.
As a whole, it is the Government who shall fulfill these duties through the
development and implementation of laws, policies, regulatory instruments,
administrative guidelines, and other appropriate measures as well as establish
contrivances to uphold the clear and unified implementation of the Magna Carta for
Women and other related laws and policies to effectively stop discrimination against
Filipino women.
The Magna Carta for Women directs all government offices which includes
government-owned and controlled corporations and local government units to
adopt gender mainstreaming as a strategy for implementing the law and attaining its
objectives. It also mandates (a) planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation for
gender and development, (b) the creation and/or strengthening of gender and
development focal points, and (c) the generation and maintenance of gender statistics
and sex-disaggregated databases to aid in planning, programming and policy
formulation.

Below is a relevant case that made mention of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9710:

DIVISION
[GR No. 199515, Jun 25, 2018 ]
RHODORA ILUMIN RACHO v. SEIICHI TANAKA +
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law of the foreign
spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved as a fact before the Regional
Trial Court. The Filipino spouse may be granted the capacity to remarry once our
courts find that the foreign divorce was validly obtained by the foreign spouse
according to his or her national law, and that the foreign spouse's national law
considers the dissolution of the marital relationship to be absolute.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the June 2, 2011 Decision[2] and
October 3, 2011 Order[3] of Branch 254, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, which
denied Rhodora Ilumin Racho's (Racho) Petition for Judicial Determination and
Declaration of Capacity to Marry.[4] The denial was on the ground that a Certificate of
Divorce issued by the Japanese Embassy was insufficient to prove the existence of a
divorce decree.

Racho and Seiichi Tanaka (Tanaka) were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City,
Metro Manila. They lived together for nine (9) years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan and
did not have any children.[5]

Racho alleged that on December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce
was granted. She secured a Divorce Certificate[6] issued by Consul Kenichiro
Takayama (Consul Takayama) of the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines and had it
authenticated[7] by an authentication officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs.[8]

She filed the Divorce Certificate with the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo,
Japan, where she was informed that by reason of certain administrative changes, she
was required to return to the Philippines to report the documents for registration and
to file the appropriate case for judicial recognition of divorce.[9]

She tried to have the Divorce Certificate registered with the Civil Registry of Manila
but was refused by the City Registrar since there was no court order recognizing it.
When she went to the Department of Foreign Affairs to renew her passport, she was
likewise told that she needed the proper court order. She was also informed by the
National Statistics Office that her divorce could only be annotated in the Certificate of
Marriage if there was a court order capacitating her to remarry.[10]

She went to the Japanese Embassy, as advised by her lawyer, and secured a Japanese
Law English Version of the Civil Code of Japan, 2000 Edition.[11]

On May 19, 2010, she filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of
Capacity to Marry[12] with the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City.

On June 2, 2011, Branch 254, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City rendered a
Decision,[13] finding that Racho failed to prove that Tanaka legally obtained a divorce.
It stated that while she was able to prove Tanaka's national law, the Divorce
Certificate was not competent evidence since it was not the divorce decree itself. [14]

Racho filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[15] arguing that under Japanese law, a
divorce by agreement becomes effective by oral notification, or by a document
signed by both parties and by two (2) or more witnesses.[16]

In an Order[17] dated October 3, 2011, the Regional Trial Court denied the Motion,
finding that Racho failed to present the notification of divorce and its acceptance.[18]

On December 19, 2011, Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [19] with this
Court. In its January 18, 2012 Resolution, this Court deferred action on her Petition
pending her submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the
notification of divorce.[20]

Petitioner initially submitted a Manifestation,[21] stating that a duly-authenticated

acceptance certificate was not among the documents presented at the Regional Trial
Court because of its unavailability to petitioner during trial. She also pointed out that
the Divorce Certificate issued by ,the Consulate General of the Japanese Embassy was
sufficient proof of the fact of divorce.[22] She also manifested that Tanaka had secured
a marriage license on the basis of the same Divorce Certificate and had already
remarried another Filipino. Nevertheless, she has endeavored to secure the document
as directed by this Court.[23]
On March 16, 2012, petitioner submitted her Compliance,[24] attaching a duly
authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce that she obtained in
Japan.[25] The Office of the Solicitor General thereafter submitted its Comment[26] on
the Petition, to which petitioner submitted her Reply.[27]

Petitioner argues that under the Civil Code of Japan, a divorce by agreement
becomes effective upon notification, whether oral or written, by both parties and by
two (2) or more witnesses. She contends that the Divorce Certificate stating
"Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya
City, Saitama Pref., Japan on December 16, 2009" is sufficient to prove that she and
her husband have divorced by agreement and have already effected notification of
the divorce.[28]

She avers further that under Japanese law, the manner of proving a divorce by
agreement is by record of its notification and by the fact of its acceptance, both of
which were stated in the Divorce Certificate. She maintains that the Divorce Certificate
is signed by Consul Takayama, whom the Department of Foreign Affairs certified as
duly appointed and qualified to sign the document. She also states that the Divorce
Certificate has already been filed and recorded with the Civil Registry Office of
Manila.[29]

She insists that she is now legally capacitated to marry since Article 728 of the Civil
Code of Japan states that a matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce. [30]

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General posits that the Certificate of
Divorce has no probative value since it was not properly authenticated under Rule
132, Section 24[31] of the Rules of Court. However, it states that it has no objection to
the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce submitted by
petitioner in compliance with this Court's January 18, 2012 Resolution.[32]

It likewise points out that petitioner never mentioned that she and her husband
obtained a divorce by agreement and only mentioned it in her motion for
reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court. Thus, petitioner failed to prove that
she is now capacitated to marry since her divorce was not obtained by the alien
spouse. She also failed to point to a specific provision in the Civil Code of Japan that
allows persons who obtained a divorce by agreement the capacity to remarry. In any
case, a divorce by agreement is not the divorce contemplated in Article 26 of the
Family Code.[33]

In rebuttal, petitioner insists that all her evidence, including the Divorce Certificate,
was formally offered and held to be admissible as evidence by the Regional Trial
Court.[34] She also argues that the Office of the Solicitor General should not have
concluded that the law does not contemplate divorce by agreement or consensual
divorce since a discriminatory situation will arise if this type of divorce is not
recognized.[35]

The issue in this case, initially, was whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in
dismissing the Petition for Declaration of Capacity to Marry for insufficiency of
evidence. After the submission of Comment, however, the issue has evolved to
whether or not the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient to
prove the fact that a divorce between petitioner Rhodora Ilumin Racho and
respondent Seiichi Tanaka was validly obtained by the latter according to his national
law.

Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino may
be recognized in the Philippines as long as it was validly obtained according to the
foreign spouse's national law, thus:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the
laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall
also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and
(6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.[36] (Emphasis supplied)

The second paragraph was included to avoid an absurd situation where a Filipino
spouse remains married to the foreign spouse even after a validly obtained divorce
abroad.[37] The addition of the second paragraph gives the Filipino spouse a
substantive right to have the marriage considered as dissolved, and ultimately, to
grant him or her the capacity to remarry.[38]

Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable only in issues on the validity of remarriage.
It cannot be the basis for any other liability, whether civil or criminal, that the Filipino
spouse may incur due to remarriage.

Mere presentation of the divorce decree before a trial court is insufficient.[39] In Garcia
v. Recio,[40] this Court established the principle that before a foreign divorce decree is
recognized in this jurisdiction, a separate action must be instituted for that purpose.
Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments; thus, our
laws require that the divorce decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must
be pleaded and proved like any other fact before trial courts.[41] Hence, in Corpuz v.
Sto. Tomas:[42]

The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the

acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and
laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect
within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This
means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under
our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the
effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made
in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party
invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.[43]

II

Respondent's national law was duly admitted by the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner
presented "a copy [of] the English Version of the Civil Code of Japan (Exh. "K")
translated under the authorization of the Ministry of Justice and the Code of
Translation Committee."[44] Article 728(1) of the Civil Code of Japan reads:

Article 728. 1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.[45]

To prove the fact of divorce, petitioner presented the Divorce Certificate issued by
Consul Takayama of Japan on January 18, 2010, which stated in part:

This is to certify that the above statement has been made on the basis of the
Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya
City, Saitama Pref., Japan on December 16, 2009.[46]
This Certificate only certified that the divorce decree, or the Acceptance Certification
of Notification of Divorce, exists. It is not the divorce decree itself. The Regional Trial
Court further clarified:

[T]he Civil Law of Japan recognizes two (2) types of divorce, namely: (1) judicial
divorce and (2) divorce by agreement.

Under the same law, the divorce by agreement becomes effective by notification,
orally or in a document signed by both parties and two or more witnesses of full age,
in accordance with the provisions of Family Registration Law of Japan.[47]
Thus, while respondent's national law was duly admitted, petitioner failed to present
sufficient evidence before the Regional Trial Court that a divorce was validly obtained
according to the national law of her foreign spouse. The Regional Trial Court would
not have erred in dismissing her Petition.

III

Upon appeal to this Court, however, petitioner submitted a Certificate of Acceptance

of the Report of Divorce,[48] certifying that the divorce issued by Susumu Kojima,
Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Prefecture, has been accepted on December 16, 2009.
The seal on the document was authenticated by Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service
Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan.[49]
The probative value of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is a
question of fact that would not ordinarily be within this Court's ambit to resolve.
Issues in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court[50] are
limited to questions of law.

In Garcia and Corpuz, this Court remanded the cases to the Regional Trial Courts for
the reception of evidence and for further proceedings.[51] More recently in Medina v.
Koike,[52] this Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine the
national law of the foreign spouse:

Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. The resolution of
factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on these matters are
received with respect and are in fact binding subject to certain exceptions. In this
regard, it is settled that appeals taken from judgments or final orders rendered by
RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction raising questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law should be brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) in
accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Nonetheless, despite the procedural restrictions on Rule 45 appeals as above-

adverted, the Court may refer the case to the CA under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule
56 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 6. Disposition of improper appeal. - . . .

An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court
submitting issues of fact may be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or
appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues
of fact are involved shall be final.[53]
The court records, however, are already sufficient to fully resolve the factual
issues.[54] Additionally, the Office of the Solicitor General neither posed any objection
to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce[55] nor
argued that the Petition presented questions of fact. In the interest of judicial
economy and efficiency, this Court shall resolve this case on its merits.
 IV

Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, the admissibility of official records
that are kept in a foreign country requires that it must be accompanied by a
certificate from a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, consular agent or any officer of the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in that foreign country:

Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an
Authentication[56] issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the
Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The Authentication
further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the
Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section
24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of
the fact of divorce between petitioner and respondent.

The Regional Trial Court established that according to the national law of Japan, a
divorce by agreement "becomes effective by notification." [57] Considering that the
Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was duly authenticated, the divorce
between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained according to respondent's
national law.
 V

The Office of the Solicitor General, however, posits that divorce by agreement is not
the divorce contemplated in Article 26 of the Family Code, which provides:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the
laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall
also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and
(6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.[58] (Emphasis supplied)
Considering that Article 26 states that divorce must be "validly obtained abroad by
the alien spouse," the Office of the Solicitor General posits that only the foreign
spouse may initiate divorce proceedings.

In a study on foreign marriages in 2007 conducted by the Philippine Statistics

Authority, it was found that "marriages between Filipino brides and foreign grooms
comprised 5,537 or 66.7 percent while those between Filipino grooms and foreign
brides numbered 152 or 1.8 percent of the total marriages outside the country." [59] It
also found that "[a]bout four in every ten interracial marriages (2,916 or 35.1%) were
between Filipino brides and Japanese grooms." Statistics for foreign marriages in
2016 shows that there were 1,129 marriages between Filipino men and foreign
women but 8,314 marriages between Filipina women and foreign men. [60] Thus,
empirical data demonstrates that Filipino women are more likely to enter into mixed
marriages than Filipino men. Under Philippine laws relating to mixed marriages,
Filipino women are twice marginalized.

In this particular instance, it is the Filipina spouse who bears the burden of this
narrow interpretation, which may be unconstitutional. Article II, Section 14 of our
Constitution provides:

Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall
ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
This constitutional provision provides a more active application than the passive
orientation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution does, which simply states that
no person shall "be denied the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection, within
the context of Article III, Section 1 only provides that any legal burden or benefit that
is given to men must also be given to women. It does not require the State to actively
pursue "affirmative ways and means to battle the patriarchy-that complex of political,
cultural, and economic factors that ensure women's disempowerment."[61]

In 1980, our country became a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).[62] Under Articles 2(f) and S(a) of
the treaty, the Philippines as a state party, is required:

Article 2

....

(f) to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish

existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination
against women;

....

Article 5

....

(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a
view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes
or on stereotyped roles for men and women[.]
By enacting the Constitution and signing on the CEDAW, the State has committed to
ensure and to promote gender equality.

In 2009, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta for Women,
which provides that the State "shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family
relations."[63] This necessarily includes the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code. Thus, Article 26 should be interpreted to mean that it is irrelevant for
courts to determine if it is the foreign spouse that procures the divorce abroad. Once
a divorce decree is issued, the divorce becomes "validly obtained" and capacitates the
foreign spouse to marry. The same status should be given to the Filipino spouse.

The national law of Japan does not prohibit the Filipino spouse from initiating or
participating in the divorce proceedings. It would be inherently unjust for a Filipino
woman to be prohibited by her own national laws from something that a foreign law
may allow. Parenthetically, the prohibition on Filipinos from participating in divorce
proceedings will not be protecting our own nationals.

The Solicitor General's narrow interpretation of Article 26 disregards any agency on

the part of the Filipino spouse. It presumes that the Filipino spouse is incapable of
agreeing to the dissolution of the marital bond. It perpetuates the notion that all
divorce proceedings are protracted litigations fraught with bitterness and drama.
Some marriages can end amicably, without the parties harboring any ill will against
each other. The parties could forgo costly court proceedings and opt for, if the
national law of the foreign spouse allows it, a more convenient out-of-court divorce
process. This ensures amity between the former spouses, a friendly atmosphere for
the children and extended families, and less financial burden for the family.

Absolute divorce was prohibited in our jurisdiction only in the mid-20th century. The
Philippines had divorce laws in the past. In 1917, Act No. 2710[64] was enacted which
allowed a wife to file for divorce in cases of concubinage or a husband to file in cases
of adultery.[65]

Executive Order No. 141, or the New Divorce Law, which was enacted during the
Japanese occupation, provided for 11 grounds for divorce, including "intentional or
unjustified desertion continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of [a petition
for divorce]" and "slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other to
such an extent as to make further living together impracticable." [66]

At the end of World War II, Executive Order No. 141 was declared void and Act No.
2710 again took effect.[67] It was only until the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950
that absolute divorce was prohibited in our jurisdiction.

It is unfortunate that legislation from the past appears to be more progressive than
current enactments. Our laws should never be intended to put Filipinos at a
disadvantage. Considering that the Constitution guarantees fundamental equality,
this Court should not tolerate an unfeeling and callous interpretation of laws. To rule
that the foreign spouse may remarry, while the Filipino may not, only contributes to
the patriarchy. This interpretation encourages unequal partnerships and perpetuates
abuse m intimate relationships.[68]

In any case, the Solicitor General's argument has already been resolved in Republic v.
Manalo,[69] where this Court held:

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of "a divorce . . . validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based on a clear and plain reading of the
provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter
of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated
the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish
whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce
proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can We put
words in the mouths of the lawmakers. "The legislature is presumed to know the
meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent
by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum,
or from the words of a statute there should be no departure."

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word "obtained" should be interpreted
to mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien spouse,
still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart
from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions
inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have ends to achieve, and
statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends and
purposes. As held in League of Cities of the Phils., et al. v. COMELEC, et al.:

The legislative intent is not at all times accurately reflected in the manner in which the
resulting law is couched. Thus, applying a verba legis or strictly literal interpretation
of a statute may render it meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an absurd situation
or injustice. To obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the
intent or the spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be to the rule that the
spirit of the law controls its letter.
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign
divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer
married to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to address an
anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is
free to marry under the laws of his or her country. Whether the Filipino spouse
initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the
marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same
result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who
initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as
a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the
subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a
means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos
whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's
national law.[70] (Emphasis in the original)
Recent jurisprudence, therefore, holds that a foreign divorce may be recognized in
this jurisdiction as long as it is validly obtained, regardless of who among the spouses
initiated the divorce proceedings.

The question in this case, therefore, is not who among the spouses initiated the
proceedings but rather if the divorce obtained by petitioner and respondent was
valid.
The Regional Trial Court found that there were two (2) kinds of divorce in Japan:
judicial divorce and divorce by agreement. Petitioner and respondent's divorce was
considered as a divorce by agreement, which is a valid divorce according to Japan's
national law.[71]

The Office of the Solicitor General likewise posits that while petitioner was able to
prove that the national law of Japan allows absolute divorce, she was unable to "point
to a specific provision of the Japan[ese] Civil Code which states that both judicial
divorce and divorce by agreement will allow the spouses to remarry."[72]

To prove its argument, the Office of the Solicitor General cites Republic v. Orbecido
III,[73] where this Court stated:

[R]espondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to
remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence
sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage.

Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the

Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to
allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign
citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However, considering that in the present
petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to
declare, based on respondent's bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as
an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American,
that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made
properly upon respondent's submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor. [74]
The Office of the Solicitor General pointedly ignores that in Orbecido III, the
respondent in that case neither pleaded and proved that his wife had been
naturalized as an American citizen, nor presented any evidence of the national law of
his alleged foreign spouse that would allow absolute divorce.

In this case, respondent's nationality was not questioned. The Regional Trial Court
duly admitted petitioner's presentation of respondent's national law. Article 728 of
the Civil Code of Japan as quoted by the Office of the Solicitor General states:

Article 728 of the Japan Civil Code reads:

1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.

2. The same shall apply also if after the death of either husband or wife, the surviving
spouse declares his or her intention to terminate the matrimonial relationship.[75]
The wording of the provision is absolute. The provision contains no other
qualifications that could limit either spouse's capacity to remarry.

In Garcia v. Recio,[76] this Court reversed the Regional Trial Court's finding of the
Filipino spouse's capacity to remarry since the national law of the foreign spouse
stated certain conditions before the divorce could be considered absolute:

In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a
cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones
are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et
thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves
the bond in full force. There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce
was procured by respondent.

Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree - a conditional or

provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation from bed and
board, although an absolute divorce may follow after the lapse of the prescribed
period during which no reconciliation is effected.

Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes
and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may
be limited by statute; thus, the guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the
ground of adultery may be prohibited from marrying again. The court may allow a
remarriage only after proof of good behavior.
On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:

"1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute
(unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy."
This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may
have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry
according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court,
which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored
respondent's capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. [77]

Here, the national law of the foreign spouse states that the matrimonial relationship
is terminated by divorce. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce does
not state any qualifications that would restrict the remarriage of any of the parties.
There can be no other interpretation than that the divorce procured by petitioner and
respondent is absolute and completely terminates their marital tie.

Even under our laws, the effect of the absolute dissolution of the marital tie is to
grant both parties the legal capacity to remarry. Thus, Article 40 of the Family Code
provides:

Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage
void.

Petitioner alleges that respondent has since remarried, the National Statistics Office
having found no impediment to the registration of his Marriage Certificate.[78] The
validity of respondent's subsequent marriage is irrelevant for the resolution of the
issues in this case. The existence of respondent's Marriage Certificate, however, only
serves to highlight the absurd situation sought to be prevented in the 1985 case
of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.:[79]

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces
the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the
divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards
of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. . . .

....

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of
petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's
husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the
Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and
whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation
before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be
considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations
under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to
private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with
possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her
own country if the ends of justice are to be served.[80]

The ruling in Van Dorn was eventually codified in the second paragraph of Article 26
of the Family Code through the issuance of Executive Order No. 227 in 1987. The
grant of substantive equal rights to the Filipino spouse was broad enough that this
Court, in the 1985 case of Quita v. Court of Appeals,[81] "hinted, by way of obiter
dictum"[82] that it could be applied to Filipinos who have since been naturalized as
foreign citizens.

In Republic v. Orbecido III,[83] this Court noted the obiter in Quita and stated outright
that Filipino citizens who later become naturalized as foreign citizens may validly
obtain a divorce from their Filipino spouses:
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino
citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and
obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry
as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.
To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the
interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to
mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be
construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the
letter of the law. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal
meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.[84]

To insist, as the Office of the Solicitor General does, that under our laws, petitioner is
still married to respondent despite the latter's newfound companionship with another
cannot be just.[85] Justice is better served if she is not discriminated against in her own
country.[86] As much as petitioner is free to seek fulfillment in the love and devotion
of another, so should she be free to pledge her commitment within the institution of
marriage.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court June 2, 2011
Decision and October 3, 2011 Order in SP. Proc. No. 10-0032 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. By virtue of Article 26, second paragraph of the Family Code and the
Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce dated December 16, 2009,
petitioner Rhodora Ilumin Racho is declared capacitated to remarry.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

September 27, 2018

 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on June 25, 2018 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was
received by this Office on September 27, 2018 at 2:11 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)
WILFREDO V.
LAPITAN
Division Clerk of
Court

[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-31.
[2]
Id. at 32-37. The Decision, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 10-0032, was penned by Presiding
Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.
[3]
Id. at 38-39. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.
[4]
Id. at 40-48.
[5]
Id. at 33.
[6]
Id. at 50.
[7]
Id. at 51.
[8]
Id. at 33.
[9]
Id. at 6.
[10]
Id. at 33.
[11]
Id. at 33-34.
[12]
Id. at 40-48.
[13]
Id. at 32-37.
[14]
Id. at 36.
[15]
Id. at 53-63.
[16]
Id. at 56-57.
[17]
Id. at 38-39.
[18]
Id. at 39.
[19]
Id. at 3-31.
[20]
Id. at 64-65.
[21]
Id. at 66-72.
[22]
Id. at 67.
[23]
Id. at 69-70.
[24]
Id. at 82-86.
[25]
Id. at 87-89.
[26]
Id. at 126-151.
[27]
Id. at 176-197. All notices to respondent Tanaka were returned unserved (rollo, pp. 216-
217).
[28]
Id. at 14-15.
[29]
Id. at 16-17.
[30]
Id. at 22, as cited in the Petition:

TERMINATION OF MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP

Article 728. 1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.
....
[31]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 132 sec. 24 provides:
Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service
of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
[32]
Rollo, p. 138.
[33]
Id. at 138-147.
[34]
Id. at 182-183.
[35]
Id. at 188.
[36]
As amended by Exec. Order No. 227 (1987).
[37]
See Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 223 Phil. 357 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division]
and Republic v. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[38]
See Corpuz v. Sto, Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
[39]
See Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
[40]
418 Phil. 723 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
[41]
See Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/215723.p
df> 3 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[42]
642 Phil. 420 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
[43]
Id. at 432-433, citing II REMEDIAL LAW, Rules 23-56, 529 (2007); Republic v. Orbecido III,
509 Phil. 108 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division]; Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001)
[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; and Bayot v. Court of Appeals, 591 Phil. 452 (2008) [Per J.
Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
[44]
Rollo, p. 36.
[45]
Id. at 22.
[46]
Id. at 50.
[47]
Id. at 39.
[48]
Id. at 88-89. The original Japanese document and an English translation by Byunko Visa
Counseling Office, Tokyo, Japan are attached.
[49]
Id. at 87.
[50]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari
from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law
which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)

[51]
See also Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 568 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago,
Third Division] and San Luis v. San Luis, 543 Phil. 275 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third
Division] where this Court remanded the cases to the trial courts to determine the validity of
the divorce decrees.
[52]
G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/215723.p
df> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[53]
Id. at 5, citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corporation, 715 Phil.
420, 433-435 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]; Far Eastern Surety and Insurance
Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 766-767 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; and RULES OF
COURT, Rule 56, sec. 6.
[54]
See Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna Metal Multi-purpose Cooperative, 738 Phil. 37
(2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] where this Court resolved the issues of the case despite
being factual in nature due to the sufficiency of the court records. In this case, the records of
the Regional Trial Court were received by this Court on November 19, 2014 ( rollo, p. 214).
[55]
Rollo, p. 138.
[56]
Id. at 87.
[57]
Id. at 39.
[58]
As amended by Exec. Order No. 227 (1987).
[59]
Philippine Statistics Authority, Foreign Marriages of Filipinos: 2007, March 11, 2011
<https://psa.gov.ph/old/data/sectordata/sr11566tx.html> (last accessed June 1, 2018).
[60]
See Philippine Statistics Authority, Number of Nationalities of Bride and Groom,
Philippines:
2016 <https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/crd/specialrelease/Table%206.pdf>
(last accessed June 1, 2018).
[61]
Concurring Opinion of J. Leonen in Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/april2018/221029_l
eonen.pdf> 2 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[62]
The Philippines became a signatory on July 15, 1980. The treaty was ratified on August 5,
1981. <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-
8&chapter=4&clang=_en>.
[63]
Rep. Act No. 9710 (2008), sec. 19.
[64]
An Act to Establish Divorce (1917).
[65]
Section 1. A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or
concubinage on the part of the husband committed in any of the forms described in article
four hundred and thirtyseven of the Penal Code, cited in Valdez v. Tuason, 40 Phil. 943, 948
(1920) [Per J. Street, En Banc].
[66]
Baptista v. Castañeda, 76 Phil. 461, 462 ( 1946) [Per J. Ozaeta, En Banc].
[67]
Id. at 462-463.
[68]
See Concurring Opinion of J. Leonen, Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/april2018/221029_l
eonen.pdf> 4 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[69]
G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
<http://sc.judieiary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudenee/2018/april2018/221029.
pdf> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
[70]
Id. at 11-12, citing Commissioner of Customs v. Manila Star Ferry, Inc., 298 Phil. 79, 86
(1993) (Per J. Quiason, First Division]; Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC, 283 Phil.
649, 660 (1992) [Per J. Romero, En Banc]; Victoria v. Commission on Elections, 299 Phil. 263,
268 (1994) (Per J. Quiason, En Banc]; Enjay, Inc. v. NLRC, 315 Phil. 648, 656 (1995) [Per J.
Quiason, First Division]; Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 1057, 1073 (1997) [Per J.
Francisco, En Banc]; National Food Authority v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., 493 Phil. 241,
251 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. v. Monetary
Board, 545 Phil. 62, 72 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division]; Rep. of the Phils. v. Lacap, 546
Phil. 87, 100 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]; Phil. Amusement and Gaming
Corp. (PAGCOR) v. Phil. Gaming Jurisdiction, Inc. (PEJI), et al. , 604 Phil. 547, 553 (2009) (Per J.
Carpio Morales, Second Division]; Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, 312 Phil. 259, 268 (1995) [Per J.
Puno, En Banc]; League of Cities of the Phils., et al. v. COMELEC, et al., 623 Phil. 531, 564-565
(2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., En Banc]; and Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524, 555 (2013) [Per J.
Carpio, Second Division].
[71]
Rollo, p. 39.
[72]
Id. at 142.
[73]
509 Phil. 108 (2005) (Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[74]
Id. at 116-117.
[75]
Rollo, p. 142.
[76]
418 Phil. 723 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban. Third Division].
[77]
Id. at 735-736, citing 27A CJS, 15-17, §I, 611-613, §161 and 27A CJS, 625, §162.
[78]
See Rollo, pp. 69-70.
[79]
223 Phil. 357 ( 1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
[80]
Id. at 362-363, citing Recto vs. Harden, 100 Phil. 427 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc]; I
PARAS, CIVIL CODE 52 (1971); SALONGA, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 231 (1979).
[81]
360 Phil. 601 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
[82]
Republic v. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108, 114 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[83]
509 Phil. 108 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[84]
Id. at 114-115, citing Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil. 850, 855 (1957)
[Per J. Montemayor, En Banc].
[85]
See Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 223 Phil. 357 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
[86]
See Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 223 Phil. 357 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
______________________________________________________________________________
__

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8972

SOLO PARENT WELFARE ACT OF 2000

In accordance to the policy of the State to promote the family as the foundation
of the nation, strengthen its solidarity and ensure its total development, Congress
enacted RA 8972, otherwise known as the “Solo Parent Welfare Act of 2000” to
provide the benefits and privileges to solo parents and their children.
 According to Section 3 (a) of R.A. 8972, a "solo parent" is a person who has been
left with the child's responsibility or care under any of the following categories:

 A woman who gives birth as a result of rape and other crimes against chastity
even without a final conviction of the offender;
 A parent left solo or alone due to the death of the spouse;
 A parent left solo or alone while spouse is detained or is serving sentence for a
criminal conviction for at least one year;
 A parent left solo or alone due to the physical or mental incapacity of spouse as
certified by a public medical practitioner;
 A parent left solo or alone due to the legal separation or de facto separation at
least one year;
 A parent left solo or alone due to the declaration of nullity of annulment of
marriage;
 A parent left solo or alone due to the abandonment of spouse for at least one
year;
 An unmarried mother or father;
 Any other person who solely provides parental care and support to a child or
children; and
 Any family member who assumes the responsibility of head of family as a result
of death, abandonment, disappearance or prolonged absence of the parent or
solo parent.

A solo parent are vested with the following benefits in accordance to RA No. 8972:

1. Comprehensive package of social development and welfare services:

a. Livelihood development services

b. Counseling services

c. Parent effectiveness services

d. Critical incidence stress debriefing

e. Special projects for individuals in need of protection

2. Flexible Work Schedule – not affecting individual and company productivity;

employer may request for exemption on meritorious grounds.
3. Parental Leave – 7 working days which is not convertible to cash and is different
from emergency or contingency leave

4. Educational Leave

a. Scholarship programs for qualified solo parent and her child or children in
institutions of basic, tertiary, and technical/skills education

b. Non-formal education programs

5. Housing benefits – upon meeting the eligibility criteria, shall be provided with
liberal terms on government low-cost housing projects

6. Medical Assistance – comprehensive health care program for solo parents and their
children.

The criteria for support enumerates that Any solo parent whose income falls
below the poverty threshold as set by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) and subject to the assessment of the DSWD worker in the area shall
be eligible for assistance. A solo parent can directly inquire from the following agencies
to avail of their services: Health Services (DOH) Educational Services (CHED, TESDA)
Housing (NHA) Parental Leave (Employer, DOLE, CSC)

It can be noted that a solo parent whose income is above the poverty threshold
shall enjoy only such limited benefits as flexible work schedule, parental leave and
others to be determined by the DSWD.

Under Section 10, Article IV of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
8297, the benefits and privileges of a solo parent can be obtained only if there is a Solo
Parent Identification Card.

The requirements are as follows:

1. The applicants for the solo parent ID must bring the following documents to the
City/Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office: Barangay certification certifying
Solo Parent’s residency in the barangay for the last six months Certificates e.g., birth
certificates of children, death certificate of spouse and other appropriate documentary
support Income tax return or any document that will establish the income level of the
solo parent
2. The social worker receives and ensures that all documents are complete and
registers the applications with an appropriate case number in the log-book Registry of
Solo Parents. Note: The ID will be issued after 30 days from filing. The validity of the ID
is one year and is renewable.

An additional maternity leave of 15 days for solo parents should be availed of

in a continuous and uninterrupted manner immediately after the expiration of the
approved maternity leave.

In pursuant to Section 10, Article IV of the IRR of R.A. No. 8972 or the Solo
Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000, the Solo Parent Identification Card (ID) is an indispensable
requirement to avail of all solo parent benefits. There being no alternative thereto, a
valid Solo Parent ID shall be secured and presented in order to enjoy the additional
fifteen (15) days maternity leave benefit for solo parents.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11210

105-DAY EXPANDED MATERNITY LEAVE LAW

In recognition of women’s maternal function as a social responsibility, the State

shall institutionalize a mechanism to expand the maternity leave period of women
workers which also provides ample transition time to regain health and overall wellness
as well as to assume maternal roles before resuming paid work. The Act is consistent
with local and international legal instruments that protect and promote the rights of
women. Thus, the Republic Act No. 11210 otherwise known as the 105-Day
Expanded Maternity Leave Law in the Philippines.

As equally important citizen of the State, the purpose of the law is to allow women
to have ample transition time to regain health and overall wellness, and to assume
maternal roles before resuming paid work. To lessen the sixty-day post-partum leave
period would defeat said purpose.

For this, the law covers all female workers in the government and the private sector,
including the informal economy, 105 days of fully paid leave. Previously, female workers
could take maternity leaves for 60 days for normal delivery and 78 days for caesarian
operations.
The following are salient features of RA No. 11210:

 The maternity leave is extendible by another 30 days but without pay.

 If the female worker is a solo parent, as defined in the Solo Parent Act (R.A. No.
8972) she can have an additional 15 days of fully paid leave.
 Female workers who suffered a miscarriage or had to undergo an emergency
termination of the pregnancy are allowed to have a 60-day maternity leave.
 The mother can transfer 7 days of her leave benefits to the father, extending
the latter’s paid paternity leave to 14 days.
 In the death, absence or incapacity of the father, the mother can choose to
allocate up to 7 days of her maternity leave benefits to a relative within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or the current partner of the mother, so
long as they share the same household.
 In addition, the new law has removed the limit of applicability to only the first
four deliveries, and now allows the grant of the benefits regardless of the
number of children or deliveries the female worker may have had.

 Leaves cannot be deferred and shall be rendered in a continuous and

uninterrupted manner, regardless of holidays during the leave period. The
leaves may be availed either before or after the actual period of delivery
provided that post-natal care shall not be less than sixty (60) days.
 In the event of two overlapping benefits, the benefits shall be availed in a
consecutive manner, provided that the amount covering the overlap shall be
deducted from the current claim.
 The leave benefits provided under the law are without prejudice to a superior
benefit provided under a collective bargaining agreement.
 The law expressly prohibits the act of discriminating against the hiring of women
and protects their security of tenure by ensuring that there is no diminution of
their benefits even by reason of their having gone on maternity leave.
 Employers who fail or refuse to comply with the provision of the law may be
subject to a fine of not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P200,000.00, and
imprisonment of not less than 6 months and 1 day but not more than 12 years.
 If the employer is an association, partnership, corporation or any other
organization, its managing head, directors or partners shall be held liable.
 Privilege to maternity leave advantages must be delighted in if the conveyance,
miscarriage or emergency termination of pregnancy happens not more than fifteen
(15) schedule days after the end of work. The law regards the option to have "already
accrued" to the female worker if the possibility happens inside the said period. The 15-
day period will not be material if a female worker is discovered to be unlawfully or
unjustly dismissed. If a female employee is illegally or unjustly dismissed, she may
guarantee maternity leave benefits even past the 15-day period, and the employer will
oat everything identical to her compensation for 105 days for conveyance and 60 days
for miscarriage and emergency termination of pregnancy.

Failure to comply with the provisions of the law shall be punished by:

A. Fine of not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (PHP20,000.00) nor more than
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP200,000.00);
B. Imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than
twelve (12) years; or
C. Both fine and imprisonment.

REPUBLIC ACT 8187

PATERNITY LEAVE ACT OF 1996
The concept of Republic Act 8187 otherwise known as the Paternity Leave Act
of 1996 is “for purposes of enabling him to effectively lend support to his wife in her
period of recovery and/or in the nursing of the newly-born child” (Sec. 3, R.A. 8187).
Paternity Leave is defined as follows:
 Leave credits which is granted to a married male employee which allows him to
earn compensation for 7 working days without reporting for work, provided that
his spouse has delivered a child, had a miscarriage or an abortion for the
purpose of lend support to his wife during her period of recovery and nursing
of the newborn child.
 The benefits granted to a married male employee allowing him not to report for
work for seven (7) days but continues to earn the compensation therefor, on the
condition that his spouse has delivered a child or suffered a miscarriage for
 purposes of enabling him to effectively lend support to his wife in her period of
recovery and in the nursing of the newly-born child.

The law covers those married male employees coming from both the public and
private sector.
The duration of the paternity leave is seven (7) days with full pay and is available
only for the first 4 deliveries.
A male employee is entitled for paternity leave if such conditions are follows:
1. Employed at the time of the delivery of his child.
2. Notified his employer of the pregnancy of his wife and her expected dates
of delivery.
3. Wife has given birth, suffers a miscarriage or an abortion
4. Availed in first 4 deliveries by his lawful spouse

The application should be made within a reasonable period of time to give the
employer an opportunity to make adjustments while the male employee is on leave.
However, for miscarriage, prior application is not required.

The benefit is not convertible to cash as the objective is for the male employee
to attend to his wife after her delivery or miscarriage.

The benefit is not cumulative, for instance, the unused benefit cannot be
added to the next delivery or miscarriage and the benefit is not cumulative, for
instance, unused benefit cannot be added to the next delivery or miscarriage.

In the event of violation, the penal sanctions are as follows:

1. Penalty or fine not exceeding P25, 000.00 or imprisonment of not less
than 30 days nor more than months
2. If violation is committed by a juridical entity, the penalty of
imprisonment shall be imposed on the entity’s responsible officers.

The recently-signed Republic Act (RA) No. 11210 or the Expanded Maternity
Leave Act not only gives mothers up to 105 days or 3 months of maternal leave, it also
entitles fathers to 14 days of paid leave. In effect, this measure increases the number
of paternity leave to 14 days from the existing 7 days under RA 8187 or the Paternity
Leave Act of 1996.

Provided below is case digest which made mention of RA No. 8187:

PASIG AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY

CORPORATION AND CELESTINO E. DAMIAN, petitioners, vs. WILSON NIEVAREZ,
ALBERTO HALINA, GLORY VIC NUEVO, RICKY TORRES AND CORNELIO BALLE,
respondents.
[ G.R. No. 197852, October 19, 2015 ]

FACTS:

Herein respondents are regular employees of PADISCOR. They were hired as

machinist, tool keeper/timer, helper, welder, and maintenance worker with a daily wage
of P350.00. On June 17, 2006, PADISCOR sent notices to Nievarez, Torres and Nuevo
informing them that they were temporarily laid off from employment for a period of
six months and cited that it can no longer pay their wages and other benefits due to
financial losses and lack of capital and due to other factors such as unauthorized
absences, habitual tardiness, negligence, dishonesty and others. In a Memorandum
dated June 24, 2006, PADISCOR required Nievarez to submit a written explanation why
a disciplinary action should not be imposed against him for his unjustified refusal to
perform assigned tasks. Nievarez submitted his explanation expounding on his need
to receive a memorandum before he be assigned to a task as protection from
unfounded accusations, and demanded an additional wage. PADISCOR dismissed the
explanations and demands of Nievarez for being ridiculous and baseless and
suspended him from work for fifteen (15) days for insubordination.

On September 5, 2006, Balle and Halina received notices similar from the other
respondents informing them of their temporary lay-off from employment for six
months. Respondents filed complaints for illegal suspension, illegal lay-off, non-
payment of service incentive leave and paternity leave, damages and attorney's fees
against PADISCOR and Damian.

Petitioners asserted that the suspension of Nievarez was valid since he was guilty
of insubordination and misconduct, which was a repetition of a previous offense and
further alleged that Nievarez made ridiculous conditions such as written memorandum
defining his duties, and a promotion or a raise in wage before he completes his
assigned task. PADISCOR maintained that the six months temporary lay-off of
respondents was valid due to economic reasons and that it gave one-month prior
notice to respondents regarding the temporary retrenchment and filed Establishment
Termination Reports with DOLE. It averred that there was no dismissal since the lay-off
was merely temporary, thus, respondents are not entitled to separation pay.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal lay-off and illegal
suspension for lack of merit but awarded the payment of service incentive leave in favor
of respondents and held that the power to instill discipline in the workplace is part of
petitioner’s management prerogative. The NLRC agreed with the findings of the LA
that the temporary lay-off of respondents was valid. However, by petition for certiorari,
the CA ruled that the LA and the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
sustaining respondents' temporary suspension from work and remanded to the Labor
Arbiter for the computation of backwages due to said temporary lay-off of service.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in holding that petitioners’ exercise of its

management prerogative to temporarily lay-off employees is illegal in view of its failure
to present financial statements to evidence its financial losses.

RULING:

The Court finds the petition without merit. Jurisprudence, in both a permanent
and a temporary lay-off, dictates that the one-month notice rule to both the DOLE and
the employee under Article 283 (now Article 298) is mandatory. Also, in both cases, the
layoff, as an exercise of the employer's management prerogative, must be exercised in
good faith - that is, one which is intended for the advancement of employers' interest
and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees
under special laws or under valid agreements.

In light of the well-entrenched rule that the burden to prove the validity and
legality of the termination of employment falls on the employer and the requisites
provided by Article 286 (now Article 301) of the Labor Code, PADISCOR should have
established the bona fide suspension of its business operations or undertaking that
would have resulted in the temporary lay-off of the respondents for a period not
exceeding six (6) months in accordance with the Labor Code.

In the present case, PADISCOR failed to prove its compliance with the said
requisites. In invoking such article in the Labor Code, the paramount consideration
should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put
some of its employees temporarily out of work.45 This means that the employer should
be able to prove that it is faced with a clear and compelling economic reason which
reasonably forces it to temporarily shut down its business operations or a particular
undertaking, incidentally resulting to the temporary lay-off of its employees.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11165

TELECOMMUTING ACT

Republic Act No. 11165 otherwise known as Telecommuting Act also

referred to as Work from Home Law seeks protect the rights of workers and promote
their welfare, in light of new and alternative avenues enabled by the latest
communications technologies that allow employees to perform their work from their
homes. The new law is consistent with the state policy to affirm labor as a primary social
economic force.
As used in the Act, the term “telecommuting” refers to a work arrangement that
allows an employee in the private sector to work from an alternative workplace with
the use of telecommunication and/or computer technologies.
The law accentuates two (2) key points:

a. Fair Treatment

This principle ensures that telecommuting employees are accorded with the
following:

 The same minimum labor standards and treatment as on-site

employees which includes overtime, holiday pay, and entitlement to
leave benefits.
  The same or comparable workload and performance standards as on-
site employees.

 The same access to training and career development opportunities, it

also includes training on the technical equipment at their disposal in a
comparable way that on-site employees are trained to use equipment
on-site and

 Entitlement to the same collective rights as on-site employees, and they

cannot be barred from communicating with their labor organization
and/or union representatives.

Measures should also be taken to ensure that telecommuting employees

do not feel isolated from their co-employees by giving them the
opportunity to meet with colleagues on a regular basis, as well as access
to the regular workplace and company information.

b. Data Privacy

As to the principle of Data Privacy, the Telecommuting Act simply entails

employers and employees to agree on minimum standards that will protect
personal information. For this drive, the employer is responsible for taking the
appropriate measures to ensure the protection of data used and processed by
the telecommuting employee for professional purposes.

Data privacy policies are committed to be done in the part of the

telecommuters and shall ensure that confidential and proprietary information
are protected at all times which is utilized only in accordance with the
requirements of the employer.

Under the Telecommuting Act, the employer is required to provide or do the

following:

 Present “relevant written information” about the terms and conditions of

the telecommuting program.

 Notify the Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) on the

adoption of a telecommuting work arrangement, accomplishing the
DOLE prescribed report form and submitting the same in print or digital
 copy to the nearest DOLE Field or Provincial Office having jurisdiction
over the area where the principal office is located.

 Submit respective report to the nearest DOLE Field or Provincial Office

having jurisdiction over the branch or operational unit in the event when
the employer has branches or operational units outside the region of its
principal office

 Offer a telecommuting program to its employees on a voluntary basis,

and upon such terms and conditions as they may mutually agree upon.