The Supreme Court (SC) has found a Bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for falsely claiming on Facebook that artificial intelligence would be used to sort and check answers in the 2023 Bar Examinations.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card fraud cannot be seized under a search warrant limited to illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The Supreme Court (SC) is expanding the digitalization of legal services with an electronic notarization framework that allows electronic documents to be notarized in person or remotely through accredited digital platforms.
Supreme Court (SC) senior associate justice Marvic Leonen has urged lawyers and judges to use artificial intelligence cautiously, warning that the technology must not replace independent reasoning, human judgment, or accountability in the justice system.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that psychological violence committed through Facebook may carry a penalty higher by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, provided the use of information and communications technology is alleged in the criminal charge and proven during trial.
Supreme Court senior associate justice Marvic Leonen told court personnel that artificial intelligence may be used to assist judicial work, but must never be allowed to decide cases, as he defended the SC’s new governance framework for AI in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court has suspended lawyer Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III from the practice of law for one year after finding him guilty of simple misconduct over a profanity-laden post on social media.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that similarities in trademark or logo designs that may confuse purchasers prevent the registration of later marks, even if new words are added.
The Supreme Court (SC) denied the petition of a local company called ISCO Holding Corporation and affirmed an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals, which rejected its application to register the “NIKON & DESIGN” mark for home and household goods.
The Supreme Court (SC) has reaffirmed that cyber libel cases prescribe within one year from the time the offense is discovered, rejecting attempts to extend the period or reckon it from publication.
