Opus Chan Consultancy

Opus Chan Consultancy "This is my symphony. These are the melodies and the notes of my opus. These are the music of my lif

31/05/2026

"Bakit Wala Na Akong OTP?" The June 30 Deadline That Changes How You Log Into Your Bank.

Starting June 30, 2026 — that is less than five weeks from now — the way you verify your banking transactions is about to change permanently.

If you have been relying on a six-digit code sent via text to approve your transfers, add a new payee, or log into your banking app, that system is on its way out. And it is being replaced by something significantly harder to steal.

What is happening and why:

By June 30, 2026, every bank, e-money issuer, and payment operator supervised by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas must have phased out SMS and email OTPs for high-risk transactions.

This is mandated under BSP Circular 1213, issued in June 2025 as the implementing regulation for AFASA (Republic Act No. 12010) — the same Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act designed to protect Filipinos from digital fraud.

The Philippines' digital fraud rate stands at 13.4 percent, nearly triple the global average, with Filipinos losing an average of ₱44,700 per fraud incident. That staggering number is a direct consequence of how easy it is to intercept an SMS OTP.

Why SMS OTPs are the problem:

SMS OTPs travel over the telecom network, which the bank has no control over. SIM swap fraud lets attackers receive OTP messages intended for the account holder. Phishing pages harvest codes in real time. Smishing tricks users into reading the code aloud over the phone. Each of these attacks works because the authentication factor has to leave the bank's systems and pass through a channel anyone can potentially intercept.

In short: the six-digit code you type in is only as safe as the text message that carries it — and text messages are not safe enough.

What replaces the SMS OTP:

High-risk transactions and critical account changes must now use phishing-resistant, device-bound alternatives: server-side biometrics validated against bank-held templates, or FIDO2/WebAuthn-standard passkeys with device attestation in place.

In plain terms: expect face ID, fingerprint authentication, and in-app push approvals to become the new standard for authorizing transactions — methods that live on your device and cannot be intercepted by a scammer on a different phone.

What still uses OTP:

OTPs retain one permitted use: confirming the existence or ownership of a registered mobile number. They remain in the toolkit — just not as a way to authorize transactions.

What counts as a "high-risk transaction" under the new rules:

Adding a new payee, updating your registered contact details, initiating large transfers, logging in from a new device — any action that could expose your account to significant loss now requires the stronger authentication method.

Is the deadline being extended?

No. In January 2026, BSP Deputy Governor Elmore Capule confirmed publicly that the central bank is not extending the June 2026 deadline, telling reporters that institutions have to catch up. Banks that are still using outdated technology when fraud occurs face liability for customer losses under AFASA.

What this means for you as a bank customer:

In the coming weeks, your banking apps — GCash, Maya, BPI, BDO, GoTyme, UnionBank, and every other BSP-supervised platform — should be prompting you to set up or enable biometric authentication if you have not already. If your app has been asking you to enable Face ID or fingerprint login and you have been clicking "skip" — now is the time to turn it on.

Three things to do before June 30:

Enable biometric login on every banking and e-wallet app you use. Update your app to the latest version — authentication upgrades are typically delivered through app updates. Verify your registered mobile number with each bank is still active and correct, since number ownership confirmation via OTP remains allowed.

The government is finally closing the gap that scammers have been exploiting for years. Your job is to make sure your apps are ready when June 30 arrives.

31/05/2026

Supreme Court building /INQUIRER PHOTO MANILA, Philippines -- Fostering a “hostile and intimidating environment” in a marriage may be deemed as “grossly abusive conduct” and serve as

Llaw 115 ME Finals
24/05/2026

Llaw 115 ME Finals

https://www.facebook.com/share/18rL4GARXz/?mibextid=wwXIfr
16/05/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/18rL4GARXz/?mibextid=wwXIfr

ℹ️ 𝗣𝗮𝗮𝗻𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗴𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗨𝗽 𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝘅

🏛️ 𝗔𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁?

Isipin mo itong isang legal na "vault" na gagawin mo habang buhay ka pa. Ilalagay mo dito ang iyong mga ari-arian — lupa't bahay, pera sa bangko, stocks, etc. — at magtatalaga ka ng isang 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙚 para pamahalaan ang mga ito para sa iyong mga mahal sa buhay. Kapag napirmahan mo na, 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬. Pero dito nagsisimula ang interesting part.

💡 𝗕𝗮𝗸𝗶𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗶𝗻?

Sa ilalim ng batas ng Pilipinas, ang mga ari-ariang nasa loob ng irrevocable trust ay 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪 𝘯𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘨𝘪 𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. Ibig sabihin, kapag namatay ka, hindi na sila papatawan ng 6% estate tax. Ang kapalit? Ang paglalagay ng assets sa trust ay itinuturing na donasyon, kaya 6% donor's tax ang babayaran — pero base sa 𝘬𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘬𝘶𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘢 ng property, hindi sa mas mataas na halaga nito sa hinaharap.

Sa madaling salita: mas mababa ang potential na buwis ngayon kumpara sa estate tax sa hinaharap.

At ito ang parte na madalas hindi alam ng marami — habang nananatili ang mga ari-arian sa loob ng trust, 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘢𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘯, dahil ang nagmamay-ari ay ang trust mismo — hindi ang sinumang indibidwal.

📋 𝗣𝗮𝗮𝗻𝗼 𝗚𝘂𝗺𝗮𝘄𝗮 𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼 𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗮 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘀

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭 — 𝗣𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶 𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲
Pumili ng mapagkakatiwalaang tao o isang corporate trustee (halimbawa, trust departments ng BDO, BPI, o Security Bank, etc.) na mamamahala sa mga assets. Kung institutional trustee gaya ng bangko ang pipiliin mo, mas mabuting kausapin mo muna sila tungkol sa plano mo.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮 — 𝗜𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝘄𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗱
Kumuha ng abogado na may karanasan sa trust at estate law sa Pilipinas. Ang trust deed ay dapat malinaw na nagsasaad ng: sarili mo bilang trustor, ang iyong piniling trustee (tao o BSP-licensed na institutional trustee), at ang mga benepisyaryo. 𝗠𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗮: dapat talagang malinaw nakasulat na 𝙞𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 ito — dahil sa ilalim ng batas natin, ang isang trust ay 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 kung hindi ito malinaw na nakasaad.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯 — 𝗜𝗽𝗮-𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗼𝗸𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼
Ang trustor at trustee ay kailangang pumirma sa harap ng notaryo. Para sa real estate, 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪 𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 — ayon sa Article 1443 ng Civil Code, ang trust na kinasasangkutan ng immovable property 𝘢𝘺 𝘬𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵. Walang bisa ang verbal na kasunduan.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟰 — 𝗠𝗮𝗴𝗯𝗮𝘆𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿'𝘀 𝗧𝗮𝘅 𝘀𝗮 𝗕𝗜𝗥
Dahil ang paglipat ng ari-arian sa irrevocable trust ay itinuturing na donasyon, 6% donor's tax ang babayaran. Bayaran ito sa BIR 𝘴𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘣 𝘯𝘨 30 𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘸 mula sa petsa ng deed. Pagkatapos nito, mag-iisyu ang BIR ng Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR) — hindi ka makakausad kung wala ito.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟱 — 𝗜𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼 𝘀𝗮 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀
Dalhin ang notarized deed, ang eCAR, at patunay ng bayad sa local transfer tax at documentary stamp tax sa Registry of Deeds. Ang titulo ay ire-reissue sa pangalan ng trustee — kasama ang annotation ng trust capacity (hal., "Juan dela Cruz, bilang Trustee ng [Pangalan] Irrevocable Trust"). Pampubliko itong record.

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟲 — 𝗜𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁 𝗡𝗮 𝗥𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗶-𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻
Para sa bank accounts at stocks, makipag-ugnayan sa financial institution para ma-retitle ang mga ito sa pangalan ng trust. Para kumpleto ang lahat.

⚠️ 𝗠𝗴𝗮 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮

🔸 Hindi maaaring mabawasan ang 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 — ang compulsory share ng mga tagapagmana (asawa, anak, magulang) sa ilalim ng Civil Code. Kung gagawin ito, maaaring kwestyunin ng mga tagapagmana sa korte.

🔸 Ang irrevocable trust ay gaya talaga ng literal na ibig sabihin nito. Kapag nai-lipat na, 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘺𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘪-𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢 𝘪𝘺𝘰𝘯.

🔸 Sa ilalim ng batas natin, ang isang trust ay 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 lamang kung ang mga benepisyaryo ay 𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞 𝙢𝙖𝙖𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙣.

🎯 𝗔𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗼

Ang isang 𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 ay dumadaan sa probate — matagal, pampubliko, at magastos. Ang irrevocable trust ay lalaktawan ang lahat ng iyan. Direkta ang paglipat ng ari-arian sa iyong mga tagapagmana — walang aantayin sa korte, at posibleng makatipid pa ng malaki sa estate taxes ng ilang henerasyon. Isa ito sa pinaka-maganda — at pinaka-madalang ginagamit — na estate planning tools na available sa atin dito.

Kumonsulta sa abogado bago gumawa ng anumang hakbang.

𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀

• Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386), Articles 1440–1457 — Pangunahing batas sa express at implied trusts
• Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529) — Pagpaparehistro ng trusts na may kinalaman sa real property sa Registry of Deeds
• National Internal Revenue Code (R.A. 8424), as amended by the TRAIN Law — Donor's tax at estate tax treatment ng trusts
• Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108998 (1994) — Interpretasyon ng trust deed ayon sa intensyon ng settlor

👉 Follow Phil. Property Expert for more discussions like this.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1F3J8UP1Yy/?mibextid=wwXIfr
02/05/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1F3J8UP1Yy/?mibextid=wwXIfr

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.

22/04/2026
17/04/2026

The (SC) has ruled that sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution, those arising from a school’s regular activities, are not considered a nuisance and cannot make the school liable for damages.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition of Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (School) and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that awarded damages to residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga, Butuan City, where the school is located.

Wideline I. Malonda and others, who are residents of the Subdivision, claimed they were often exposed to loud noises from the School, such as drums and bugles being played, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students running, cheering and shouting during games played at the multipurpose center.

The residents claimed that these sounds, heard day and night, disturbed their sleep and peace at home.

In its defense, the School said it has been operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances and that any noise comes only from regular classes. It added that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office conducted a test and found the noise to be within the allowed limits for residential areas. The School also claimed it took steps to reduce noise, such as building higher fences, planting trees, using small speakers, and limiting activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the residents’ complaint, ruling that they failed to prove they were harmed by the noise. The RTC also found that the School did not intend to harm the residents and acted in good faith by taking steps to reduce the noise.

On appeal, the CA ruled in the residents’ favor, holding that the School’s noise, which came not only from classes but also from other social functions in the multi-purpose hall, was a nuisance that caused discomfort and annoyance to the residents.

The SC overturned the CA’s ruling. It held that academic noise, or sounds from legitimate school activities, is not a nuisance.

Nuisance includes any disturbance that interferes with a person, property or comfort and enjoyment of all citizens. The SC ruled that the determination of whether a noise is a nuisance requires more than just considering the location, environment, and its effect on residents.

Thus, for noise to be considered nuisance, the SC considered in the 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘊 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘐𝘯𝘤. the:

1. reliability of the noise pollution tests conducted,
2. introduction by the defendant of measures or improvements to mitigate the noise,
3. allowable noise levels,
4. defendant’s intention (or lack thereof) to cause harm to the plaintiff,
5. number of complaining witnesses,
6. representativeness of the plaintiff, and
7. actions of the plaintiff to alleviate his or her plight.

Adopting the framework, the SC finds that the sounds emanating from the School arose from its ordinary operations as an educational institution, and that the respondents are hardly representative of the community.

The SC also ruled that the residents failed to prove that the noise was unreasonably disturbing and that it worsened their health conditions. The residents’ statements showed only minor discomforts, not serious harm.

The SC added that while location and environment are important in determining a nuisance, they must be weighed against whether the noise is normally expected from the activity involved. Here, the sounds complained of did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected from a school.

The SC emphasized that there is no nuisance if an ordinary person would not find the sound disturbing, even if someone else is unusually sensitive to it.

The SC explained:

“𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴.”

The SC also denied the claim for damages since the School did not intend to harm or annoy the residents and had taken steps to reduce the noise. There was no evidence that the school caused the noise willfully, with malice or bad faith.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163502

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163486

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278875-formerly-udk-no-18061-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

Address

Wharton Parksuites, Masangkay Street , Sta. Cruz
Manila
1249

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Opus Chan Consultancy posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Opus Chan Consultancy:

Share