RSBD LAW Office

RSBD LAW Office Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from RSBD LAW Office, Notary public, Unit 5-1A, 5th Floor, Abanao Shopping Complex, Abanao Street AZCKO Barangay, Baguio City.

23/06/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule that excluded secondary beneficiaries from receiving survivorship benefits of deceased members who had at least three but less than 15 years of service.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SCโ€™s Third Division declared Section 24.2.2 of the ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜™๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ด (๐˜๐˜™๐˜™) of Republic Act No. 8291, or ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 1997 (๐˜Ž๐˜š๐˜๐˜š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต), ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ข ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด or beyond the GSISโ€™ rule-making authority.

As a result, the GSIS is barred from enforcing the provision to the extent that it conflicts with Section 21(c) of the law.

The case arose from the application of Petronilo B. Laroco (Laroco) for survivorship benefits following the death of his daughter, Cristie. She was a public school teacher with 13 years of government service and had paid GSIS premiums for 12 years. She died single and had no children.

The GSIS rejected the application. Under Section 24.2 of the IRR, Laroco was ineligible for survivorship benefits because he was not a primary beneficiary.

The GSIS held that secondary beneficiaries qualify for survivorship only if the deceased member had served at least 15 years in the government. Since Cristie had only 13 years of service, only her primary beneficiariesโ€”such as her spouse or childrenโ€”were entitled to survivorship benefits.

Ruling in Larocoโ€™s favor, the SC pointed out that Section 24.2.2 of the IRR conflicts with the law because it adds a new requirementโ€”limiting survivorship benefits for secondary beneficiaries only to cases where the deceased member served at least 15 years.

Under the ๐˜Ž๐˜š๐˜๐˜š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต, a secondary beneficiary is entitled to survivorship benefits if: (1) there is no primary beneficiary; (2) the secondary beneficiary meets the dependency requisites under the law; (3) the member was in government service at the time of their death; and (4) the member has rendered at least three years of service.

The SC stressed that although the GSIS had good intentions to address the โ€œunequal situationโ€ under the law, it cannot simply change the ๐˜Ž๐˜š๐˜๐˜š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต through a mere administrative issuance.

The three-year government service requirement for survivorship benefit under Section 21 might be, as argued by the GSIS, unfair and disadvantageous to other members who are required to render at least 15 years of service before qualifying for pension, but this is what is provided in the law.

The SC remanded the case to the GSIS Committee on Claims for the computation of the benefits payable to Laroco.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167839.

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165811.

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

23/04/2026

HOW THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES VOTED ON THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR CYBER LIBEL

G.R. No. 258524 (Berteni Cataluรฑa Causing vs. People of the Philippines, et al.)

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ๐˜Œ๐˜ฏ ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluรฑa Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General.

The SC, by an 8-7 vote, held that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is governed by the same provision under the Revised Penal Code on written libel.

In this , see how the Justices voted 8-7 in favor of declaring a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel.

For more, read the press release and full text of the Decision, and the opinions of the Justices:

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163671

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163636

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163642

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-admin/post.php?p=163650

Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163661

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

15/04/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that the prohibition on carrying deadly weapons during elections applies to fi****ms and similar regulated weapons, but not to bladed instruments like knives, unless they are carried inside the polling place and within a radius of one hundred meters from it, during election day.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SCโ€™s Third Division granted the motion for reconsideration (MR) of its earlier ruling that found a man guilty of violating Section 261(p) of ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜—๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ข ๐˜‰๐˜ญ๐˜จ. 881, or the ๐˜–๐˜ฎ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜Œ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ (๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Š), as amended by Section 32 of ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ค ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜•๐˜ฐ. (๐˜™๐˜ˆ) 7166. The SC held that while the man was found carrying a knife during the election period, there was no proof that he was in a polling place or within 100 meters of one during the days and hours prohibited under the ๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Š.

The man was arrested during the 2018 elections after authorities found him carrying a kitchen knife outside his residence without written authorization from the Commission on Elections.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found him guilty of carrying a deadly weapon during the election period.

The SC initially affirmed the lower courtsโ€™ decisions.

However, upon MR, the SC acquitted the man after finding that the prosecution failed to establish all the essential elements of the offense.

The SC clarified the scope of the weapon ban during elections. In ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ข ๐˜ท. ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ, it held that bladed instruments are not covered by Section 261(q) of the ๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Š and Section 32 of ๐˜™๐˜ˆ 7166, which prohibit the carrying of fi****ms outside oneโ€™s residence or place of business during the election period.

However, carrying of deadly weapons in general, including knives, is still punished but under a different provision of the ๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Šโ€”Section 261(p)โ€”but only if done in a polling place or near it, and during specific election-related activities.

Unlike Section 261(q) of the ๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Š which prohibits carrying of ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฌ everywhere in public during election period, Section 261 (p) of the ๐˜–๐˜Œ๐˜Š prohibits possession of ๐๐ž๐š๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ž๐š๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ in general (including bladed instruments such as knives) only in or near polling places under the law.

In this case, while the prosecution established that the man was carrying a knife during the election period, it failed to prove that the act was committed in a polling place or within 100 meters of one, and that it occurred during the days and hours specifically covered by Section 261(p). In the absence of proof that he was in or near a polling place during the specified days under the law, the manโ€™s guilt was not established.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163156

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163149

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

16/03/2026

CREATION OF BAGUIO CITY S*X OFFENDER REGISTRY PUSHED

Councilor Leandro Yangot Jr. has proposed an ordinance seeking to establish the Baguio City S*x Offender Registry (BCSOR), a system that will require convicted s*x offenders residing, working, studying, or temporarily staying in the city to register and disclose their status in order to strengthen monitoring mechanisms and enhance community safety, particularly for children and students.

The proposed measure establishes the Baguio City S*x Offender Registry (BCSOR) as a monitoring system for individuals convicted by final judgment of s*xual offenses who reside, work, study, or temporarily stay within the city. The registry will serve as a proactive tool for the city government to help prevent repeat offenses and strengthen the protection of the community, particularly children and other vulnerable sectors.

Under the ordinance, the City Social Welfare and Development Office (CSWDO) will serve as the primary custodian of the registry and will be responsible for managing offender registration, maintaining a secure and updated database, and classifying offenders according to the severity of their crimes.

The CSWDO will also provide mandatory counseling and rehabilitation programs for certain offenders through community-based welfare services and coordinate with the Department of Justice for data sharing involving national or international offenders.

The Baguio City Police Office (BCPO), through its Women and Children Protection Desk, will act as the enforcement arm of the registry. The police will verify the residential and employment addresses declared by registered offenders and intensify monitoring in high-traffic tourist areas and other designated safe zones.

The Management Information and Technology Division (MITD), meanwhile, will design and maintain the digital infrastructure of the registry, ensuring the security and integrity of the database in accordance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

The measure also assigns responsibilities to other city offices. The Permits and Licensing Division and the City Tourism Operations Office will ensure that accommodation establishments such as hotels, condominiums, and transient houses comply with reporting requirements and cross-check relevant data with the registry, particularly in child-sensitive industries such as schools and internet cafรฉs.

The City Health Services Office (CHSO), through its Mental Health and Wellness Unit, will provide psychological assessments and mental health support for offenders as part of rehabilitation efforts.

At the barangay level, the Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children (BCPC) and VAWC desk officers will serve as grassroots monitoring units. Barangays will maintain confidential records of registered offenders residing within their jurisdiction and participate in regular capacity-building programs on child protection and offender monitoring.

The ordinance introduces a tiered classification system for offenders based on the seriousness of their crimes. Tier I offenders, covering less serious offenses punishable by one year or less, will remain in the registry for 10 to 15 years. Tier II offenders, involving more serious crimes or repeat Tier I violations, will remain in the registry for 15 to 25 years. Tier III offenders, which include habitual offenders and those convicted of heinous s*xual crimes, will remain in the registry for life.

All convicted s*x offenders residing or working in the city will be required to register within ten working days from arrival in Baguio or release from imprisonment. Existing residents will be granted a 90-day grace period to comply once the ordinance takes effect.

Registered offenders will also have the duty to disclose their status in writing to their employer or prospective employer, the head of their educational institution if applicable, and the punong barangay of their place of residence. For visitors staying in hotels or transient houses for more than three days, disclosure must be made upon check-in.

The measure also provides for monitoring restrictions, particularly in areas considered safe zones for children. Registered offenders will be restricted from entering within a 200-meter radius of elementary and secondary schools, public parks when children are present, and child development centers.

Violations of the registration and disclosure requirements will be subject to penalties, including fines ranging from P1,000.00 to P5,000.00, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both depending on the number of offenses.

Schools, businesses, and accommodation establishments that knowingly employ or house an unregistered offender or fail to report non-disclosure may face fines and possible cancellation of their business permits for repeated violations.

The ordinance also proposes the creation of a Baguio City Victim Protection and Assistance Fund where all administrative fines collected will be deposited. The fund will be used to support medico-legal services for survivors, provide psychological and livelihood assistance to indigent victims, and finance training programs for barangay child protection councils.

The funding for the implementation of the registry will be sourced from the cityโ€™s general fund and included in the annual budgets of the concerned offices.

The ordinance further mandates that all registry information be handled in compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012, limiting public access to basic offender information such as name, photograph, and nature of the offense while excluding specific home addresses to prevent vigilantism.

The proposed ordinance has been approved on first reading by the Baguio City Council and referred to the Committee on Public Protection and Safety, Peace, and Order for review. -Jordan G. Habbiling

25/02/2026

Muling iginiit ng na ang paghahalughog matapos ang isang legal na pag-aresto ay maaring sumakop sa mga bagay na nasa agarang kontrol ng akusado. Maaaring tanggapin ng hukuman ang anumang mga ebidensiyang makukuha sa paghahalughog kahit hindi ito lantad sa paningin ng mga umarestong pulis.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala kay Jeryl Bautista dahil sa illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, o ang Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

Naaresto sa isang buy-bust operation si Bautista. Matapos mahuli, kinapkapan siya ng mga pulis at nakuhanan siya ng tatlong sachet ng hinihinalang shabu na nakatago sa loob ng isang cellphone charger.

Depensa ni Bautista, hindi dapat tanggapin bilang ebidensiya ang mga karagdagang sachet dahil hindi ito lantad sa paningin ng mga pulis nang kumpiskahin ito noong siyaโ€™y naaresto.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals at isinantabi ang kanyang argumento. Paliwanag nito, hindi lamang ang plain view doctrine ang batayan para maging wasto ang isang warrantless search dahil maaari ring magsagawa ng paghahalughog sa isang taong naaresto nang naaayon sa batas.

Sa pangkalahatan, kinakailangan ang warrant sa paghahalughog at pagsamsam ng anumang ebidensiya. Kapag nagsagawa ang pulisya ng paghahalughog o pagsamsam nang walang wastong warrant, hindi maaaring gamitin sa hukuman ang mga ebidensiyang makukuha. Gayunman, may mga kinikilalang exception o pagpapaliban sa patakarang ito.

Isa sa mga ito ang plain view doctrine na nagpapahintulot sa pagsamsam ng ebidensiyang lantad sa paningin kung: (1) may legal na dahilan ang pulis na naroroon sa lugar kung saan nakita ang bagay; (2) hindi planado ang pagkakadiskubre nito; at (3) agad na malinaw na ang bagay ay may kaugnayan sa krimen o labag sa batas.

Isa pang kinikilalang exception ang warrantless search na kaugnay ng isang legal na pag-aresto. Para maging wasto, kinakailangang: (1) legal ang pag-aresto sa akusado; (2) isinagawa ang paghahalughog nang walang warrant matapos ang pag-aresto; (3) limitado ang paghahalughog sa katawan ng akusado at sa mga bagay na nasa kanyang agarang kontrol; at (4) isinagawa ito sa lugar ng pag-aresto.

Sa kasong ito, inaresto si Bautista sa isang buy-bust operation at siniyasat bilang bahagi ng pagkakaaresto sa kanya. Bagaman hindi lantad sa paningin ng mga pulis ang mga sachet na nakatago sa loob ng cellphone charger, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na wasto pa rin ang paghahalughog dahil isinagawa ito bilang bahagi ng isang legal na pag-aresto at sumasaklaw sa mga bagay na nasa agarang kontrol ng akusado sa oras ng pag-aresto.

Dahil napatunayan ng prosekusyon na: (1) may droga sa kanyang pag-iingat; (2) walang pahintulot ng batas ang naturang pag-iingat; at (3) ginawa ito nang may kaalaman at kusang-loob, hinatulan ng Korte si Bautista ng pagkakakulong ng hanggang 16 na taon at pinagmulta ng PHP 300,000.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


19/02/2026

Naglabas ang ng mga panuntunan sa pagsuri ng mitigating circumstance ng boluntaryong pagsuko at nilinaw na ang nasabing pangyayari ay dapat suriin batay sa tunay na layunin ng tao at sa kabuuan ng mga pangyayari.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng isang lalaki at ibinaba ang kanyang parusa matapos kilalanin ang kanyang boluntaryong pagsuko nang malaman niya na may inilabas na warrant of arrest laban sa kanya.

Nagpunta ang lalaki sa National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) para kumuha ng clearance. Lumabas na may โ€œhitโ€ ang kanyang pangalan, na nagpapakitang mayroon siyang nakabinbing kaso. Inamin niya ito sa opisyal ng NBI.

Inatasan siyang bumalik makalipas ang isang linggo habang bineberipika ang mga rekord. Pagbalik niya, kinumpirma ng opisyal ng NBI na mayroon siyang nakabinbing kasong bigamy at may nakabinbing warrant of arrest na inilabas 13 taon na ang nakararaan. Sinabi niya sa opisyal, โ€œmasuko na lang ako,โ€ at humingi ng tulong para makapagpiyansa. Pagkatapos nito, inihain sa kanya ang warrant of arrest.

Kalaunan, naglabas ang NBI ng sertipikasyon na kusang-loob siyang sumuko. Gayunman, sa return of the warrant at order of release, inilarawan siya bilang inaresto.

Sa kanyang arraignment, una siyang nagbigay ng not guilty plea ngunit kalaunan ay nakipag-plea bargain at hiniling sa hukuman na isaalang-alang ang kanyang boluntaryong pagsuko at pag-amin ng kasalanan.

Hinatulan siya ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ng guilty sa kasong bigamy at kinilala ang kanyang pag-amin sa kasalanan bilang mitigating circumstance. Gayunman, sinabi ng RTC na wala umanong naganap na boluntaryong pagsuko base sa return of the warrant at order of release. Binigyang-diin din na nakabinbin ang kaso sa loob ng 13 taon dahil hindi siya matagpuan.

Pinagtibay ng Court of Appeals (CA) ang desisyong ito at sinabing nagtungo siya sa NBI hindi para sumuko kundi para kumuha ng clearance. Dagdag pa ng CA, wala na umano siyang pagpipilian nang sabihin niyang susuko siya dahil nasa loob na siya ng tanggapan ng NBI.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema.

Sa ilalim ng Article 13(7) ng Revised Penal Code, kailangan sa boluntaryong pagsuko na: hindi pa naaresto ang nagkasala; kusang-loob siyang sumuko sa isang taong may awtoridad o sa kinatawan nito; at boluntaryo ang pagsuko.

Sa kasong ito, bumalik ang lalaki sa NBI at sinabi niyang susuko siya bago pa man aktuwal na maihain sa kanya ang warrant of arrest. Hindi pa siya noon naaresto. Sumuko rin siya sa isang opisyal ng NBI na isang taong may awtoridad.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na dapat tingnan ang boluntaryong pagsuko sa isang mas maunawain at malawak na pananaw kapag napatunayan na ang pagkakasala. Binigyang-diin nito na dapat suriin ang boluntaryong pagsuko batay sa kabuuan ng mga pangyayari. Naglatag ito ng mga sumusunod na gabay:

1. Ang pagiging boluntaryo at kusang pagsuko ay dapat magpakita na ang nagkasala ay umaamin sa kanyang pagkakasala o nagnanais na iligtas ang mga awtoridad sa abala ng paghahanap at pag-aresto sa kanya.
2. Hiwalay sa mismong paglalabas ng warrant of arrest ang mga pangyayari ng boluntaryong pagsuko. Ang naunang paglabas ng warrant of arrest ay hindi dapat gamitin laban sa pag-aangkin ng akusado ng boluntaryong pagsuko kung ang iba pang mga pangyayari ay nagpapakita na natugunan ang lahat ng mga rekisito, kabilang ang pagiging boluntaryo. Gayunman, kung alam ng akusado ang pagkakaroon ng warrant of arrest laban sa kanya at patuloy siyang umiwas sa batas, maaari nitong maalis ang pagiging boluntaryo at kusa ng kanyang pagsuko.
3. Maaaring maging batayan para itanggi ang pagiging kusa ng pagsuko ang haba ng panahong ginamit ng akusado para umiwas sa batas.
4. Hindi nawawala ang pagiging boluntaryo dahil lamang sa may posibilidad na maaresto ang akusado anumang oras bago siya sumuko. Ang napipintong pag-aresto ay dapat may kasamang palatandaan na ang akusado ay tumakas o maaaring patuloy na umiwas at magtago bago maikaila ang pagiging boluntaryo.
5. Dapat isaalang-alang ang layunin ng akusado sa oras ng kanyang pagsuko kasama ng iba pang mga pangyayari sa pagtukoy kung siya ay may karapatan sa mitigating circumstance. Hindi kinakailangang sumuko ang nagkasala sa unang pagkakataon.
6. Kung hindi malinaw sa mga rekord na kusang-loob na sumuko ang nagkasala, ito ay hindi maaaring ipasya pabor sa kanya.

Tungkol naman sa pagiging boluntaryo ng kanyang pagsuko, binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na kung nais niyang umiwas sa pag-aresto, hindi na sana siya bumalik sa NBI. Bagamaโ€™t para kumuha ng clearance ang una niyang pagpunta doon, ang kanyang pasyang bumalik kahit may posibilidad na may nakabinbing kaso laban sa kanya ay nagpapakita ng kanyang kahandaang makipagtulungan sa mga awtoridad.

Nilinaw din ng Korte Suprema na bagamaโ€™t alam niya ang tungkol sa nakabinbing kaso, walang patunay na alam niyang may nailabas nang warrant of arrest laban sa kanya. Binanggit din ng Korte ang kawalan ng anumang tangkang tumakas, ang hayagang paggamit niya ng kanyang tunay na pangalan, at ang kusang-loob niyang pagbabalik sa NBI.

Pinaalalahanan rin ng Korte Suprema ang mga hukom na iwasan ang minadali o padalus-dalos na pagbuo ng konklusyon.

Ibinaba ang parusa ng lalaki mula sa anim (6) na taon sa apat (4) na taon ng pagkakakulong bilang maximum.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160857.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160836.

Basahin ang Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258592-formerly-udk-no-17170-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Address

Unit 5-1A, 5th Floor, Abanao Shopping Complex, Abanao Street AZCKO Barangay
Baguio City
2600

Opening Hours

Monday 9:30am - 4pm
Tuesday 9:30am - 4pm
Wednesday 9:30am - 4pm
Thursday 9:30am - 4pm
Friday 9:30am - 4pm
Saturday 9:30am - 12pm

Website

Alerts

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

Shortcuts

Share

Category