Balindan Law

18/08/2026

Our Managing Partner, Atty. Jarvish Balindan, joins Bilyonaryo News Channel's Follow The Money as a guest expert to discuss “Taxes 101: How to File, Pay, and Avoid Penalties.”

In this informative segment, he shares key tax compliance tips and practical advice to help individuals and businesses navigate their tax obligations with confidence.

09/08/2026

07/08/2026

Consumer protection is the bridge that transforms innovation into lasting trust.

Speaking at the BPI CyberProtect Conference, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Managing Director Charina de Vera-Yap emphasized that protecting consumers builds confidence in digital financial services, helping drive the adoption of financial innovations.

07/08/2026

The (SC) has clarified that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.

The case arose from a complaint for 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 and violation of 𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘨. 22 (BP 22) filed against petitioner Faustine Feliz Abad (Abad) in connection with her purchase of airline tickets from respondent GHT Travel and Tours (GHT).

The City Prosecutor found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violation of BP 22, but found insufficient evidence to charge her with 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢. Two Informations for BP 22 were then filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that she was a flight risk. The RTC granted the request.

Abad later sought to have the PHDO lifted. The RTC denied her request, noting, among others, that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge to the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.

Ruling that the PHDO should have been lifted, the SC cited the Rule on PHDO that it issued on August 7, 2018, which provides that a PHDO may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment. It may also be issued against a foreigner regardless of the penalty.

The SC explained that the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The only charges filed against Abad were two counts of BP 22 violations, each punishable by imprisonment of 30 days to one year.

Thus, the BP 22 charges did not meet the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170320.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165691.

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

05/08/2026

𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲: 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗧𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗙𝗔𝗦𝗧

Pursuant to the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018 or Republic Act No. 11032, which requires all government agencies to adopt zero-contact policy and to automate business related transactions, SEC Memorandum Circular No.3, Series of 2021, and SEC issued notices on the use of iMessage Online Ticketing System, all concerned companies are hereby advised that the following reportorial documents under the jurisdiction of Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD) shall be submitted in 𝗽𝗱𝗳 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁 through the Electronic Filing and Submission Tool (eFAST) at https://efast.sec.gov.ph effective 17 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 2026.

Read the full notice here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/notices-2026/submission-of-secondary-reports-from-imessage-online-ticketing-system-to-efast/ .tab=0

04/08/2026

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Office has issued ULAS Advisory No. 7, s. 2026 - Reminders on Accreditable Legal Aid Activities, Incidental Activities, and Representations Relating Thereto.

The Advisory reminds all Covered Lawyers (CLs) and Registered Organizations (ROs) to ensure that all representations regarding the ULAS Program, including promotional materials, announcements, and claims of accreditation or partnership, are truthful, accurate, and consistent with the ULAS Rules, ULAS Rules Manual, and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). False or misleading representations may result in the denial of accreditation, non-crediting of service hours, or other appropriate measures.

The Advisory also clarifies that only the actual conduct of pro bono legal aid service is accreditable as a Legal Outreach Program or Legal Mission. While incidental activities (e.g., travel and other ancillary tasks) are not themselves accreditable activities, they may still be claimed separately as ULAS service hours in the participating lawyer's Compliance Report, subject to the applicable rules and documentation requirements.

Finally, stakeholders are informed that the logging of service hours and generation of Compliance Reports will be available upon the rollout of Phase 2 of the ULAS Portal.

Read the full text of ULAS Advisory No. 7, s. 2026 here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/FINAL-ULAS-ADVISORY-No7-S-2026-Representations-on-Accreditable-Legal-Aid-Activities.pdf

04/08/2026

Idineklara ng na labag sa Konstitusyon ang kautusan ng Kagawaran ng Agrikultura na nag-aatas sa mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda na sila’y palaging matunton, mamonitor, at magbigay ulat o magpadala ng mga datos tungkol sa pangingisda.

Ayon sa Korte, ito ay dahil sa nilalabag nito ang mga karapatan laban sa hindi makatwirang paghahalughog at pagsamsam (unreasonable search and seizure), karapatan sa kaukulang proseso (due process), at pantay na proteksyon ng batas (equal protection of the law).

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng Republika ng Pilipinas, na kinakatawan ng Department of Agriculture (DA) o Kagawaran ng Agrikultura at ng Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), at pinagtibay ang pasya ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na nagdeklara na labag sa Konstitusyon ang Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266 dahil hindi ito pumasa sa rational basis test.

Noong 2020, naglabas ang DA, sa pamamagitan ng BFAR, ng FAO No. 266 na nag-aatas sa lahat ng komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda na may watawat ng Pilipinas na gumamit ng Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM). Kabilang sa mga hakbang na ito ang Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) para matunton at mamonitor ang mga sasakyan, at ang Electronic Reporting System (ERS) para magtala at magpadala ng datos hinggil sa pangingisda. Iniatas din ng nasabing FAO ang pagkuha ng mga numero ng Maritime Mobile Service Identity mula sa National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

Kwinestiyon ng Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing, at Market Resources, Inc., at RBL Fishing Corporation (Royale Fishing, et al.), mga nagpapatakbo ng mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda sa Pilipinas, ang konstitusyonalidad ng FAO No. 266 sa RTC sa pamamagitan ng petition for declaratory relief.

Iginiit nila na ang tuloy-tuloy na pagmonitor ay nilalabag ang kanilang mga karapatan, naglalantad ng kumpidensyal na impormasyon sa negosyo at mga trade secrets, at nagkakait sa kanila ng pantay na proteksyon ng batas dahil tanging mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda lang ang inatasang sumunod dito. Ito ay kahit saklaw din ng Fisheries Code ang munisipal at mga sasakyang pandagat na nangingisda sa malalayong katubigan.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang Desisyon ng RTC na labag sa Konstitusyon ang FAO No. 266.

Ipinaliwanag nito na ang mga hukuman ay naglalapat ng magkakaibang antas ng pagsusuri sa pagrepaso ng mga regulasyon ng gobyerno. Habang mas mahigpit na antas ang inilalapat sa mga regulasyong nakaaapekto sa mga pangunahing karapatan at partikular na klasipikasyon, ang rational basis test naman ang inilalapat sa mga kasong hindi nabibilang sa mga nabanggit na pamantayan.

Sa pagsusuring ito, kailangang magpakita ang pamahalaan ng isang lehitimong interes at ng isang makatwirang ugnayan sa pagitan ng interes na iyon at ng mga pamamaraang ginamit. Ayon sa Korte Suprema, nabigo ang Republika rito dahil hindi nito sapat na naipakita na may makatwirang kaugnayan sa pagpuksa ng mga paglabag sa illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing ang mga kinakailangang VMS at ERS.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi epektibo ang VMS sa pagtukoy ng mga paglabag sa IUU fishing bukod sa pangingisda sa loob ng mga protektado o ipinagbabawal na lugar. Napansin din nito na hindi na naiiba sa mga umiiral na kinakailangang ulat na sinusunod na ng mga sasakyang pangingisda ang inaasahang lalabas na datos mula sa VMS.

Nagdesisyon din ang Korte Suprema na ang FAO No. 266 ay nagpahintulot ng pagmonitor na labis sa kung ano ang pinapayagan ng RA 8550. Ayon sa Fisheries Code, ang monitoring ay ang tuloy-tuloy na pag-obserba sa pangingisda na ipinapahayag sa pamamagitan ng mga salik tulad ng bilang ng mga araw o oras ng pangingisda, mga katangian ng yamang-dagat, at mga ani ng mapagkukunan.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang kahulugang ito ay hindi saklaw ang patuloy na pagtunton sa mga lokasyon o patutunguhan ng mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda. Binigyang-diin nito na hindi iniaatas ng RA 10654 sa mga operator na ibunyag ang kanilang lokasyon 24/7, bilang pagkilala na ang mga lugar ng pangingisda ay kumpidensyal na impormasyon sa negosyo.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170021.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169871.

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169872.

Basahin ang Separate Opinion ni Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169884.

Basahin ang Separate Concurring Opinion ni Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169898.

Basahin ang Separate Concurring Opinion ni Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169910.

Basahin ang Concurrence and Dissent ni Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169918.

Basahin ang Concurring and Dissenting Opinion ni Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169926.

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

04/08/2026

𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘: 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝗶𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗹 (“2026 𝗢𝗟𝗣 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲”)

Pursuant to Sections 4, 8, 9, and other relevant provisions of SEC Memorandum Circular No. 20, Series of 2026 ("MC No. 20"), the Financing and Lending Companies Department (“FinLenD”) hereby prescribes the procedures governing the electronic filing for the disclosure and recording of Online Lending Platforms (“OLPs”) through the SEC iMessage Portal.

The SEC iMessage Portal (https://imessage.sec.gov.ph) shall serve as the OLP disclosure platform until such time as the Commission formally establishes the “OLP Registry” contemplated under Section 4 of MC No. 20. Accordingly, the registration and disclosure of OLP names as business names or trade names shall remain valid and effective until the OLP Registry is established.

All covered financing and lending companies are advised to take note of the disclosure requirements and procedures prescribed under the Notice.

Read the full notice here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/notices/disclosure-and-recording-of-online-lending-platforms-through-the-sec-imessage-portal-2026-olp-disclosure-guide/ .tab=0