Atty. Tina Manimtim-Adonis, MPA

28/02/2026

I just received via email the Court’s Order denying the defense’s motion for lack of merit.

As private prosecutor, this is a huge win for justice — a clear message that baseless motions and DELAY tactics will not derail the judicial process. Today, the Court sided with the law and substance over stalling and gamesmanship.

We move forward stronger, focused, and ready for the next stage. Justice is being served, and accountability is advancing! ⚖️💪

05/02/2026

Another win secured. 💼⚖️

Revocation of garnishment DENIED.
What a good day 🥰🥰🥰

23/01/2026

Productive meeting with Eli San Fernando - Kamanggagawa Partylistt regarding SSS delinquent employers, joined by SSS lawyers and senior officials 🤝

09/01/2026

Notary Public commission of Atty. Tina Manimtim-Adonis, MPA- renewed until December 31, 2027, effective January 5, 2026.

Sincere thanks to the Executive Judge, especially the Clerk of Court, and the branch staff of RTC Branch 158, Morong Rizal, for the assistance and professionalism.

05/12/2025

CORPORATE DISPUTES: HINDI ITO BARANGAY MATTER ‼️

Marami pong nagtatanong kung puwedeng idulog sa Barangay ang mga isyu tungkol sa paghahati ng shares, pag-transfer o pagbabalik ng shares, o alitan sa pagitan ng mga shareholders.

📌 Sagot: HINDI PUWEDE.

Ang corporate disputes — lalo na kung may kinalaman sa ownership of shares, management issues, o internal affairs ng isang corporation — ay hindi sakop ng barangay mediation o barangay justice system.

🔍 Bakit hindi sakop ng Barangay?
Dahil ang corporation ay isang juridical entity.
Ang mga ganitong usapin ay nasa hurisdiksyon ng:

➡️ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
➡️ Regular courts, depende sa nature ng kaso
❗ Kaya kung ang problema ay tungkol sa:

✔ Pagbabalik, pag-transfer, o issuance ng shares
✔ Voting rights ng shareholders
✔ Corporate mismanagement
✔ Board conflicts
✔ Ownership or control disputes

👉 HINDI po ito dapat idinulog sa Barangay Hall.

💡 Paalala:
Kung may corporate issue ka, mas mainam kumonsulta agad sa isang legal counsel upang maging tama ang proseso mula sa simula 😉

04/11/2025

JUST COMPENSATION, HINDI LANG MARKET VALUE! 💡

Iginiit ng Korte Suprema na dapat lahat ng salik — hindi lang market value — ang isaalang-alang sa pagtukoy ng just compensation kapag kumukuha ang gobyerno ng pribadong lupa para sa pampublikong gamit.

👉 Sa kasong City Government of Pasay vs. Arellano University, ibinalik ng SC sa RTC ang kaso para muling suriin kung sapat ba ang kabayarang ibibigay sa unibersidad sa lupang ginawang kalsada (Menlo Street).

⚖️ Ayon sa SC, ang just compensation ay dapat totoo, buo, at patas — hindi puwedeng base lang sa lumang tax assessments. Dapat isaalang-alang ang kabuuang kalagayan ng ari-arian, lokasyon, zonal value, at iba pa.

Basahin pa:
📰 Press Release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153762
📄 Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153692
💬 Hiwalay na Opinyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153737

Iginiit ng na dapat na nakabatay sa lahat ng nauugnay na salik at hindi lamang sa market value ang just compensation o ang makatarungang kompensasyon sa mga kaso ng expropriation. Expropriation ang tawag sa pagkuha ng gobyerno ng pribadong ari-arian para sa pampublikong gamit.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, ibinalik ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang kaso sa pagitan ng City Government of Pasay (Pasay LGU) at Arellano University (University) para muling suriin ang halaga ng just compensation na dapat bayaran sa University.

Nagsampa ng reklamo noong 2015 ang University sa RTC at sinabing kinuha ng LGU ng Pasay ang 805-square-meter na parsela ng lupa nito sa Barangay San Isidro at ginawa itong pampublikong kalsada, na kilala ngayon bilang Menlo Street, nang hindi dumaan sa tamang expropriation proceedings o pagbabayad ng just compensation. Nagkasundo ang magkabilang panig na ipasa ang usapin sa isang board of commissioners na binubuo ng mga opisyal ng LGU ng Pasay.

Gumamit ang board ng base value na PHP200 kada metro kuwadrado (sqm) batay sa 1978 General Revision ng City Assessor’s Office, pagkatapos ay nagdagdag ng 6% na taunang interes mula 1978, ang taon na natuklasan ang kalye, hanggang 2017, na nagresulta sa halagang PHP2,060/sqm.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang University sa kompyutasyon at nagmungkahi ng kabuuang kabayaran na PHP 5,793,664.63 ang University batay sa mga rate na inilathala ng Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Pinagtibay ng RTC ang base value ng mga commissioner pero naglapat ng ibang interest rate. Inutusan nito ang Pasay LGU na magbayad ng PHP 161,000.00, at ang 12% taunang interes mula 1978 hanggang 2018.

Nagpasya ang CA na ibalik ang kaso sa RTC at sinabing nagbatay lamang ang RTC sa assessment noong 1978 at binalewala ang iba pang mahahalagang salik.

Sumang-ayon sa CA ang Korte Suprema nang makitang batay sa hindi kumpletong datos ang naging desisyon ng RTC.

Sa ilalim ng Article III, Section 9 ng Saligang Batas, hindi maaaring kunin ang pribadong pag-aari para sa pampublikong paggamit nang walang just compensation. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na dapat na totoo, malaki, buo, at sapat ang just compensation at dapat ang korte ang nagdedesisyon sa pagtukoy sa halagang ito.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na bagamat nagbibigay ng mga appraisal ang mga tagasuri ng lokal na pamahalaan, ang mga ito ay hindi nagkokontrol sa mga kaso ng expropriation. Ang ganitong mga appraisal ay madalas na sumasaklaw sa malalawak na saklaw at hindi isinasaalang-alang ang mga partikular na pagkakaiba sa mga ari-arian. Umaasa ang mga ito sa pangkalahatang paglalarawan at maaaring hindi tumpak. At bagaman maaaring gamiting gabay ang mga tax value, hindi ito maaaring ipalit sa isang masusing pagsusuri para sa just compensation.

Dapat gumamit ang mga hukuman ng “totality of circumstances” approach, na isinasaalang-alang ang lahat ng mga datos tungkol sa kalagayan ng ari-arian, kapaligiran, mga kasalukuyang pagpapabuti, at mga kakayahan. Kabilang dito ang zonal valuation ng Bureau of Internal Revenue, acquisition cost, tax declarations, laki, hugis, lokasyon, at ang kasalukuyang halaga ng mga katulad na ari-arian.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153762.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153692.

Basahin ang Hiwalay na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153737.

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

01/09/2025

NOTARY PUBLIC

Location: I. Pascual St., Special District, Jalajala Rizal
(In front of Barangay Hall near Siosion Supermarket)

23/06/2025

Numerous thick folders. One full day to review.
A hearing originally scheduled, then transferred to me—quite common, and one I welcome.

Thorough preparation is key.

It’s demanding work, but this is what I do—and I love it. ⚖️

- Atty. Tina Manimtim-Adonis

24/05/2025

18 years ago, I walked off the stage at University of Santo Tomas with a Latin honor in one hand and bigger dreams in the other.

That was the beginning—before the courtroom, before the cases, before being called “Atty.”
Just grit, late nights, and a vision.

[Before law school, I earned my Master in Public Administration from University of Rizal System—each step preparing me for what came next.]

Still proud. Still Thomasian. Always hungry.

24/05/2025

Muling iginiit ng na nananatiling lehitimo ang mga anak kahit na ang kasal ng kanilang mga magulang ay idineklarang walang bisa dahil sa psychological incapacity.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, binago ng Second Division ng Korte ang desisyon ng Regional Trial Court na nagdeklarang illegitimate ang isang anak kasunod ng pagpapawalang-bisa ng kasal ng kanyang mga magulang.

Ipinanganak ang bata ilang buwan bago ikinasal ang mag-asawa. Sa panahon ng kasal, ang asawang babae ay nakaranas ng pisikal, emosyonal, at berbal na pang-aabuso mula sa kanyang asawa. Ang asawang lalaki ay may isyu din ng pagkalulong sa alak, pagsusugal, at pagtataksil.

Sa petisyon na isinampa ng babae para mapawalang-bisa ang kanilang kasal, nagprisinta siya ng mga ebidensya ng pang-aabuso at isang sikolohikal na ulat na nag-diagnose sa kanyang asawa na may narcissistic personality disorder.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng Regional Trial Court na walang bisa ang kasal pero nagpasya din ito na ang bata ay nananatiling lehitimo. Sa pangkalahatan, kapag ang isang kasal ay pinawalang-bisa, ang anak ay itinuturing na hindi lehitimo mula sa oras na sila ay ipinaglihi. Gayunpaman, may exception sa Family Code tulad ng kapag ang kasal ay pinawalang-bisa dahil sa psychological incapacity. Nalalapat ito kung ang bata ay ipinanganak bago o habang kasal.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, ang nawawalang anotasyon sa birth certificate ay hindi nakakaapekto sa legal na kalagayan ng anak.

Kapag naging lehitimo ang isang anak sa ilalim ng Family Code, walang legal na basehan para baguhin ang kanilang status pabalik sa illegitimate. Ang pagpayag dito ay labag sa layunin ng batas na protektahan ang best interest ng anak.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://tinyurl.com/4yrkc82r.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/c673ywxs.

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://tinyurl.com/mrx3swc7.

06/05/2025

Atty. Tina Manimtim-Adonis, MPA attended the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Manila Conference 2025, where key insights were shared on the updated SIAC Rules and emerging strategies in international arbitration.

The event brought together leading experts and practitioners for thoughtful discussions on dispute resolution in today’s dynamic global landscape.

26/04/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the dismissal from service of an employee who tested positive for illegal drug use as it qualifies as serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination under the Labor Code.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC Special Third Division has affirmed its earlier ruling, which dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Joy Villarico, a crane operator of D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI).

The legal dispute began when Villarico tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165, and was declared unfit to work during his preemployment medical examination. Villarico also tested positive in the confirmatory test. Thereafter the DMCI dismissed him from the service, citing its employee handbook, which states that the use of controlled substances is prohibited and punishable by dismissal.

This prompted Villarico to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter, which was subsequently dismissed. According to the labor arbiter, there was no illegal dismissal since Villarico was not dismissed in the first place but his contract simply expired. The said disposition was later on upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals, paving the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

The high court ruled to affirm the ruling with modification, noting that Villarico is considered a regular employee since he was hired several times by DMCI for nine years. But the court said he was not illegally dismissed since his service was terminated for a just cause.

“We noted that Villarico was not able to dispute that he was found positive for prohibited drugs. In this regard, the use of illegal drugs qualifies as serious misconduct under Article 297 of the Labor Code. Since he was validly dismissed, Villarico was not entitled to back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement," the SC said.

"Here, the dismissal of Villarico was for a just cause. To recall, he was dismissed by DMCI et al. since he tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165. We held that Villarico did not present evidence to refute the medical result...To reiterate, the use of illegal drugs qualifies as a serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination under Article 297 of the Labor Code," the SC added.

However, the court denounced DMCI for not observing the requirements of due process in terminating Villarico's employment, as he was not given the required two notices before he was dismissed, making it liable for nominal damages.

“Clearly, the established rule is that failure to observe the procedural due process in dismissing an employee on the ground of just cause does not render the dismissal invalid or ineffectual but only subjects the employer to the payment of nominal damages in the amount of PHP 30,000.00," the SC said.

The court ordered the DMCI to pay Villarico nominal damages in the amount of PHP 30,000.00, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees.