Atty. Joie

31/01/2026

Second Chances 🤍

It began with frustration and unmet expectations—and honestly, a lot of heartbreak. Seeing a space I worked so hard for not turn out the way I imagined was painful. This wasn’t just a renovation delay or design issue. This was my condo. My first home. Paid for with years of hard work, discipline, and sacrifice, all compressed into 32 square meters that meant everything to me.

There were moments I wanted to stop. To just accept things as they were and move on. But something in me refused to settle.
So I took a risk when I met STAK Modern Kitchens & Cabinets - Sales From the beginning, they didn’t just listen to what I wanted; they understood how much this space mattered. Little by little, the disappointment turned into excitement. The stress slowly gave way to hope.

Marine plywood in acacia finish brought warmth and life to the kitchen, entertainment cabinets, and dining area. Black quartz countertops and an undermounted sink made the kitchen feel clean and intentional. The dining area included a built-in bookshelf—because as a lawyer, I needed space for my books and quiet thinking. Even the bedroom was carefully maximized to fit all my ka-artehan, without ever feeling cramped.

And somehow, despite being only 32 sqm, it finally felt big.
Big enough for my dreams.
Big enough for peace.
Big enough to feel like home.

This space now reminds me that frustration doesn’t mean failure—and that sometimes, the most beautiful outcomes come after choosing to try again.

Thank you, STAK Modern Kitchens & Cabinets - Sales, for your patience, craftsmanship, and for helping turn a difficult chapter into a home I’m genuinely proud of.

📸 Sharing a few photos of the unit below—my small space, my second chance.

03/01/2026

Be in the know

Supreme Court 2025 Yearender: Key Rulings Every Law Student and Citizen Should Know |

The Supreme Court closed 2025 with landmark decisions shaping fundamental rights, governance, criminal justice, family relations, labor, property, and the legal profession.

Below is a topic-by-topic guide to the most significant rulings of 2025, based on the official Supreme Court Yearender.

📌 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Right to Life, Liberty, and Security
* In Re: Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo (Henry V. Tayo, Jr.) – G.R. No. 265195
* Castro & Tamano v. Unknown Respondents – G.R. Nos. 269249 & 276602
* CHR v. Office of the Ombudsman – G.R. No. 257685
* A.M. No. 25-01-25-SC (Guidelines on jail decongestion)

Due Process / Criminal Justice
* People v. Enriquez – G.R. No. 264473
* Comamo v. People – G.R. No. 236548
* People v. Pereda (Kian delos Santos case) – G.R. Nos. 268510 & 274142
* People v. Acdang – G.R. No. 263341
* Aquino v. People (Plea bargaining) – G.R. No. 259094
* Ruiz v. People (Legal insanity) – G.R. No. 244692
* ### v. People (Social media account ownership) – G.R. No. 274842
* Fernando v. People (Witness retraction) – G.R. No. 259589
* People v. Consebido (Prescription of crimes) – G.R. No. 258563
* People v. Malacaman (Out-of-court identification) – G.R. No. 257098
* Vallacar Transit v. Yanson (Fugitive doctrine) – G.R. No. 259337

Freedom of Expression
* Abines, Jr. v. House of Representatives – G.R. No. 278101

🗳️ RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE & ELECTION LAW
* Matula v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 277784
* Sarigumba v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 263615
* Amutan v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 266331
* Erice v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 277608
* Macabuhay v. People – G.R. No. 270337
* Macalintal v. Senate (Barangay term law) – G.R. Nos. E-02002 et al.

🏛️ SEPARATION OF POWERS
* Guo v. Senate Committee – G.R. No. 274351
* Ong v. Senate Tricomm – G.R. No. 275469
* In Re: Habeas Corpus of Ryanh Dolor – G.R. No. 279692
* Duterte v. House of Representatives (Impeachment) – G.R. Nos. 278353 & 278359

🧑‍⚖️ ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
* Heirs of Ligot v. Republic – G.R. Nos. 257827 et al.
* Bagbagen v. Perez (Salary garnishment) – G.R. No. 274980
* Philippine Guarantee Corp. v. COA – G.R. No. 256709
* People v. Estregan – G.R. No. 248699
* People v. Reyes (Malversation) – G.R. No. 260030

👩‍👧 SOCIAL WELFARE, VAWC, CHILD PROTECTION
* Migrante International v. SSS – G.R. No. 248680
* Caridaoan v. People – G.R. No. 228741
* ###264870 v. People (Infidelity ≠ VAWC) – G.R. No. 264870
* People v. Scully – G.R. No. 270174
* People v. ABC260708 (R**e terminology) – G.R. No. 260708

💍 MARRIAGE & FAMILY LAW
* Boado v. Galvez-Boado – G.R. No. 263627
* Maliwat-Melad v. Melad – G.R. No. 267998
* Bonbon v. People (Bigamy prescription) – G.R. No. 272844
* Anido v. Republic (Foreign divorce) – G.R. No. 253527
* Republic v. Tangarorang (Legitimacy of children) – G.R. No. 272006

🧑‍🏭 LABOR LAW
* Aragones v. Alltech Biotechnology – G.R. No. 251736
* Amor v. Constant Packaging – G.R. No. 259988
* Nalica III v. Jebsen Maritime – G.R. No. 272550

💼 ECONOMY, BANKING & CORPORATE LAW
* Shell Philippines Exploration v. COA – G.R. Nos. 238846 et al.
* Antonino v. BDO – G.R. Nos. 273446 & 273493
* Eastwest Rural Bank v. PNP-ACG – G.R. No. 273720
* Dee v. Union Bank – G.R. No. 251180

🏠 LAND, PROPERTY & CONTRACTS
* Ocampo v. Batara-Sapad – G.R. No. 256343
* Spouses Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa – G.R. No. 269921
* Phinma Property Holdings v. Rivera – G.R. No. 261877
* Azurin, Jr. v. Chua – G.R. No. 259662

⚖️ BENCH, BAR & JUDICIAL REFORMS
* CPRA, Code of Judicial Conduct & Court Personnel Code – A.M. Nos. 25-04-04-SC & 25-06-11-SC
* Electronic Filing & e-Notarization Rules – A.M. Nos. 25-05-16-SC & 24-10-14-SC
* Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) – A.M. No. 22-11-01-SC
* JIB v. Judge Tomarong – A.M. No. RTJ-25-085

These rulings reflect the Supreme Court’s direction on rights protection, accountability, digital justice, and social realities—critical knowledge for law students, practitioners, and an informed public.

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025, Website, link in the comment section.

01/01/2026

Data privacy is a right

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a lending app operator to pay damages to a client after it accessed her contact list and sent messages about her outstanding loan. https://tinyurl.com/3s4ak5xh | via ONE News

17/12/2025

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, citing the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner's statement that the right to social security is of central importance in guaranteeing human dignity for all persons when they are faced with circumstances that deprive them of their capacity to fully realize their human rights.

"RETIREMENT BENEFIT IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE OR A DOLE OUT"— SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Court of Appeals (CA) decision granting retirement pay worth about P680,112 to a part-time employee with fixed-term employment, emphasizing that all employees in the private sector, regardless of their status, are entitled to retirement pay.

In a 13-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division denied the appeal of International School Manila (ISM) questioning the grant of retirement pay to its former employee Ireland Carreon Cabrido.

ISM employed Cabrido as an Afternoon Activity (AFAC) and Athletic Activity (ATAC) coach from August 14, 1995, to May 29, 2020. During the pandemic lockdown, Cabrido still received a salary from March 2020 to May 2020.

In July 2020, ISM offered an early retirement package for those who (1) were at least 50 years old and (2) had worked for at least 5 years as of January 31, 2021. Cabrido expressed his intent to avail of the offer.

When Cabrido received ISM's computation, he questioned why his retirement pay was fixed at PHP 298,196. He asserted that based on his 25 years of service, the computation should have been PHP 680,112. ISM denied Cabrido's request, paving the way for him to file a labor complaint before the labor arbiter.

The labor arbiter dismissed his complaints, noting that he is a part-time employee who has a fixed-term employment status. It added that at the time Cabrido availed early retirement, he was only 50 years old, way below the 60-year-old requirement to avail retirement pay under Republic Act No. 7641.

The said decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), prompting him to elevate the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

In reversing the said ruling, the CA ruled that Cabrido is entitled to Option A of ISM's Retirement Plan because he falls under said category. It noted that Cabrido is at least 50 years of age and has completed 10 years of service, which perfectly suits the said retirement option.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, citing the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner's statement that the right to social security is of central importance in guaranteeing human dignity for all persons when they are faced with circumstances that deprive them of their capacity to fully realize their human rights.

It emphasized that ISM cannot renege on its obligation and refuse to grant Cabrido his retirement pay under the pretense that it was doling out financial aid. Its claim that Cabrido, being only 50 years old, is not entitled to retirement pay under the Labor Code, which requires that the employee be at least 60 years old, is nothing but misleading and fraudulent representation.

The highest bench underscored that the grant of retirement benefits is not an issue of generosity or greed of the employer.

"The issue of the grant of retirement benefit is not an issue of generosity and greed... Employers should be reminded to take the issue of retirement with careful consideration. Retirement is a right and not a privilege; neither is it considered a 'dole out,'" the Supreme Court said.

27/10/2025

Yey! Finally my unit’s getting its long overdue upgrade. Thank you STAK Modern Kitchen & Cabinets - Sales

13/10/2025

03/09/2025

03/09/2025

27/08/2025

Seemless function and modern living, STAK Modern Kitchen & Cabinets - Sales

13/06/2025

Senator Edgardo Angara on Friday underscored the responsibility of all law practitioners to provide legal services to the poor during the groundbreaking of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP) new tower in Ortigas, Pasig City.