Panda Abogada 🐼 + ⚖️

March 26, 2023 Your Panda Abogada got married.🥰💍

With all due respect, I think the Supreme Court needs to revisit how they handle the #BarExams release. It needs to done quicker, minus all the unnecessary remarks. I think no one wants to hear jokes during such a tense moment. And that school pride flex needs to go too.

No longer excited to go to work.

Kumusta na office? pabasbasan na ba ug holy water kay grabe ang evil spirit lingering

My heart may be breaking but I know God's grace willsee me through.

Kahangak na man kaau oi.

It's painful sa ako part na it's father's day, but my husband is not celebrated kay tungod wala miy amo. Murag in your face kind of day knowing na im the reason why. Bantog ra kahilak tag kalit.

Akala ko ba pag pasa ko ng bar di na ako mamromroblema sa pera? Bakit ang daming bayarin? hahaha iyak nalng 🥲

Any Clerk of Court here? How is the workload po and ano yung primary functions niyo po? And most importantly, may work-life balance po ba? Asking for myself, kasi nabuburn-out na.

Pag election season, kalami mu resign. hahahha. ambot ninyo

Lord, should I?

LABAD KAAU AKO ULO. GUTOMM

@alter_Marrr Nanglamig na ako torns. Di na ako makapag isip ng maayos. Hihimatayin na kasi ako haist. Bawi nalng sa next witness.

Literal na namugnaw nako pag re-direct sa ako wotness kay nag lain na ako paminaw. huhuhu

Whenever I have a bad hearing day, I remind myself na part of practice yan. Haist. Fight ulit next week. Buti nalng once a week lang ako may hearing. di ko to kaya araw arawin.

Kabusy ba sa mga tao

I have read this case, both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions. As a law professor in family law and a retired practitioner in the same field and with ALL due respect to the majority of the members of the Supreme Court saying that a "bigamer" -- the party with "unclean hands" so to speak --- cannot file a case for nullity of marriage , I believe that the dissenting opinion stating that the "unclean hands doctrine" does not apply in nullity-of-marriage case thereby allowing the bigamer to file a nullity case IS the correct, legal and conceptually coherent position. Courts merely "declare" that a marriage is void because the law already pronounces that it is so. There is no public policy benefit or constitutionally and legally redeeming value in prohibiting one from having his/her void marriage declared as precisely void simply based on her/his being a party to a void bigamous marriage. If the idea is to punish the bigamer by not giving his/her the remedy to nullify a void relationship which he/she created, then it diminishes --- if not destroys --- the significance of a more fundamental and overarching state-concern of disallowing illegality to exist in society and of providing a redemptive recourse to correct a prohibited situation. A void relationship is not protected by law. I believe , with all due respect to the SC, that it got this decision wrong. Be that as it may, all of us must abide by the SC decision until it is revisited and abandoned. SC decisions form part of the law of the land. Lastly as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in talking about the law and the courts in "The Path of the Law" , his magnum opus, : " one may criticise even what one reveres". Criticism of the Supreme Court and its decisions is not the same as maligning them. It is an exercise of one's freedom of speech. Guilty spouse cannot seek to nullify bigamous marriage — SC gmanetwork.com/news/topstorie… via @gmanews

Bahala ka diha.

Mga anak we need to increase our awareness. 💜🇵🇭 Wala tayong gimmick , malalaking billboard or makinarya na aasahan. Isang Retweet, Heart and Follow sapat na para dumadagdag ang ating hanay. Let this be a CAMPAIGN OF THE PEOPLE. NOT OF THE TRAPOS. #45HeidiMendoza

Best in pasa trabaho is...... Hai nako. ambot na inyong opisinaha.