Mikhaela

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

“You don’t have to be motivated, you just have to be disciplined.” – Unknown

[Deep Thoughts 💭 @quotetoponder]

“May all negative energy and ill intention be returned to sender."

“May every tongue that rises againts us fall."

“May all the evil eye in our lives go blind."

"May God protects us all from these haters eyes all the way!" 🪬🔂🧿

[chlayne, jd ⚖️ | #AweSAMbar2026 @pawsomeclawyer]

😭😭😭 #SuccessAchievedthroughMerit #AweSAMbar2026 #StrivewithHopeandGrit

[geLAW #2026BarCoach @AgheroLabs]

I agree with Senator-Judge Lacson that the Impeachment Court's ruling fixing the threshold for the conviction of Respondent Sarah at sixteen (16) votes gives rise to a justiciable controversy.

[geLAW #2026BarCoach @AgheroLabs]

Under the amended Rules on Evidence, when the document being offered is a photocopy (duplicate), the proponent is no longer required to establish the exceptions to the Original Document Rule, such as proving that the original has been lost or destroyed. Neither is the proponent required, as a general rule, to produce the original document. This is because a photocopy is admissible to the same extent as the original.

Thus, for evidentiary purposes, a photocopy is treated as equivalent to the original unless: (1) a genuine question is raised regarding the authenticity of the original; or (2) under the circumstances, it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Accordingly, the default rule under the amended Rules on Evidence is that a duplicate (photocopy) is admissible to the same extent as the original, subject only to these two exceptions.

#ImpeachmentTrial

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

@AttyRACCA 🥺🫶🥰

[Deep Thoughts 💭 @quotetoponder]

Congratulations Alex Eala defeats defending champion Iga Swiatek 7-6(9), 6-2 🥹🙌🙌🙌

[Atty. Aimee Venteroso, CPA @aimeevntrso]

📈 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐀𝐑 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 — #𝟐

𝐐: 𝐀 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝. 𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐀’𝐬 𝐜𝐨-𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫, 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭? 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧.

𝐀: 𝐍𝐨.

In the case of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the indispensable parties does not amount to a failure to state the cause of action, because the inclusion of the indispensable party is not an essential element of a cause of action. Consequently, the infirmity is properly a non-joinder of an indispensable party. Moreover, the Rules of Court provides that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal.

Here, the fact that the co-heirs were not impleaded constitutes non-joinder of indispensable parties and not failure to state the cause of action. Thus, the defendant is incorrect since non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal.

—————

In the Bar Examinations, the examiner does not always directly test a single rule or provision. More often, the examinee is challenged to distinguish between two related concepts governed by different provisions of the Rules, especially if they are made an issue in a case decided by the Supreme Court.

Thus, identifying the issue is itself part of the examination. The issue presented in a Bar question is not always a given. It must first be discerned from the facts before the correct rule can be applied.

Here, the issue is not only whether dismissal is proper, but also whether the ground for the dismissal is correct. To correctly answer the former, the examinee must first be firm as to the latter.

✅ PRE-ORDER KEYS TO THE BAR HERE:
https://t.co/OR3pk3rnVe

🚚 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐩𝐫𝐞-𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐉𝐔𝐋𝐘 𝟏𝟎!

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

They say encouragement comes when you need it most. Thank you to my bar sib since 2024, now officially @AttyRACCA , for this thoughtful bar kit and your kind words. As a retaker juggling work, family, and review, this means more than you know. God bless you even more, sib. 🙏⚖️

[k @rosiestzu]

a year ago, alex eala walked away heartbroken after that finals loss in eastbourne. one year later, she finally got the win she deserved on the biggest grass stage. so, so proud of ae! 🥹🤍

[Atty. MES #AweSAMBar @jurisnonexcusat]

Sabi ng profs namin, huwag kalilimutan magbasa ng balita kasi minsan diyan humuhugot ng itatanong… and so far…

Rem: Warrant of Arrest kineme ni Atty. Bondoc
Crim: Ateneo drowning incident
Labor: AEP ni Tab Baldwin. EE-ER between Tab and his employers.

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

@AttyRACCA ☺️💖

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

Daghang salamat, sib! Excited to receive this. I really appreciate it. 🥺🥹🥰

[amore ⚖️♡ @AttyRACCA]

Bar kits bound to the future lawyers.✨

Rooting and praying for all 2026 BAR examinees. Your hard work will pay off. Just keep showing up, give your best, and trust that God sees every effort. Nothing will be wasted. 🙏💙

#2026BARexam #AweSAMbar

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

@AttyRACCA @aeyllouise @sunn_dy @BrylleBeronilla @thommygroot Thank you so much, sib, for the bar kit. 🥹🥰 I truly appreciate it. 💙 God bless you more! 🙏

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

@AttyRACCA @LOUyer2025 🥺🥹🥰

[Nico Quejano @nicoquejano]

If you're taking the bar ths year, this is a great opportunity to review jurisprudence and apply it to real life

Avelino Case for Constituting a quorum

Trillanes Case for Coercive jurisdiction over those in police custody

Vallacar Case for fugitive disenfranchisement doctrine

[🐦‍🔥 @thommygroot]

https://t.co/rSnqnEH6Hz

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

✅ Civil Law

#AweSamBar #ByGodsGrace #ReviewProgress

[Mikhaela @MatetMitch]

📌First Reading

✅ Remedial Law
✅ Legal Ethics

#AweSamBar #ByGodsGrace #ReviewProgress

[Atty. Jen Estabillo ⚖️ @barexamcoach22]

I uploaded Mock Bar Exam Drills on my Facebook page and Youtube channel. The in-depth discussions and suggested answers will be posted on my YouTube channel. Feel free to drop your drafted answers there.

https://t.co/1wr56h82DW

https://t.co/4eqWuKsQRf

#BarExam
#2026BarExam

[Atty. Jen Estabillo ⚖️ @barexamcoach22]

For this year's Bar Examination, Bar Bulletin No. 1, s. 2026, expressly states that the bar questions shall integrate contemporary issues and technology-related legal matters.
In this lecture, I've covered these concepts. YT link-

https://t.co/Y6Cs21scwz

#2026BarExam