Lopez-Tria Law

19/05/2026

FYI

19/05/2026

FYI

The has clarified that the rules on modifying circumstances—factors that can lessen or increase penalties—apply in cases of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide involving a motor vehicle.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc upheld Noli Z. Ilon’s (Ilon) conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, but reduced his sentence because he voluntarily surrendered to the police.

Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), reckless imprudence is acting without intent to harm but still causing injury or death to another due to a clear lack of precaution. The SC emphasized that motorists are expected to drive at a reasonable speed suited to road and weather conditions, especially near intersections. In this case, Ilon admitted that he failed to slow down despite knowing he was approaching an intersection. He even increased his speed, leading him to hit the trisikad that caused Lee de la Cruz’s death.

The SC clarified that Ilon’s voluntary surrender should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance that reduces his penalty. It explained that while Article 365 of the RPC generally allows trial courts to impose penalties without applying the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances under Article 64 of the RPC, this does not apply when reckless imprudence results in death involving a motor vehicle. In such cases, Article 64 must be followed.

The SC reviewed the amendments to Article 365—from Act No. 3992, or the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, passed in 1932, through Batas Pambansa Blg. 398 passed in 1983—and found that Congress consistently retained the clause excluding cases where death results from reckless imprudence involving motor vehicles from the usual discretion given to trial courts. This means that courts must apply Article 64 to determine the proper penalty.

The SC observed, however, an inconsistency: reckless imprudence resulting in homicide with the use of a motor vehicle may be mitigated, while those resulting in serious bodily injury or damage to property are left to the discretion of the trial courts. Finding this distinction unjust, the SC directed that copies of its Decision be furnished to the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, to alert its co-equal branches of this inconsistency and for possible legislative action.

Ilon was sentenced to up to two years and four months in prison and ordered to pay the heirs of de la Cruz PHP 629,883.45 in damages.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen noted that piecemeal amendments to the RPC have led to inconsistencies in criminal law. He called for the consolidation of all criminal provisions into a single, unified code to ensure fairness, clarity, and the orderly administration of justice.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166162

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260538-noli-z-ilon-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260538-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

19/05/2026

FYI

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMC’s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMC’s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employees’ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

15/05/2026

FYI

Nagpasya ang na ang mga pananakot na di-berbal (non-verbal threatening gestures) ay maaaring ituring na grave threats sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code (RPC) kung malinaw na may criminal intent o layuning gumawa ng krimen.

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, pinawalang-sala ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte si Gregory Israel sa kasong grave threats matapos mapag-alamang wala siyang layuning gumawa ng krimen sa kanyang pagkukunwaring babarilin at pupugutan ng ulo ang dalawang indibidwal.

Gayunman, nilinaw ng Korte na maaaring maisagawa ang krimeng grave threats sa pamamagitan ng di-berbal na kilos, at hindi lamang sa pamamagitan ng pasalita o nakasulat na pananakot.

Si Israel na nagpakilala bilang Belgian architect na pinahintulutang magsanay ng kanyang propesyon sa Pilipinas, ay kinuha ng mga Belgian business partner na sina Christine Helena Amanda Navez at Olivier Edmund Denonville para sa pagpapatayo ng kanilang gusali. Matapos tumanggi si Israel na ayusin ang mga depekto sa nasabing gusali, nagpasya ang mag-business partner na sina Navez at Denonville na ihabla siya para masingil sa danyos.

Bandang 2017, habang pauwi mula sa paliparan sina Navez at Denonville, ay muntik nilang makabanggaan ang motorsiklo ni Israel. Kalaunan, sinasabing gumawa si Israel ng dalawang malinaw na kilos ng pananakot: itinutok ang kanyang mga daliri sa ulo ni Navez na parang nagpapaputok ng baril, at iginalaw ang mga daliri sa kanyang leeg na tila nagbabanta ng pagpupugot sa kanyang ulo.

Nahatulan si Israel ng grave threats. Nang pagtibayin ng Court of Appeals ang kanyang hatol, umapela siya sa Korte Suprema at iginiit na wala siyang layuning kriminal nang gawin niya ang mga kilos, at hindi saklaw ng Article 282 ng Revised Penal Code (RPC) ang mga kilos na di-berbal (pure non-verbal gestures).

Pinawalang-sala ng Korte si Israel dahil hindi napatunayan ang layuning kriminal. Gayunman, hindi ito sumang-ayon sa kanyang isa pang argumento, at iginiit na ang mga di-berbal na kilos ay maaari ring ituring na grave threats.

Para maparusahan ang isang tao sa kasong grave threats, dalawang elemento ang hinihingi ng RPC: ang aktwal na pagbigkas o pagpapahayag ng banta, at ang layuning manakot o magdulot ng takot.

Pinagtibay ng Korte na ang Article 282 ng RPC ay hindi nagtatangi sa mga banta na ipinapahayag sa salita at sa mga ipinapakita sa pamamagitan ng di-berbal na mga kilos. Ang mahalaga ay ang paghahatid ng banta na may layuning manakot.

Bagaman binabanggit sa ikalawang talata ng probisyon na ang mga banta ay maaaring ihatid nang pasalita o sa pamamagitan ng sulat, hindi nito isinasantabi ang mga banta na ipinapahayag sa pamamagitan ng di-berbal na mga paraan. Kaya, ang mga banta ay maaaring berbal o di-berbal.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-non-verbal-gestures-may-be-considered-grave-threats-under-rpc/

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/265736-gregory-israel-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

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

12/05/2026

⚖️Labor case

✅ Attended a client meeting at Sheraton Manila Bay.
✅ Attended the 1st SeNA Conference on behalf of the Respondent Company

12/05/2026

FYI

Nilinaw ng na ang kawalan ng isang kontraktor ng mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya ay hindi agad nangangahulugan na sangkot ito sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting kung hindi naman kailangan ang mga kagamitam sa mismong trabahong ipinakontrata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, idineklara ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong job contractor ang MMA Competent Manpower & General Services, Inc. (MMA) at siyang tunay na employer nina Richard Delera at Dionel Quiling (mga nagpetisyon).

Isang domestic corporation ang MMA na nag-aalok ng human resource at support services sa mga kliyente, kabilang ang Philippine Foremost Milling Corp. (PFMC) kaugnay sa flour milling at Amigo Logistics Corp. (Amigo) na namamahala sa logistics tulad ng warehousing at trucking.

Itinalaga ng MMA ang mga nagpetisyon sa PFMC at Amigo bilang feed mill bagger at pollard stacker. Matapos silang maiulat dahil sa mga paglabag sa patakaran, isinailalim sila sa preventive suspension ng MMA ngunit napawalang-sala at napawalang-bisa ang mga paratang laban sa kanila.

Hiniling ng PFMC at Amigo ang reassignment ng mga nagpetisyon. Kinailangan silang ilagay ng MMA sa floating status noong una pero kalaunan ay inalok ng reassignment sa Cavite at Bataan, na kanilang tinanggihan. Nagsampa sila ng reklamo para sa iligal na dismissal. Sinabi nilang isang labor-only contractor ang MMA at mga regular na empleyado sila ng PFMC at Amigo.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na isang lehitimong kontraktor ng paggawa ang MMA, na may malaking pondo na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 27 milyon, kahit na wala itong mga kasangkapan, kagamitan, o makinarya.

Kinilala ng Korte Suprema ang pagkakaiba ng legitimate labor contracting (lehitimong pangongontrata ng paggawa) at ng ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting. Sa lehitimong pangongontrata, maaaring kumuha ang mga employer ng isang kontraktor para magsagawa ng mga partikular na trabaho, basta’t sapat ang pondo at mga kagamitan ng kontraktor. Sa ipinagbabawal na labor-only contracting, nagbibigay lamang ang kontraktor ng mga manggagawa nang walang sapat na pondo at kagamitan, at nagsasagawa ang mga manggagawa ng mga tungkuling direktang may kaugnayan sa pangunahing negosyo ng employer.

Sa kasong Conqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v. Balingbing, na nagbibigay ng limitadong eksepsiyon kung saan ang trabaho ay pansuporta lamang at hindi nangangailangan ng mga kagamitan, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na nagsagawa ang mga nagpetisyon ng mga post-production na gawain katulad ng pagpapakete at pag-iimbak, na sumusuporta lamang sa operasyon ng PFMC at Amigo.

Dahil hindi nangangailangan ng espesyal na makinarya o teknikal na kadalubhasaan ang mga tungkuling ito, nagpasya ang Korte na maaari itong ipakontrata kahit walang malaking pamumuhunan sa mga kagamitan.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165353.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164807.

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

04/05/2026

Filing of Complaint for Violation of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons before the OCP Meycauayan City. ⚖️

02/05/2026

FYI

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS LIFE IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE OF MAN FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SHABU

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a man for illegally possessing 50 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu and sentenced him to life imprisonment after affirming the validity of his warrantless arrest.

In a 16-page decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC's Second Division has found Rosello Ampong guilty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In 2014, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information that Ampong would be receiving a package containing shabu hidden inside an improvised secret compartment in the inner sole of a pair of sandals. The package was sent through LBC, a private courier, and was expected to arrive at a mall.

During the day of his arrest, Ampong placed the package inside a red duffle bag. As he was about to leave, a PDEA agent walked ahead of him, while the other operatives followed and surrounded him. He was invited to the security office of the mall and was informed of the reason for the invitation and asked if the package could be opened in the presence of witnesses.

Upon inspection, the PDEA agent found fifty (50) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. Ampong denied the accusations against him, claiming that the search and his arrest were illegal.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Ampong of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The appellate court upheld the validity of the warrantless search, noting that PDEA agents had probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that an offense had been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of it. This prompted him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming his conviction, the high court upheld the validity of his warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. It noted that warrantless arrest may be employed in the following instances: (1) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and (2) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

The SC explained that Ampong's case falls under hot pursuit arrest, which is a justified instance for a warrantless arrest. It noted that PDEA agents had probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest of Ampong as they received information that he would be claiming a package containing shabu.

"The search was justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. Rule 126, 69 Section 13 of the Rules of Court mandates that the arrest must first be validly effected—either by virtue of a warrant or under the 'exceptions in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court'—before a warrantless search may be conducted," the Supreme Court said.

The highest bench also underscored that Ampong is estopped from challenging the validity of his arrest as he failed to object to the irregularity thereof before arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and actively participated during trial. These acts, according to the court, indicate that he is considered to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court and waived the right to question the validity of the arrest.

It also found that the prosecution successfully established the links of the chain of custody in handling the evidence. The confiscated shabu was turned over to the investigating officer, submitted to the forensic chemist for confirmatory testing, and finally presented in court; the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved.

"The factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error," it added.

Aside from life imprisonment, Ampong was also ordered to pay a fine of Php500,000.

01/05/2026

🔈FYI

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS BOYFRIEND IN VAWC CASE, SAYS COMPLAINT STEMMED FROM MERE LOVERS' QUARREL

The Supreme Court (SC) voting 3-2 has acquitted a man accused of psychological violence for allegedly threatening to kill his girlfriend if she refused to engage in s*xual in*******se, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient proof of mental and emotional anguish on the part of the complainant.

In a 21-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding the accused guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the girlfriend, who alleged that she received text messages from the accused demanding that they engage in s*xual in*******se, threatening to kill her if she refused.

The complainant alleged that she was emotionally abused by the accused throughout their almost four years of relationship. She narrated how the accused blackmailed her whenever she would not do his bidding. The accused would also threaten to post her n**e photos and their s*x video.

Unable to bear the burden any longer, the complainant sought the help of the police authorities as the accused demanded money from her in exchange for not uploading their s*x video. In response, the police officers organized an entrapment operation, but it did not materialize because the accused failed to meet up with her. The police conducted a second entrapment operation, during which the suspect was arrested after receiving Php2,000.

This prompted the complainant to file criminal cases for grave threats under Article 282 and violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Law. The accused denied the allegations. He alleged that while he is working as an OFW in Taiwan, the complainant supposedly had another boyfriend. She apologized to him and promised not to cheat again.

The accused denied psychologically abusing the victim, claiming that the criminal complaints were filed out of vengeance. He alleged that the victim's parents sought revenge due to their disapproval of the relationship.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, highlighting that all the elements of psychological violence were proven by the prosecution. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the said decision, paving the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused, the SC ruled that the complainant failed to sufficiently prove that she suffered mental or emotional anguish. It emphasized that there is no sufficient proof that the accused acted purposefully and knowingly, with intent to alarm or cause substantial emotional or psychological distress to the victim.

The Court did not give great credence to the complainant’s testimony, noting that her actions appeared inconsistent with her claims. It pointed out that after allegedly receiving threatening text messages, she did not exhibit substantial distress, as shown by her willingness to ride the motorcycle with the accused.

"Her behavior after receiving the text messages does not show there was substantial distress on her part. For one, AAA even boarded [the accused]'s motorcycle shortly after the incident. If, indeed, AAA was afraid for her life, she would not have boarded the motorcycle, considering that she was already with the police officers during the alleged entrapment operations."

Upon reviewing the text messages, the High Court found no clear intent on the part of the accused to cause mental anguish to the complainant. It noted that their exchanges showed the accused was still asking and making plans for a s*xual encounter, while also requesting a shirt as a gift.

"These circumstances imply, if not show, that the two were in good terms at the time of the conversation and lend more credence to the conclusion that the two text messages sent by the accused were out of anger and not out of a specific intent to cause distress," the Supreme Court said.

It took into account the Instagram posts of the victim with the caption "Nagmahal, nasaktan, nagpakulong," alluding to the imprisonment of the accused. In another post, she posted a photograph of the accused in his jail cell with the statement, "Diba ang saya mo na. Lol," which, according to the court, is not a normal behavior of a victim of abuse.

"Thus, the foregoing circumstances all give rise to the conclusion that the case of AAA and ### is not one for psychological violence but merely that of a private quarrel between the couple, not within the ambit of what is sought to be punished by Republic Act 9262," the Supreme Court added.

01/05/2026

FYI

Nagpasya ang na hindi maaaring irehistro ng ISCO Holding Corporation (ISCO) ang logo o marka nitong "NIKON & DESIGN" dahil sa nakalilitong pagkakahawig sa kilalang trademark na "NIKON" ng Nikon Corporation.

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng ISCO at pinagtibay ang naging pasya ng Court of Appeals (CA) na nauna nang tinanggihan ang trademark application ng ISCO.

Nagsumite ang ISCO ng aplikasyon para sa trademark na “NIKON & DESIGN” para sa kanilang mga ibinebenteng gamit pambahay. Tumutol sa aplikasyon ang Nikon Corp., isang dayuhang korporasyon na naunang gumagamit ng rehistradong markang “NIKON” sa Pilipinas. Ikinatwiran nito na may nakakalitong pagkakahawig sa kanilang sariling marka ang ginawa ng ISCO.

Sumang-ayon ang Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA) sa Nikon Corp. at tinanggihan ang aplikasyon ng ISCO. Bagaman binaliktad ng IPO Office of the Director General ang desisyong ito, ibinalik ng CA ang desisyon ng IPO-BLA. Dinala ng ISCO ang kaso sa Korte Suprema.

Katwiran ng ISCO, walang kaugnayan ang kanilang mga produkto sa mga produkto ng Nikon Corp. at ang mga pagkakaiba, gaya ng imahe ng isang angkla na nasa loob ng bilog at ang kombinasyon ng mga kulay, ay makaiiwas sa pagkalito ng mga mamimili.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng CA at idineklara nito na hindi maaaring irehistro ang marka ng ISCO. Ipinaliwanag nito na ginagamit ang mga trademark para kilalanin at itangi ang mga produkto o serbisyo. Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 147 ng Intellectual Property Code, isa sa mga karapatan ng may-ari ng trademark ay ang pagbawalan ang iba sa paggamit ng kanilang marka sa paraang makalilito sa mga mamimili at magdudulot ng pinsalang pinansiyal sa may-ari.

Kung rehistrado sa Pilipinas ang isang tanyag na trademark, walang iba na maaaring magrehistro ng isang katulad o nakalilitong kaparehong marka kahit pa magkaiba ang mga produkto.

Sa kasong ito, napatunayan ng Korte Suprema na well-known o tanyag ang trademark ng Nikon Corp. Matagal nang ginagamit ang markang "NIKON", ipinu-promote, at nakarehistro sa buong mundo kabilang ang Pilipinas kung saan tinatamasa ng kumpanya ang malaking benta sa pandaigdigang merkado at malakas na presensiya sa industriya.

Nakita rin ng Korte Suprema na isang natatanging trademark ang "NIKON". Isa itong coined o inimbentong salita na walang karaniwang kahulugan sa Ingles o Filipino at hindi karaniwang ginagamit sa Pilipinas maliban bilang isang trademark.

Sa pagsusuri ng dalawang marka, napatunayan ng Korte Suprema na may nakalilitong pagkakahawig ang “NIKON & DESIGN” ng ISCO sa "NIKON" na trademark ng Nikon Corporation. Ginamit dito ang Dominancy Test na nakatuon sa pinakapansin-pansin at madaling matandaang bahagi ng mga marka. Hindi binibigyang-halaga ang mga maliliit na pagkakaiba sa disenyo, kulay, o pagkakaayos.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164274.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164266.

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

24/04/2026

✨ Another milestone, another meaningful win. ⚖️

I had the privilege of representing a client in an illegal dismissal case. We pursued the matter to uphold his rights, and after due proceedings, it was successfully resolved through a settlement, with my client receiving Php X,###,###.XX.

✔️ Case closed. More importantly, justice has been served. ⚖️

Moments like this remind me of my purpose and why I chose to practice law. Every worker deserves fair treatment, and at times, all it takes is someone willing to stand firmly by their side.

💼 Lopez-Tria Law Office remains committed to advocating for workers’ rights with diligence and integrity, one case at a time.