Jalbuna, Cataluna, and Nunez Law Co.

23/03/2026

Behind every case we handle is a team bound by one purpose — unwavering dedication to the legal profession and genuine service to our clients.

Jalbuna, Cataluña, and Nuñez Law Co. stands on the strength of its people:

Atty. Eduardo L. Jalbuna
Atty. Gualberto V. Cataluna Jr.
Atty. Rene John V. Nunez
Dr./Atty. Sharon B. Millan, CPA
Atty. Anna Jade Granada
Atty. Ma. Strella C. Cantuba
Atty. Pierre Valfort V. Salcedo
Atty. Frank Marcelino
Atty. Shem Osorio-Sy
Atty. Leslie Ann T. Rase - Gasolasco
Atty. Quennie Dame J. Falsario-Ycay
Atty. Don Christian B. Ycay
Atty. Mariel F. Mallada
Atty. Joshua A. Granada
Atty. Anna Alyssa J. Robledo
Atty. Rheena Gayle R. Eguia
Atty. Jezner Ralph D. Sasi
Atty. Lourdes Christine Sta. Maria
Atty. Ivy C. Casiano
Atty. Zyra Lee Batislaong
Atty. Marie Dominique R. Lavalle
Atty. Quemel Charles C. Malte
Atty. Ramon Christian C. Refugio

Steadfast in principle, relentless in advocacy, and committed to justice without compromise — JCN Law ⚖️

07/03/2026

Our team is back in Hanoi for one last business meeting before heading home to the Philippines.

07/03/2026

JCN Law Co. proudly welcomes our newest Junior Associate, Atty. Ramon Christian C. Refugio. We are honored to have you begin your legal career with us. Welcome to JCN Law! ⚖️

06/03/2026

Our team in Vietnam went to Haiphong City to meet its Vietnamese client to discuss preparations for upcoming legal work in the Philippines.

05/03/2026

Productive business meeting over lunch and good food in Hanoi, Vietnam, followed by a quick visit to the Embassy of the Philippines in Hanoi for some legal matters.

11/02/2026

JCN Law Co. proudly welcomes our two newest Junior Associates, Atty. Marie Dominique Lavalle and Atty. Quemel Charles Malte.

We are honored to have you begin your legal careers with us. Welcome to JCN Law! ⚖️

01/02/2026

The has approved the Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing.

The Guidelines shall take effect on February 16, 2026, 15 days following its posting on the Supreme Court and OCA websites.

The Guidelines expand the definition of “overseas venues,” which now covers “Philippine consulates and embassies, other Philippine government offices abroad, other places allowed under applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements, and any other venue authorized by the Supreme Court for videoconferencing from abroad.” [Section 2(j), Part 1]

Section 4, Part 2 of the Guidelines details how videoconferencing is initiated:

“In civil and criminal cases, the parties, through their counsel, individually or jointly, may, by written or oral motion, move that they be allowed to participate via videoconferencing.

“In criminal cases, a motion to participate via videoconferencing shall be accompanied by a waiver of the right of the accused to meet witnesses face to face when the videoconferencing specifically involves the confrontation of a witness.

“Videoconferencing shall be the preferred mode in cases involving PDLs and CICL at all stages of the proceedings.

“It shall also be the preferred mode for arraignment, bail hearings, and hearings involving minor incidents of other accused, such as, but not limited to, clarificatory hearings, compliance hearings, and other similar ancillary matters where the presence of the accused is not necessary, unless the court deems it appropriate for the accused to appear in person.

“For a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases, the court may, on its own instance, order that the proceedings be conducted through videoconferencing at any or all stages”

Copies of the Guidelines are available at:

Supreme Court website:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

Office of the Court Administrator website:https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

31/12/2025

We just reached 1k followers! 🎉 Ending 2025 with gratitude and a throwback of JCN through the years. Thank you for growing with us. Happy New Year and cheers to what's next! 🥂

30/12/2025

27/12/2025

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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

27/12/2025

Case closed. Party open. Snippets from our 2025 Christmas Party.