Month: January 2016

Weekly Blog Review Challenge



Serious  business begins. You do not need to register to do this challenge. The rules are very simple.

After listening to advice from many people, the three activities of the Solidarity Support Challenge have been separated into three different activities or challenges. Let us start with this:

Weekly blog review Challenge.

In this activity, you are required to review a fellow blogger’s blog. You are encouraged to review one of the five blogs listed on the Solidarity Support Challenge. (This is coming ahead of the Solidarity Support Challenge so don’t wait for those names).

You can choose to review any blog that you like. It does not have to be a very long review. Do it the way you like. It could just be a few words. It could be a poem that appreciates or reviews the blog in question.

This review is published on your…

View original post 149 more words

Maybelline Dream Liquid Mousse Foundation Review

On May 9, 2015, I went to SM City Baguio to buy some cosmetics for a special event. I was planning to buy a cake foundation from either Nichido or Kokuryo because I’ve read some reviews that those products are worth it. My budget was P180, since Nichido Beauty Cake in Classic Mint and Kokuryo Summer Cake is P100. However, I chanced upon Maybelline’s half-off on all Dream products.

My initial reaction of course was surprise with amazement because I never encountered any make-up sale ever since. Well there was one time when Maybelline lowered the price of the Hypercurl Mascara to P200. However I think that was because they were getting rid of the old packaging for a new one. Anyway, this was an opportunity for me so I went to their counter and looked for an “affordable” item.

Everybody knows that Maybelline is expensive, well that applies here in the Philippines. Unless it’s sold in the Black Market or from independent retailers purchasing abroad. So, I wasn’t suprised that despite the half-off the items were still expensive. I might have been too late or they were just hoarding the products, but among the Dream products this was the cheapest.

Presenting the Dream Liquid Mousse Foundation!
From P599, I bought it at P299. This is the 30 mL bottle in Nude Beige/Light 3.5. The product has no box, so I bought it as is with a plastic seal covering the pump.

IMG_5066 modified
Maybelline Dream Liquid Mousse Foundation. I bought it at Php 299 only. The photo is mine.

Enough with all the introductions, now I’m going to share my experiences and thoughts with this product.

What I love:

I tested all the shades available and I was deciding whether to go with Natural or Nude Beige. However, the sales lady told me that if my skin has the tendency to be reddish, I should do with Nude Beige. I did a lot of swatching before ending up with Nude Beige. I thought that it was a shade lighter than my skin, but when I applied a single layer it matched my skin tone! Even if I don’t apply the product on my neck it isn’t obvious that I am wearing foundation.

Whether using a brush or a damp sponge, the foundation can be applied effortlessly. In my case, I don’t have cursed undereye circles or too much blemishes so this product is enough even without the use of concealer. Based on my experience, the foundation doesn’t crease/cake/flake. Well, I always use a moisturizer before applying foundation so that could be a factor.

No breakouts, yet, everytime I use this product. That is to be expected since it’s manufactured by a famous line and it’s expensive. However, I have to warn you that not all expensive products means that they’re worth it. I’m not acne-prone, so I cannot say that the product assures no breakouts for all people. Finding the right and most suitable foundation can take many tries. In my case, this is my third foundation product.

What I think should be improved:

Dream Mousse Foundation – that sounds promising, isn’t it? I’ve read other reviews saying that they were attracted to the name. Not for me because I was attracted to the price. The packaging says that the foundation has an “airbrush” finish. I have heard of airbrush makeup and I saw it in one of Shebby Liqutte’s YouTube videos but never in real life. So, I was expecting a really flawless skin after application. I wasn’t disappointed, but to tell the truth it wasn’t close to what I was expecting. Anyway, I haven’t an actual look using airbrush makeup so I don’t know what I’m saying.

I should not have expected in the first place, but the foundation is not really for prolonged use. During warm weather, the foundation would last for 2 to 3 hours. After that, it can be easily smudged and in my experience, it would run off with sweat. Even with final/loose/pressed powder, the foundation doesn’t stay that much time. One time I was wearing a round-neck white shirt and I went to school wearing the foundation on my face and neck. I was testing the product that time. By the time I got home after four hours, the foundation was all over the seam of my shirt.

In relation to the statement above, the product does not guarantee a matte finish. However, it isn’t dewy or shiny either. It’s just natural. If you want a matte finish, top it with powder. The downside is that it doesn’t control oiliness. Either you keep on retouching with pressed powder or use blotting sheets.

So, these are my evaluation of the Maybelline Dream Liquid Mousse Foundation. These are based on my experiences and technically it doesn’t apply to all people. I like the product however I won’t buy it again in the future.


G.R. No. L-31195       June 5, 1973


Petitioners: Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization, Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio, Padrigano Rufino, Roxas Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod

Respondents: Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. and Court of Industrial Relations

Ponente: J. Makasiar


1) The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.

2) Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the respondent Company of their proposed demonstration.

3) The Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO after learning about the planned mass demonstration. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out by the union that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in factual exercise of the laborers inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances.

4) The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal course of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed through with the rally.

5) A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while the workers may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate, otherwise, they would be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a violation of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’ clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

6) The lower court decided in favour of Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. The PBMEO’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two days late.


Whether or not to regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as a violation of freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances

Whether or not the collective bargaining agreement is an inhibition of the rights of free expression, free assembly and petition of the employers


1) Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise.

The demonstration held petitioners on March 4, 1969 before Malacañang was against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer, herein private respondent firm, said demonstrate was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police officers of the municipality of Pasig. They exercise their civil and political rights for their mutual aid protection from what they believe were police excesses. As matter of fact, it was the duty of herein private respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members from the harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits.

2) To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is “a potent means of inhibiting speech” and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition.

The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees, according to the respondent Court Industrial Relations, in effect imposes on the workers the “duty … to observe regular working hours.” The strain construction of the Court of Industrial Relations that a stipulated working shifts deny the workers the right to stage mass demonstration against police abuses during working hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life the workers and deserves severe condemnation. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground.

The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right “to engage in concert activities for … mutual aid or protection”; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three.

The Supreme Court set aside as null and void the orders of Court of Industrial Relations. The Supreme Court also directed the re-instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their separation from the service until re-instated, minus one day’s pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from other sources during their separation from the service.

QuickFX Mattifying Primer Review

To be honest, I’ve only known about makeup primers recently. Before, the common makeup routine I knew was cleanser-moisturizer-foundation-concealer-powder-and so on. But then a face primer and eyelid primer popped up and now my face is going to be four layers eveytime I apply makeup.

Truth be told, primers are still not that popular and widely manufactured. Most face primers are expensive and only few are sold widely here in the Philippines. With my financial status, I couldn’t afford those Shu Uemura, Smashbox, Rimmel, Revlon, etc. face primers. I can’t even find a seller here in Baguio City. I have to buy it online.


A little bit of a background here to readers who still don’t have much knowledge of primers. Face primers are used to “minimize” pores, “hide” acne scars, soften fine lines, and make makeup adhere to the skin better. Usually, it is used before applying foundation. Hence, it is called “primer.” Primers also help prevent clogging caused by makeup deposits. Some primers can also function as moisturizer. Others have mattifying components. You can use it on your t-zone to minimize large pores and at the same time control oiliness.

I have encountered the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier before, I frequently see this in Watsons and SM Department Store. However, I only learned about what this product does when I watched Say Artillero’s review of the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier in YouTube. None in the packaging says it’s a primer so I was doubtful at first. Originally, this was sold at around Php 69 only, however it increased to Php 89. Maybe a lot of people started buying it after learning that it could be used as a primer.

IMG_5083 modified modified
QuickFX Mattifying Primer. Available at Watsons and SM Department Store. The photo is mine.

The QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier is made in Korea, as stated in the packaging. There are other QuickFX products too like the Tinted Moisturizer and Eye Cream. I bought the tinted moisturizer as an alternative for foundation and I’m going to make a review of it too. Now, let’s proceed to my review of the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier.

As a moisturizer. It says on the packaging that the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier is “a light moisturizer…” So I tried applying it after cleaning my face, without putting on any moisturizer. I have combination skin that can be extreme sometimes – a very oily t-zone and very dry cheeks. What I expected from this product is the same result when I use my Myra Facial Moisturizer, however when I used it the result was different. No dryness was visible upon application, however when I applied my foundation dry patches started to show up. A few hours later, my foundation became blotchy on my cheeks because of the dryness. I tried applying the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier on top of the blotched foundation, however it only made it worse because the foundation clumped and I could not spread it. Anyway, the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier is not an alternative for moisturizer based on my experience.

As a primer. This is the first and only product I have used as a primer. I cannot afford the other primers because they are expensive and I have to pay for shipping fee because no one sells here in Baguio City. So, I would share my experience with this primer based on my own opinion and not in comparison with what a primer should be.

First of all, it does not cover my large pores and other imperfections. I have large pores on my nose, nose bridge, and under my eyes. Even if I put a generous amount over these areas nothing happens. However, it does give a flawless coverage on my cheeks and forehead. I have watched a lot of videos where they use a pea-size amount of QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier for the whole face. In my case, however, a pea-size amount of the product is not enough. It depends on what foundation I will use, how heavy my makeup will be, and how long I will wear my makeup.

One thing I am sure about this product is that it helps make my makeup last longer, however it does not prevent smudging and transferring of the foundation. The reason I could think of is that it controls the production of oil in my t-zone hence the makeup is not disturbed. Once my face become oily, my makeup starts to melt and smudge around. However, the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier helps prevent my makeup from melting and smudging for an extra hour, or it depends on the wheather and other circumstances. When I’m only using tinted moisturizer, my t-zone does not oil up until 2 hours after application. With foundation, it can last up to three to four hours.

IMG_5089 modified
QuickFX Mattifying Primer. The photo is mine.

As to hiding acne without drying them, I’m not really sure because I don’t have acne. When I do have one or two zits on my face that appear out of nowhere, I avoid using makeup or any product on my face that could worsen it so I have not tried using QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier to treat acne.

These are the most important things I have noticed about the QuickFX No-Shine Mattifier so far. This, I repeat, is based on my experience. It may be good on some and might not be good on others. We have different skin types and also have different reactions to a specific product. I suggest though that you read a lot of reviews and ask from other people their own experience before buying any makeup product so that it won’t be a waste in the end.