Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > March 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 138291 March 7, 2000 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 138291. March 7, 2000.]

HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), Dumaguete Branch, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


A suit for malicious prosecution cannot prosper unless the plaintiff satisfactorily proves that the earlier criminal action lacked probable cause and was filed, by a sinister design, mainly to injure, vex, annoy or humiliate. An acquittal, by itself, does not necessarily prove the absence of probable cause in the criminal information or complaint. Upon the other hand, the complainant cannot escape liability merely on the ground that it was the fiscal who prosecuted the proceedings in court.chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph

The Case


Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the October 30, 1998 Decision 1 and the April 8, 1999 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals 3 CA) in CA-GR CV No. 52904. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: 4

"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the lower [c]ourt dated November 6, 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the complaint for damages in the court below is ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The assailed Resolution denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 5

The Facts


The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, related the antecedents of this case in this wise: 6

"Sometime in December 1978, Hermenegildo Villanueva, father of [herein Petitioner] Hector C. Villanueva, applied for and was granted a loan by [Respondent] United Coconut Planters’ Bank (UCPB), Dumaguete City Branch, which at that time was managed by one Bobby Cafe. The loan was for the alleged purpose of agricultural coconut production and for processing under the Coconut Production Loan Program. As security therefor, Hermenegildo Villanueva mortgaged to the bank a parcel of land registered in his name located at Mauban, Quezon.

"In the course of a bank audit, certain fraud, anomalies and irregularities were discovered in the application, processing and granting of said loan prompting UCPB to conduct further investigation on the matter.

"After due inquiry, the [respondent] bank found and concluded that [petitioner], together with his father, Hermenegildo Villanueva, Bobby Cafe (UCPB Dumaguete City Branch Manager) and a certain Reynaldo Ramos, confederated and conspired with each other in perpetrating the fraud, anomalies and irregularities to the detriment of the bank.

"On June 8, 1979, UCPB, through its counsel, filed the following criminal complaints with the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutor) of Dumaguete City, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Against Bobby B. Cafe, Hermenegildo G. Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos, for violation of Section 77 of the General Banking Act, Republic Act (RA) No. 337, as amended by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 71, in relation to Central Bank Circular No. 517, Series of 1976, and Section 87 of the General Banking Act (Exh. "1", pp. 8-9, Defendant’s Folder of Exhibit);

2. Against Hermenegildo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for violation of Section 87-A-2(d) of the General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 (Exh. "2", pp. 33-34, ibid.);

3. Against Bobby B. Cafe for violation of Section 87-A-1 (c) of the General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 (Exh "3", pp. 46-47, ibid.);

4. Against Bobby B. Cafe, Hermenegildo G. Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for violation of Section 87-A-2(b) of the General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 (Exh. "4", pp. 59-60, ibid.);

5. Against Bobby B. Cafe, Hermenegildo G. Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for violation of Articles 315(2)(a) and 316(2) of the Revised Penal code (Exh. "5", pp. 72-73, ibid.); and

6. Against Bobby B. Cafe, Hermenegildo G. Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for violation of Section 87-A-1(d) and Section 87-A-2(a) of the General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 (Exh. "6", pp. 85-86, ibid.).

"After preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal found probable cause and resolved to file three (3) informations with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Dumaguete City (Exh. "7", pp. 98-120, ibid.), as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. Criminal Case No. 3699

‘Against Bobby Cafe, Hermenegildo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for violation of Sections 77, 87-A-2(b) and 87-A-1(d) of the General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 and [Central Bank] Circular No. 517, Series of 1976 (Exh. "8", pp. 121-122, ibid.);

‘2. Criminal Case No. 3700

‘Against Hermenegildo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva, Reynaldo Ramos and Bobby B. Cafe for violation of Sections 87-A-2(d) and 87-A-1(c), General Banking Act, RA No. 337, as amended by PD No. 71 (Exh. "9", pp. 123-124, ibid.);

‘3. Criminal Case No. 3701

‘Against Bobby Cafe, Hermenegildo Villanueva, Hector Villanueva and Reynaldo Ramos for the crime of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (Exh. "10", pp. 125-126, ibid.).’

"The three (3) criminal cases were consolidated and tried jointly.

"On June 29, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 37, rendered a decision therein acquitting all the accused except for Bobby Cafe, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

‘1. In Criminal Case No. 3699, Accused Bobby Cafe is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Paragraph 1(d) of Section 87-A of the General Banking Act as amended and is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of P2,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for each eight pesos but in no case to exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, in case of insolvency, and to pay 1/4 of the costs. Accused Rey Ramos and Hector Villanueva are acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt with 1/2 of the costs de oficio.

‘In Criminal Case No. 3700 and Criminal Case No. 3701, Accused Bobby Cafe, Hector Villanueva and Rey Ramos are acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt with costs de oficio.

‘All the three cases against Hermenegildo Villanueva are ordered dismissed in view of his death pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.’

‘x       x       x.’

(Exhs. "K" and "11" ; p. 358, Orig. Rec., Vol. I)

"In view of his acquittal in the criminal cases, Hector Villanueva filed a complaint for damages on the ground of alleged malicious prosecution with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City against [respondent bank], which was docketed as Civil Case No. 172-B and raffled to Branch [44] of the court. The complaint alleged, among others, that [petitioner] is a respectable member of the community, a professional, a member of various civic organizations, a businessman, and a political leader; that the filing of the criminal cases against him by [respondent bank] was done with malice which resulted in the undue maligning, blackening . . . of his integrity, honesty and good reputation, as well as adversely affecting his political career and business dealings, for which [petitioner] prayed that [respondent bank] be held liable to him for the amount [of] P200,000.00 in actual damages, P6,000,000.00 in moral damages, P2,000,000.00 in exemplary damages, P1,000,000.00 in nominal damages, and P800,000.00 in attorney’s fees, as well as P5,000.00 charge per court appearance.

"In its answer, [respondent bank] denied the allegations in the complaint and asseverated that [petitioner] ha[d] no cause of action against [respondent bank] since the bank’s filing of the criminal complaints before the Fiscal’s Office of Dumaguete City was not tainted with malice; that it was the Fiscal’s Office that prosecuted the criminal cases against [petitioner] and his co-accused when after preliminary investigation, it found probable cause to file the informations in court; that the acts of the City Fiscal in filing the informations and prosecuting the cases [were] presumed to have been performed with regularity and in good faith; that [petitioner’s] acquittal based on reasonable doubt justifie[d] [respondent bank’s] submission of its grievances to the machinery of justice for ruling and possible redress; that [petitioner’s] assertion that the filing of the criminal cases by the bank caused his political misfortunes [was] strained and farfetched; and that [petitioner’s] claim for damages ha[d] no legal and factual bases. [Respondent bank] thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and, in his counterclaim, for an award of P10,000,000.00 in moral damages, P2,000,000.00 in exemplary damages, P1,000,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its Decision 7 dated November 6, 1995, in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion reads: 8

"WHEREFORE, finding a preponderance of evidence in favor of the [petitioner], and considering his social standing in the community and in the Province of Negros Oriental, judgment is hereby rendered awarding:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Moral damages in the amount of [o]ne and a half million pesos;

2. Exemplary damages in the amount of two million pesos;

3. Attorney’s fees in the amount of five hundred thousand pesos.

"All the counterclaims of [respondent bank] are hereby dismissed for lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court in the assailed Decision and Resolution.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals


The Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioner had failed to prove the elements of malicious prosecution.

First, even if the respondent bank filed the six criminal Complaints against the petitioner, it was not the prosecutor but merely the complainant. The prosecution of those criminal cases was left solely to the discretion and control of the city fiscal. Second, the prosecutor acted with probable cause. The Resolution of the city fiscal of Dumaguete clearly showed petitioner’s participation in the alleged crimes and the reasons why the accused was probably guilty as charged. Third, the petitioner also failed to establish malice behind the filing of the criminal Complaints.

The adverse result of an action does not by itself make the prosecution thereof wrongful; neither does it subject the actor to payment of damage. The law does not impose a penalty on the right to litigate.

Hence, this Petition. 9

Issues


In his Memorandum, the petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I.


Can probable cause exist in non-existent crimes or indicted criminal acts not specifically punished by existing penal statutes?

"II.


Complainant of a criminal complaint being merely reduced to the status of [a] complaining witness in the prosecution of the . . . information filed in court, does such reduced status absolve complainant of civil liability under the doctrine of malicious prosecution?

"III.


On the application of the doctrine of malicious prosecution, is not the doctrine enunciated in the Lao v. Court of Appeals (199 SCRA 58, 61) complimentary, supportive or rather strengthening further the earlier doctrine posited in the case of Lagman v. Intermediate [Appellate Court] (G.R. 77281, 28 Oct. 89), or did the former amend or supplant the latter?" 10

Restated, the issues brought forth in this case are as follows: (1) Was there probable cause against petitioner? (2) May the private complainant in a criminal case be held liable for malicious prosecution, considering that it is the fiscal who prosecuted the criminal action against the accused? and (3) Was the petitioner prosecuted out of malice?

The Court’s Ruling


The Petition has no merit.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

First Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Probable Cause

For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the prosecution did occur and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement; (2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice — an improper or a sinister motive. 11 Stripped of legal jargon, malicious prosecution means persecution through the misuse or abuse of judicial processes; or the institution and pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing or injuring an innocent person.

Petitioner avers that there was no probable cause against him, because the imputed acts were not covered or punished by a penal statute. Despite being a complete stranger to the loan transaction, he was implicated by the bank as a conspirator in the six Complaints for violation of the General Banking Act. However, only three Informations were filed for violations of the following: one, Secs. 77, 87-A-2(b) and 87-A-1(d) of the General Banking Act (Republic Act No. 337 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 71), as well as Central Bank Circular No. 517, Series of 1976; two, Secs 87-A-2(d) and 87-A-1(c) of the General Banking Act, as amended, and three, Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted of all three charges.

The contention is untenable. Probable cause is evident from the facts and circumstances established during the preliminary investigation conducted by the city prosecutor. In its 23-page Resolution of October 8, 1979, the City Prosecutor’s Office outlined petitioner’s participation, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The first document of the case . . . is a Deed of Sale executed on November 4, 1978 in the City of Manila selling Lot No. 7716-B of the Cadastral Survey of the Municipality of Mauban, Province of Quezon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-81215 of the land records of Quezon Province consisting of 5,791,688 sq. m. (5[79] plus hectares)[;] the vendor is the Coco-Agro Industrial Co., Inc., represented by Jaime Abeja and the vendee is Hermenegildo Villanueva for a consideration of P500,000.00. Evidently, no money changed hands on this date except the sum of P6,000.00 for land taxes and other expenses because at about the same time, two (2) documents of mortgage were executed by Hermenegildo Villanueva in favor of Jaime Abeja: one for P1,100,000.00 and another P400,000.00 to secure the payment of the agreed consideration of P1,500,000.00. Although these documents contain the signature of Jaime Abeja as vendor in the document of sale and as mortgagee in the two documents of mortgage, and that of Hermenegildo Villanueva as vendee and mortgagor in the documents of mortgage, Abeja claims that Hermenegildo Villanueva was not present. However, Bobby B. Cafe, Hector Villanueva, and Dr. Reynaldo Ramos were present. Obviously, these documents were prepared and signed by Villanueva beforehand. These mortgages were kept secret although the respondents, including Bobby B. Cafe, knew of them. . . The Deed of Sale, enabled the Bobby B. Cafe and/or the other respondents to transfer the title from the name of Abeja’s corporation [to] the name of Hermenegildo Villanueva. 12

". . . And after release, the proceeds were deposited in the account of . . . Hermenegildo Villanueva with UCPB, Dumaguete Branch. Almost immediately, or about a day or two, the proceeds of the loan were withdrawn from the account of Hermenegildo Villanueva and deposited with the newly opened account of [petitioner], son of Hermenegildo Villanueva." 13

". . . The evidence also shows that at the time Abeja was in Dumaguete City, on 22 March 1978, when he signed the Memorandum of Agreement, vendee Hermenegildo Villanueva was out of the country. From start to finish, it was only Bobby B. Cafe and Rey Ramos, and at one time Hector Villanueva who had dealings and meetings with Jaime Abeja. . . ." 14

The bank cannot be faulted for its desire to protect its interest in the subject loans. Since the proceeds thereof were already released and transferred to the bank account of petitioner from that of his father, the bank had to implied the petitioner in the criminal cases.

Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person who is charged and prosecuted in a criminal case is probably guilty of the crime or wrongdoing. 15 The term does not connote absolute certainty. Neither does it require an inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence to obtain a conviction.

In this case, the above-quoted facts taken together constitute prima facie evidence to engender a reasonable belief that petitioner was part of a conspiracy to defraud the respondent bank. Thus, there was probable cause for the filing of the Complaints, which were not products of the whim or caprice of the respondent bank.

In malicious prosecution, even if the act complained of does not constitute a crime, there can still be probable cause behind the commission of a civil wrong. The gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless. 16 In the case at bar, even if Secs. 87-A-1, 87-A-1(d), 87-A-2, and 87-A-2(b) of the General Banking Act punish only bank officers, employees, borrowers or banking institutions, the respondent bank nonetheless filed these Complaints based on a theory of a conspiracy to defraud it.

The petitioner’s acquittal, by itself, did not disprove the presence of probable cause. Evidence of probable cause to warrant the filing of a criminal information may not suffice to procure a conviction, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. In other words an acquittal does not necessarily imply lack of probable cause.

Second Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Prosecution of the Information by the Public Prosecutor, Not by the Complainant

Petitioner avers that the CA erred in absolving the respondent bank on the basis merely of the fact that the fiscal had absolute control and supervision of the prosecution.

We agree that the CA erred on this point. As held in Lagman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 17 the second requisite of malicious prosecution is "that the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement." Indeed, the right to institute a criminal action cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith, as when a criminal complaint is used "as a weapon to force an alleged debtor to pay an indebtedness." 18 Such complaint designed to annoy or harass may be the basis of a suit for malicious prosecution. Clearly, the mere fact that the fiscal took full control of a litigation does not grant immunity to persons who misuse their rights to instigate criminal actions.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Third Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Malice and Malicious Prosecution

The respondent bank filed the criminal Complaints for violations of the General Banking Act in its honest belief that these charges were meritorious. There is no credible evidence to show that it was impelled by a desire to unjustly vex, annoy and inflict injury on the petitioner. Before these cases were referred to the city fiscal, it had even conducted its own investigation with the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation. 19

Malicious prosecution requires proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate the plaintiff. 20 The respondent bank had neither a "bone to pick" with the petitioner nor a "previous dealing with petitioner that could have prompted the respondent bank to turn the tables on him." 21

Resort to judicial processes, by itself, is not an evidence of ill will, as the mere act of filing a criminal complaint does not make the complainant liable for malicious prosecution. 22 There must be proof that the suit was prompted by legal malice — an inexcusable intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate. 23 A contrary rule would discourage peaceful recourse to the courts and unjustly penalize the exercise of a citizen’s right to litigate. 24 Where the action is filed in good faith, no penalty should be imposed thereon.25cralaw:red

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 13-25.

2. Rollo, p. 33.

3. Tenth Division composed of JJ Fermin A. Martin, Jr., ponente and chairman; Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Mariano M. Umali, members (both concurring).

4. CA Decision, p. 13; rollo, p. 25.

5. Rollo, p. 33.

6. CA Decision, pp. 2-6; rollo, pp. 14-18.

7. Written by Judge Alvin L. Tan.

8. RTC Records, vol. II, p. 264.

9. This case was deemed submitted for decision upon simultaneous receipt by this Court of the parties’ respective Memoranda on November 29, 1999. The Memorandum of petitioner was signed by Atty. Justo J. Paras of Paras and Associates, while that of respondent was prepared by Attys. Jefferson M. Marquez and Joseph Randi C. Torregosa of Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz.

10. Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 109-110.

11. Ponce v. Legaspi, 208 SCRA 377, 388, May 6, 1992; Lao v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58, 61 July 11, 1991; Drilon v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 211, 220-221, March 20, 1997.

12. Exh. "7-A," Resolution of the Office of the City Fiscal of Dumaguete, pp. 14-15; RTC Records, Vol. II, pp. 139-140.

13. Exh. "7-B," ibid, p. 16; ibid, p. 141.

14. Exh. "7," ibid. pp. 19-20; ibid, pp. 144-145.

15. Ponce v. Legaspi, supra, p. 389; Drilon v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 211, 221, March 20, 1997.

16. Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16, 28, January 11, 1993; Chua v. Court of Appeals, 242 SCRA 341, 345, March 14, 1995; China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 472, 478, March 28, 1994.

17. 166 SCRA 734, 739, October 28, 1988, per Fernan, CJ.

18. Yutuk v. Manila Electric Co., 2 SCRA 337, 348-349, May 31, 1961; Globe Mckay Cable & Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778, 787, August 25, 1989.

19. Memorandum for the Respondent, p. 27; rollo, p. 102; TSN, March 1, 1995, pp. 6-7.

20. Globe Mackay v. CA, supra, p. 788; Lagman v. IAC, supra, p. 740.

21. Ibid, p. 25; ibid, p. 100.

22. Globe Mackay v. CA, supra, p. 788, Lagman v. IAC, supra, p. 740; Albenson v. CA. supra.

23. Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 162, 172, October 23, 1997.

24. Ibid; "J" Marketing Corporation v. Sia Jr., 285 SCRA 580, 582, January 18, 1998.

25. Lagman v. IAC, supra, p. 741; China Banking v. CA, supra. p. 478.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104930 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX K BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111928 March 1, 2000 - ALMARIO SIAPIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116464 March 1, 2000 - RODENTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117691 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO B. SAMPIOR

  • G.R. Nos. 119958-62 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124895 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 134286 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO AMBAN

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1184 March 2, 2000 - AMPARO S. FARRALES, ET AL. v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454 March 2, 2000 - NESCITO C. HILARIO v. CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION

  • G.R. Nos. 115239-40 March 2, 2000 - MARIO C.V. JALANDONI v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125332 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126212 March 2, 2000 - SEA-LAND SERVICE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126814 March 2, 2000 - JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL, ET AL. v. GIL P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127718 March 2, 2000 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128360 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CRISPIN

  • G.R. No. 128677 March 2, 2000 - SANTIAGO ABAPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133343-44 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 March 3, 2000 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120656 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL FERDINAND A. OMAR

  • G.R. No. 126021 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE SIAO

  • G.R. No. 135802 March 3, 2000 - PRISCILLA L. TAN v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. 108381 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO I. ACAYA

  • G.R. No. 108951 March 7, 2000 - JESUS B. DIAMONON v. DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109992 March 7, 2000 - HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110899 March 7, 2000 - ELIZARDO D. DITCHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115192 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER D. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 128046 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CHUA UY

  • G.R. No. 128102 March 7, 2000 - AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 March 7, 2000 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138291 March 7, 2000 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 139573-75 March 7, 2000 - JUNE GENEVIEVE R. SEBASTIAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC March 8, 2000 - REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT IN RTC

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446 March 9, 2000 - CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY v. ERNA FALLORAN-ALIPOSA

  • G.R. No. 111174 March 9, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO V. SALUDARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111806 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN G. GALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 March 9, 2000 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116044-45 March 9, 2000 - AMERICAN AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116084-85 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO JOB

  • G.R. No. 118216 March 9, 2000 - DELTAVENTURES RESOURCES v. FERNANDO P. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120060 March 9, 2000 - CEBU WOMAN’S CLUB v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121998 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO CLEOPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125233 March 9, 2000 - Spouses ALEXANDER and ADELAIDA CRUZ v. ELEUTERIO LEIS

  • G.R. No. 126125 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GAVIOLA

  • G.R. No. 126210 March 9, 2000 - CRISTINA PEREZ v. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127439 March 9, 2000 - ALFREDO PAZ v. ROSARIO G. REYES

  • G.R. No. 127749 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN GAJO

  • G.R. No. 131925 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO CABANAS CUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132745 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO UGIABAN LUMANDONG

  • G.R. No. 133323 March 9, 2000 - ALBERTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133345 & 133324 March 9, 2000 - JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 135613 March 9, 2000 - ARTHUR V. VELAYO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-9-11-SC March 10, 2000 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST RICARDO BANIEL III

  • A.M. No. 99-9-12-SC March 10, 2000 - ROSA J. MENDOZA v. RENATO LABAY

  • G.R. No. 127845 March 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LODRIGO BAYYA

  • G.R. No. 127673 March 13, 2000 - RICARDO S. MEDENILLA, ET AL. v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130769 March 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER GEGUIRA

  • G.R. No. 132624 March 13, 2000 - FIDEL M. BAÑARES II, ET AL. v. ELIZABETH BALISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140179 March 13, 2000 - ROQUE FERMO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1443 March 14, 2000 - EVAN B. CALLEJA v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES

  • G.R. No. 109271 March 14, 2000 - RICARDO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110524 March 14, 2000 - DOUGLAS MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000 - LUCIO ROBLES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000 - ENGRACE NIÑAL v. NORMA BAYADOG

  • G.R. No. 135087 March 14, 2000 - ALBERTO SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1544 March 15, 2000 - ROMEO DE LA CRUZ v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • G.R. No. 124453 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH PAMBID

  • G.R. No. 130602 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRONDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130809 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 131814 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221 March 16, 2000 - JOSEFINA M. VILLANUEVA v. BENJAMIN E. ALMAZAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1542 March 16, 2000 - ROLANDO M. ODOÑO v. PORFIRIO G. MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115949 March 16, 2000 - EVANGELINE J. GABRIEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124372 March 16, 2000 - RENATO CRISTOBAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125536 March 16, 2000 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126805 March 16, 2000 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128550 March 16, 2000 - DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129904 March 16, 2000 - GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133226 March 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOCSIN FABON

  • A.M. No. 99-8-286-RTC March 17, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & 99-1484 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 113433 March 17, 2000 - LUISITO P. BASILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115221 March 17, 2000 - JULIUS G. FROILAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 116754 March 17, 2000 - MORONG WATER DISTRICT v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121780 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SUMALDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122510-11 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MANRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124224 March 17, 2000 - NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124526 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY SAPAL

  • G.R. No. 124874 March 17, 2000 - ALBERT R. PADILLA v. FLORESCO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125059 March 17, 2000 - FRANCISCO T. SYCIP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129284 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 129297 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO SAN DIEGO

  • G.R. No. 131270 March 17, 2000 - PERFECTO PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134504 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO V. NARCISO v. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134986 March 17, 2000 - CAMPO ASSETS CORP. v. CLUB X. O. COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 138218 March 17, 2000 - CLAUDIUS G. BARROSO v. FRANCISCO S. AMPIG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC March 21, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC March 21, 2000 - REQUEST of Judge IRMA ZITA MASAMAYOR v. RTC-Br. 52

  • G.R. Nos. 130568-69 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHE CHUN TING

  • G.R. No. 130685 March 21, 2000 - FELIX UY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133434 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE E. ADILA

  • A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000 - MANUEL N. CAMACHO v. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 5235 March 22, 2000 - FERNANDO C. CRUZ, ET AL. v. ERNESTO C. JACINTO

  • A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ March 22, 2000 - Spouses CONRADO and MAITA SEÑA v. ESTER TUAZON VILLARIN

  • G.R. No. 122540 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123206 March 22, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132551 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DEDACE

  • Adm. Case No. 4083 March 27, 2000 - LEONITO GONATO, ET AL. v. CESILO A. ADAZA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1204 March 27, 2000 - MILA MARTINEZ v. ALEXANDER RIMANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120150 March 27, 2000 - ADRIAN DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123560 March 27, 2000 - YU ENG CHO, ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS

  • G.R. No. 124118 March 27, 2000 - MARINO ADRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 - ONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 128073 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE MAMALIAS

  • G.R. No. 130669 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON MITRA

  • G.R. No. 130722 March 27, 2000 - REYNALDO K. LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131074 March 27, 2000 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BICHARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132929 March 27, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. 136478 March 27, 2000 - ARSENIO P. REYES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1528 March 28, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. ALFREDO A. CABRAL

  • G.R. No. 79679 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE CABINGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDA MERIS

  • G.R. No. 131472 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIPAY

  • G.R. No. 132518 March 28, 2000 - GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133146 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133832 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO BARREDO

  • A.M. No. P-98-1284 March 30, 2000 - ABRAHAM D. CAÑA v. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION

  • G.R. No. 106671 March 30, 2000 - HARRY TANZO v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109773 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELBERTO BASE

  • G.R. No. 123112 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO CAVERTE and TEOFILO CAVERTE

  • G.R. No. 125355 March 30, 2000 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEALS and COMMONWEALTH MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 129288 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN

  • G.R. No. 138081 March 30, 2000 - BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), ET AL. v. NELSON OGARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1167 March 31, 2000 - EMILY M SANDOVAL. v. FELICISIMO S. GARIN

  • A.M. No. P-96-1211 March 31, 2000 - PACIFICO S. BULADO v. DOMINGO TIU

  • G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000 - ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114734 March 31, 2000 - VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115181 March 31, 2000 - MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115990 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR y ESTACIO @ "JOEY"

  • G.R. No. 121517 March 31, 2000 - RAY U. VELASCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121572 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELAMPARO

  • G.R. No. 123113 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY ABALDE

  • G.R. No. 123636 March 31, 2000 - JOSELITO LAGERA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125280 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON SUITOS

  • G.R. Nos. 128056-57 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS PARAMIL

  • G.R. No. 128647 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 132053 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO TAYAG

  • G.R. No. 132192 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO NOROÑA and FREDDIE NOROÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 133387-423 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ABAPO

  • G.R. No. 133857 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AMIGABLE

  • G.R. No. 139137 March 31, 2000 - ALFREDO ARQUELADA, ET AL v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK