Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > December 2001 Decisions > A.M. No. MTJ-00-1305 December 3, 2001 - NESCITO C. HILARIO, ET AL, v. JULIAN C. OCAMPO III:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1305. December 3, 2001.]

Atty. NESCITO C. HILARIO and MA. MERIEM A. URSUA, Complainants, v. Hon. JULIAN C. OCAMPO III, in His Capacity as the Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga City and as Presiding Judge of the MTC of Naga City, Branch I, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


Noncompliance with the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court for the raffling of cases is an administrative offense. Failure to abide by these rules diminishes respect for the rule of law.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Case


In an Administrative Complaint dated August 14, 1998, 1 Atty. Nescito C. Hilario and Ma. Meriem A. Ursua charged Judge Julian C. Ocampo III, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga City (Branch I), with five offenses: grave abuse of authority, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, bias or partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust order in connection with the actuation of the judge relative to Criminal Case Nos. 78500-78512, all of which had been pending before his sala.

The Facts


The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its June 26, 2000 Memorandum 2 as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1) A SWORN COMPLAINT with attachments dated August 14, 1998 [filed] by complainants Atty. Nescito C. Hilario and Ma. Meriem A. Ursua charg[es] respondent Judge Julian C. Ocampo III, MTC, Branch I, Naga City with grave abuse of authority, bias and partiality relative to Criminal Case Nos. 78500-78512 entitled ‘People of the Philippines v. Meriem A. Ursua’ for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Act).

"Complainant Ursua is the accused in the aforementioned criminal case while complainant Atty. Hilario served as her counsel therein. According to complainants, the City Prosecutor of Naga City filed 13 separate Informations for Violation of B.P. Bilang 22 against complainant Ursua in the Office of the Clerk of Court, MTC where respondent Judge sits as Executive Judge. Complainant Ursua posted cash bail bonds in those 13 criminal cases. On August 19, 1997, respondent Judge allegedly raffled the said Informations, all of which landed on his sala, even without any Motion for Consolidation.

"Complainants allege that upon the advice of respondent Judge, they filed a Motion to Conduct Preliminary Investigation and/or Reinvestigation which was denied by the latter in his Order dated September 22, 1997. They narrate that they were not able to immediately file the necessary Motion to Lift/Withdraw Cash Bail since the Order of respondent Judge dated September 22, 1997 stated that a warrant of arrest had already been issued against complainant Ursua. Upon verification with the records of the case, however, complainants found that no warrant of arrest was issued. Thus, complainants filed a Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail. During the hearing of the said Motion, respondent Judge confirmed in open court that no warrant of arrest was issued against complainant Ursua. Complainants further allege that respondent Judge initially granted their Motion To Withdraw Cash Bail but later recalled the grant and denied the same. Respondent Judge then arraigned complainant Ursua despite the vigorous objection of the complainants. Complainants claim that respondent Judge incurred administrative liability by committing the following acts:cralaw : red

‘i] Grave abuse of authority, bias and special interest tantamount to dishonesty penalized and sanctioned under Section 3(2) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — for arrogating upon himself, as the Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Naga City, the act of handling and hearing the cases against complainant Ursua by assigning to his sala Criminal Cases 78500 to 78512 without any motion for the consolidation of said cases;

‘ii] DISHONESTY, penalized and sanctioned under Section 3(2) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND PROCEDURE punishable under Section 3(9) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — for distorting the truth and the records of Criminal Cases 78500 to 78512 pending before his sala at Branch No. 1 by stating in his Order of September 22, 1997 that: ‘In these cases, the City Prosecutor found the existence of a probable cause and on the basis thereof, the Court issued a Warrant of Arrest and the accused immediately posted bail to save her the embarrassment of being apprehended,’ whereas in truth and in fact, NO WARRANT OF ARREST WAS EVER ISSUED BY HIM AGAINST COMPLAINANT URSUA.

x       x       x


‘iii] BIAS AND PARTIALITY punishable under Section 3(12) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — It appears that Atty. Fred Cledera, the Private Prosecutor in the said cases, is the Dean of the college of law of the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) which is presently the employer of the respondent Judge, who is a faculty member in the said college. The charge is based on the act of respondent in initially granting complainant Ursua’s Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail and thereafter flip-flopping by recalling the same after respondent Judge realized, albeit quite belatedly after hearing complainant Hilario’s arguments, that he could not effect the immediate arrest of complainant Ursua while she was inside the courtroom during the hearing of August 12, 1998, and then making a second ruling denying said motion;

‘iv] KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST ORDER, GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR PROCEDURE, and BIAS AND PARTIALITY punishable under Section 3, sub-sections 7, 9 and 12 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — for outrightly denying the motion of the complainants requesting to file a Motion for Reconsideration on the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail inspite of the fact that complainant Ursua still has a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Order of denial within which to file the said Motion for Reconsideration.

‘v] For arraigning complainant Ursua immediately after the denial of the complainants’ request to file a Motion for Reconsideration in spite of the repeated and vehement objections by complainant Hilario, thus making the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Special Civil Case No. RTC-98-4014 pending before the RTC of Naga, Branch 20 entitled Ma. Meriem T. Ursua v. Hon. Julian C. Ocampo III, Et Al., and the intended Motion for Reconsideration moot and academic because of the forced arraignment of complainant Ursua which was wil[l]fully and intentionally done by the respondent Judge for obvious reasons.’

"Furthermore, complainants claim that respondent Judge had already been penalized by the Supreme Court in an administrative case filed against him in Administrative Matter MTJ-93-853, March 14, 1995 entitled ‘Domingo Ballantes v. Judge Julian Ocampo III’ where the latter was fined in the amount of P5,000.00 and warned that a repetition of the same or similar infraction will merit a stiffer penalty.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"2) A COMMENT dated March 24, 1999 by respondent Judge denying all material allegations in the Complaint. According to him, the complaint is devoid of merit and should be dismissed. Respondent Judge offers the following explanations to the charges level[l]ed against him:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, BIAS AND SPECIAL INTEREST TANTAMOUNT TO DISHONESTY: Formerly, all cases were raffled individually regardless of whether several cases involved the same parties and subject matter. This procedure resulted to the filing of motions for consolidation which caused delay in the proceedings. When the herein respondent was appointed as Executive Judge he thought it prudent to adopt a different procedure in the raffle of cases involving the same accused and private complainant by assigning all cases to the Branch that drew the lowest docket number. This explains why in the raffle conducted on August 19, 1997, all of the 13 cases against Meriem Ursua went to Branch 1 since in the drawing of lots the respondent picked out the lowest docket number among the 13 cases.

‘DISHONESTY AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND PROCEDURE: The reason why no warrant of arrest was issued by the Court is that as early as August 14, 5 days before the raffle of cases on August 19, the accused made a cash deposit covering the entire amount of the bonds in the thirteen (13) cases with the Clerk of Court, then Mrs. Lilia S. Buena, who did not inform the Executive Judge about the early filing of a cash bond. The accused having posted in advance the required bail bond, there was no need for the court to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest since the accused had voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Court.

‘BIAS AND PARTIALITY: The Court did not initially grant the ‘Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail’ and later denied it, as alleged by the complainant. The truth is that at the very outset, the Court had resolved to deny the Motion since it was entirely devoid of merit. The accused should have been grateful to the Court for denying the Motion because if it granted the same, the Court would have ordered her arrest and caused her great embarrassment. It is not correct to say that the respondent is the employee of Atty. Fred P. Cledera. Both are employees of the University of Nueva Caceres, the former being a Law instructor and the latter the Dean of the College of Law of the said university.

‘KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST ORDER GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR PROCEDURE: It was well within the discretion of the Court to outrightly deny the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail which Atty. Hilario intended to file since there was no cogent reason to reconsider the ruling. To allow the accused to file a Motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days will only further delay the proceedings.

‘RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY SANCTIONED: The initial resolution of the Supreme Court imposing a fine on the respondent was reconsidered and set aside when the Court found out that the complainant had misled the Court in believing that the respondent had defied the Order of the Regional Trial Court." 3

Report and Recommendation of the OCA

The OCA found merit in some of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, particularly with respect to (1) respondent’s unauthorized procedure for raffling cases and (2) the false statements he made in open court to the effect that he had issued a warrant of arrest when he had actually not done so. Deemed insufficient to constitute any administrative liability were the other charges against him. The OCA explained its findings in this manner:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"EVALUATION:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A. Complainants’ contention that respondent Judge incurred administrative liability when all criminal cases against complainant Ursua landed on respondent Judge’s sala even without any motion for consolidation is meritorious. Paragraph 1 of SC Circular No. 7 provides that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘I. RAFFLING OF CASES

‘All cases filed with the Court in stations or groupings where there are two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. The raffle of cases should be regularly conducted at the hour and on the day or days to be fixed by the Executive Judge. Only the maximum number of cases, according to their dates of filing, as can be equally distributed to all branches in the particular station or grouping shall be included in the raffle. Cases in excess of the number sufficient for equal distribution shall be included in the next scheduled raffle subject to the exceptions provided in paragraph II and IV hereof.’

"Clearly, respondent erred in not raffling the individual cases. Respondent’s purpose in assigning all thirteen (13) criminal cases to one sala may be laudable but until the procedure prescribed by this Court has been changed, he is well advised to strictly adhere thereto. As what happened in this case, respondent, by adopting his own rule, was suspected of having a personal interest in the said cases, which would not have happened if he only followed the prescribed procedure.

"B. On the other hand, the charge that respondent judge erred in initially granting the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail and subsequently recalling the grant and denying the same cannot prosper. According to complainants, said flip-flopping was committed by respondent Judge because the latter was biased in favor of the private complainant in the said case whose counsel, Atty. Fred Cledera, is the employer of respondent Judge since Atty. Cledera serves as Dean of the College of Law of the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) where respondent Judge also teaches. A reading of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) taken on the hearing of the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail on August 12, 1998 reveals that complainants’ contentions are not entirely accurate. Contrary to complainants’ claim, their Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail was resolved only once by the respondent (p. 18, Annex D, Complaint) resulting in its denial. There was no final order of respondent Judge granting the same, then denying it as complainants would have us believe. Thus, complainants claim that respondent Judge was biased and partial in favor of private complainant is unmeritorious. Mere suspicion that a Judge was partial to a party is not enough — there should be adequate evidence to prove the charge (Abad v. Belen, 240 SCRA 733). In this case, mere insinuation by complainants that respondent Judge was partial to private complainant because respondent Judge was employed by the counsel of private complainant is insufficient if not totally baseless. Besides, we subscribe to respondent Judge’s view that as a law instructor at the UNC, he was not employed by Atty. Cledera who is the Dean of the College of Law therein. Rather, they are both employed as law instructor and Dean of the College of Law, respectively.

x       x       x


"C. Complainants’ insistence that respondent Judge erred when he outrightly denied complainants’ request to file a Motion for Reconsideration on respondent Judge’s denial of their Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail is likewise devoid of merit. This is because we find the subject to be judicial in nature. Thus, the remedy is not an administrative charge against respondent Judge (Galen Realty Co., Inc. v. Arranz, 235 SCRA 470) but one in a proper judicial forum (Atty. Felixberto Boquirin v. Judge Emperatriz del Rosario-Cruz, et. al., A.M. No. MTJ 94-894, January 26, 1994). A party litigant abuses the processes of the court if he resorts to an Administrative proceeding for disciplining Judges prescribed by law, notwithstanding that the determination of the correctness of the orders of the Judge upon which the viability of his recourse depends, has not yet been made. The established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for the judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted or when the appellate tribunal have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry to his administrative liability maybe said to have opened or closed (Flores v. Abesamis, 245 SCRA 302).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"As for complainants’ contention that respondent Judge should not have immediately arraigned complainant Ursua there being a Petition for Certiorari or Mandamus pending before the RTC as filed by complainants must likewise be dismissed. Public policy dictates that delay in the prosecution of criminal cases must be avoided. Complainants admit that their sole purpose in filing the Motion to Withdraw Cash Bail was for respondent Judge to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. Courts are however, called upon to exercise great restraint in granting any reinvestigation with the consequent delay involved, since the weighing and evaluation of such evidence is best left to the court’s judgment not to that of the prosecution (People v. LaCaste, 34 SCRA 767). To ferret out the truth, trial is preferred to a reinvestigation (Abugotal v. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196). Rather than delay the trial of private respondents by waiting for the conduct and outcome of a reinvestigation, it is best that respondent Judge set the case for immediate trial (supra). Public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted, hence as a general rule, injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution (Romero v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 170 SCRA 408).

"Nor can the mere pendency of a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the RTC prevent respondent Judge from conducting the arraignment of complainant Ursua. Absent a temporary restraining order (TRO) or an injunction issued by competent authority, respondent Judge is not precluded from arraigning complainant Ursua. Thus, no liability can be attributed to respondent Judge.

"D. Finally, complainants’ claim that respondent Judge erred when he issued his Order dated September 22, 1997 wherein it was stated that the court had issued a warrant of arrest against complainant Ursua, when in truth and in fact no warrant of arrest was issued, deserves merit. This was admitted by the respondent Judge himself, who attributed his mistake to complainant Ursua who posted a cash bond in advance to the Clerk of Court who did not inform respondent that no warrant of arrest has yet been issued against the accused. While this maybe true, it would not completely exonerate respondent Judge from liability. Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Rule 3.09 — A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.’

"A judge may not put the blame on his clerk of court for his remisses [sic] (Belen v. Soriano, 240 SCRA 298). It is the obligation of the judge to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain professional competence in court management (Heirs of the Late Nasser D. Yasin v. Felix, 250 SCRA 545).

"RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. that this case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

"2. that respondent Judge Julian C. Ocampo II, MTCC, Branch I, Naga City be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely." 4

In a Resolution dated August 2, 2000, 5 the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and records duly received by the Court. Both agreed. Respondent filed his Manifestation on September 12, 2000, 6 while complainants submitted their Manifestation on November 8, 2000. 7

The Court’s Ruling


We agree with the OCA and adopt its recommendation.

Respondent’s Administrative Liability

As correctly found by the OCA, respondent ignored the procedure for the raffling of cases mandated by Supreme Court Circular No. 7 of 1974, which we reproduce hereunderchanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"I. RAFFLING OF CASES

"All cases filed with the Court in stations or groupings where there are two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. The raffle of cases should be regularly conducted at the hour and on the day or days to be fixed by the Executive Judge. Only the maximum number of cases, according to their dates of filing, as can be equally distributed to all branches in the particular station or grouping shall be included in the raffle. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent contends that he devised his own style of conducting a raffle, which he did by assigning related cases to the branch having the lowest docket number. Despite his claim that such policy is "more prudent," we find it untenable. Whether it would be more practical and efficient under the circumstances is not for him to determine, inasmuch as the pertinent rules or circulars already provide the appropriate procedure to be followed All he has to do, as all executive judges must, is to follow them faithfully since they have been adopted to ensure the smooth and orderly administration of justice. If he disagrees with the rules, he should propose amendments. But he cannot disobey them in the meantime.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

It must be emphasized that rules of procedure have been formulated and promulgated by this Court to ensure the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Failure to abide by these rules undermines the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect for the rule of law. Indeed, judges are expected to keep abreast and be conversant with Supreme Court rules and circulars that affect the conduct of cases before them. 8 More important, they should ensure strict compliance therewith at all times in their respective jurisdiction. Judges should therefore administer their office with due regard to the integrity of the system of law itself, remembering that they are not depositories of arbitrary power, but judges under the sanction of law. 9

The false or erroneous statement of respondent in his September 22, 1997 Order — to the effect that a warrant of arrest had been issued even when there was actually none — is uncontroverted. Unacceptable is his explanation that there was no more need for him to issue a warrant of arrest because Complainant Ursua had already submitted herself to the court’s jurisdiction by filing the required bail bonds in advance. Such explanation runs counter to the fundamental concept of bail vis-�-vis the issuance of an arrest warrant.

Bail is defined as the "security given for the release of a person in custody of the law." 10 By its definition, bail requires that a person must first be arrested or deprived of liberty before it can be availed of: Thus, although the posting thereof is tantamount to submission to the jurisdiction of the court, 11 it presupposes that the accused is under detention or in the custody of law. 12 Indeed, it would be absurd and incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. 13 In this case, respondent deemed it appropriate for the accused to file the corresponding bail bonds, even when the latter had not yet been arrested or placed under custody.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Be that as it may, no evidence was ever presented to show that respondent had demanded or insisted on the advance posting of the bail bonds. In fact, it was the accused who voluntarily paid them in advance, only to question their propriety later. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that he made a false statement by making it appear in his Order that a warrant of arrest had been issued. Hence, he is administratively liable for the false statement per se, not for irregularities in connection with either the non-issuance of an arrest warrant or the advance posting of bail bonds — irregularities that were alleged, but not substantiated.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On the other hand, we cannot sustain the charges of bias and partiality, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and gross ignorance of the law relative to respondent’s denial of the Motion to Lift/Withdraw Bail Bond.

A review of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the arraignment of Ursua and the hearing of her Motion to Withdraw Cash Bond on August 12, 1998, 14 belies her allegation that respondent had initially granted the Motion to withdraw but denied it later by reason of partiality. 15 Contrary to the claim of complainants that respondent flip-flopped, the latter issued a definite and categorical ruling denying the said Motion. Thus, it cannot be said that his actuations during the hearing favored the opposing counsel, who happened to be the dean of the law school where he was teaching.

Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough to show that the former favors the latter. 16 Certainly, bare allegations of a complainant cannot overturn the presumption that a judge acted regularly and with impartiality. 17

Whether respondent erred in the exercise of his judicial discretion by denying the Motion of Ursua and proceeding with her arraignment is a matter that cannot be taken up in an administrative proceeding. A party’s remedy, if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course of a trial, lies with the proper reviewing court, not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint. 18 It is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is available, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular. 19 Precisely, to address the foregoing issues relative to the denial of the Motions, a Petition for Certiorari has already been filed by complainants and is now pending before the RTC of Naga, Branch 20.

In any case, it bears noting that the administrative liability for ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment does not necessarily arise from the mere fact that a judge issued an order that may be adjudged to be erroneous. 20 A judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order; it is only when a judge acts fraudulently or with gross ignorance that administrative sanctions are called for. 21

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is FINED in the amount of P5,000 for not complying with the prescribed procedure for the raffling of cases and for falsely stating in his Order that an arrest warrant was already issued. The other charges are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 1.

2. Id., pp. 59-65.

3. Id., at pp. 59-62; signed by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo and Danilo L. Mendoza, officer-in-charge, Legal Office, OCA.

4. Id., at pp. 62-65.

5. Ibid., p. 66.

6. Id., p. 70.

7. Id., p. 73.

8. Bayog v. Natino, 258 SCRA 378, July 5, 1996.

9 Conducto v. Monzon, 291 SCRA 619, July 2, 1998.

10. Rule 114, Section 1, Rules of Court.

11. Cojuangco Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367, December 21, 1998.

12. Guillen v. Nicolas, 299 SCRA 623, December 4, 1998.

13. Adapon v. Domagtoy, 265 SCRA 824, December 27, 1996.

14. Rollo, pp. 17-51.

15. TSN, August 12, 1998, at pp. 16-18.

16. Gonzales v. Bersamin, 254 SCRA 652, March 13, 1996.

17. Zamudio v. Peñas Jr., 286 SCRA 367, February 24, 1998.

18. Dionisio v. Escano, 302 SCRA 411, February 1, 1999.

19. Santos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101, September 25, 1998.

20. Guerrero v. Villamor, 296 SCRA 88, September 25, 1998.

21. Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Joboco, RTC Br. 16, Naval Biliran, 249 SCRA 119, August 12, 1998.




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






December-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • ADM. CASE No. 3066 December 3, 2001 - J.K. MERCADO AND SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA and JOSE RONGKALES BANDALAN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1305 December 3, 2001 - NESCITO C. HILARIO, ET AL, v. JULIAN C. OCAMPO III

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1541 December 3, 2001 - SALUSTIANO G. SONIDO v. JOSE S. MAJADUCON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127368 December 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR DREW and JENNY RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 127695 December 3, 2001 - LUIS BACUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128884-85 December 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR TADEO

  • G.R. No. 132681 December 3, 2001 - RICKY Q. QUILALA v. GLICERIA ALCANTARA

  • G.R. Nos. 137834-40 December 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO DOGAOJO Y MORANTE

  • G.R. No. 138781 December 3, 2001 - FELIX PASCUAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121940 December 4, 2001 - JESUS SAN AGUSTIN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO MENEZ

  • G.R. No. 132305 December 4, 2001 - IDA C. LABAGALA v. NICOLASA T. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 136480 December 4, 2001 - LACSASA M. ADIONG v. COURT OF APPEALS and NASIBA A. NUSKA

  • G.R. No. 145280 December 4, 2001 - ST. MICHAEL’S INSTITUTE v. CARMELITA A. SANTOS

  • A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC December 5, 2001 - RE: Hold-Departure Order Issued by Judge Agustin T. Sardido, MTC, Koronadal, South Cotabato in Criminal Case No. 19418

  • A.M. No. 01-3-64-MTC December 5, 2001 - In re: Notice issued by Judge Agapito K. Laoagan

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1386 December 5, 2001 - LOURDES R. LIGAD v. TEODORO L. DIPOLOG

  • G.R. No. 127182 December 5, 2001 - HON. ALMA G. DE LEON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JACOB F. MONTESA

  • G.R. No. 127652 December 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR M. DANTE

  • G.R. Nos. 135063-64 December 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO VILLAFLORES y VIRGINIA

  • G.R. No. 137001 December 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CAYETANO MOSENDE

  • G.R. No. 137266 December 5, 2001 - ANTONIO M. BERNARDO v. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS

  • G.R. Nos. 140557-58 December 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO HERRERA

  • G.R. No. 142924 December 5, 2001 - TEODORO B. VESAGAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 143937 December 5, 2001 - SERAFIN ABUYEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A.M. No. P-01-1528 December 7, 2001 - CELESTIAL D. REYES v. ERLINDA M. PATIAG

  • G.R. No. 121810 December 7, 2001 - SPOUSES INOCENCIO AND ADORACION SAN ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126149 December 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONISIO LOZANO

  • G.R. No. 127932 December 7, 2001 - VIRGINIA M. ANDRADE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 129248 December 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUSTINIANO GLABO alias "TOTO BUGOY"

  • G.R. No. 131106 December 7, 2001 - EUGENE YU v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547& 133843 December 7, 2001 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL and ANDREA ALCANTARA and CRISANTO PAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133385 December 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLITO DELOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 135462 December 7, 2001 - SOUTH CITY HOMES, ET AL v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 139849 December 7, 2001 - JOHN MANGIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140101 December 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. BONIFACIO MANAGBANAG

  • G.R. No. 140544 December 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELMER M. DAMITAN

  • G.R. No. 140817 December 7, 2001 - SABRINA ARTADI BONDAGJY v. FOUZI ALI BONDAGJY

  • G.R. No. 141980 December 7, 2001 - CARMELITO A. MONTANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 142501 December 7, 2001 - LEONARDO L. MONSANTO v. JESUS and TERESITA ZERNA and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 146238 December 7, 2001 - MA. ELENA LAGMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 122796 December 10, 2001 - PETROPHIL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 146737 December 10, 2001 - In the matter of the intestate estate of the late JUAN "JHONNY" LOCSIN v. JUAN C. LOCSIN

  • G.R. Nos. 130653 & 139384 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FRANCISCO BANIQUED

  • G.R. No. 134526 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. PATRICK A. COLISAO

  • G.R. No. 136137 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CALIXTO BIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137288 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO A. ABINO

  • G.R. Nos. 137297 & 138547-48 December 11, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO AGRAVANTE y ZANTUA

  • G.R. No. 138838 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BALAS

  • G.R. Nos. 140333-34 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 149884 December 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CESAR GALVEZ

  • A.M. No. P-99-1350 December 12, 2001 - PERRY MALBAS ET. AL v. NICANOR B. BLANCO ET. AL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475 December 12, 2001 - ELIEZA C. DADAP-MALINAO v. JOSE H. MIJARES

  • G.R. No. 134607 December 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CELSO REYNES

  • G.R. No. 137043 December 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL SOLAYAO

  • G.R. No. 137592 December 12, 2001 - ANG MGA KAANIB SA IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS v. IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY CRISTO JESUS

  • G.R. Nos. 147933-34 December 12, 2001 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. ELPIDIO S. UY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1303 December 13, 2001 - VIDALA SACEDA v. JUDGE GERARDO E. GESTOPA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1353 December 13, 2001 - LALAINE O. APUYA v. TRANQUILINO V. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1447 December 13, 2001 - MARIANO Z. DY v. SOTERO S. PACLIBAR

  • A.M. No. P-01-1530 December 13, 2001 - ERIC P. BENAVIDEZ v. ESTRELLA A. VEGA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503 December 13, 2001 - LUZ LILIA v. JUDGE BARTOLOME M. FANUÑAL

  • G.R. No. 130966 December 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO GUANSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136733-35 December 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELADIO VIERNES

  • G.R. No. 146089 December 13, 2001 - VIRGINIA GOCHAN v. MERCEDES GOCHAN

  • G.R. No. 146336 December 13, 2001 - HAVTOR MANAGEMENT PHILS. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMERLITO A. RANOA

  • Adm. Case No. 5165 December 14, 2001 - VICENTE DELOS SANTOS, ET AL v. ROMEO R. ROBISO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453 December 14, 2001 - FR. MICHAEL SINNOTT v. JUDGE RECAREDO P. BARTE

  • G.R. No. 119616 December 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ARMANDO DEL VALLE

  • G.R. No. 122275 December 14, 2001 - MA. CONSOLACION LAZARO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123935 December 14, 2001 - LEONCIO and ENRIQUETA v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSENDO C. PALABASAN

  • G.R. No. 127984 December 14, 2001 - JOSEFINA TANDO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131013 December 14, 2001 - BLADE INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131086 December 14, 2001 - BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION v. EDDIE C. OLALIA

  • G.R. No. 132750 December 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELGER GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 136487 December 14, 2001 - PIO TIMBAL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136996 December 14, 2001 - EDILBERTO ALCANTARA v. CORNELIO B. RETA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 137391 December 14, 2001 - JUAN ENRIQUEZ v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 141129-33 December 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROLAND MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 141633 December 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REX T. CANLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141782 December 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 142738 December 14, 2001 - DR. HONORATA BAYLON v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 146096 December 14, 2001 - SPOUSES JOHN AND ANITA UY TANSIPEK v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147062-64 December 14, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COCOFED

  • Adm. Case No. 5020 December 18, 2001 - ROSARIO JUNIO v. SALVADOR M. GRUPO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1301 December 18, 2001 - ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, ET AL. v. JUDGE RUBEN R. PLATA

  • G.R. No. 105014 December 18, 2001 - PILIPINAS KAO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137377 December 18, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARUBENI CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 139881 December 18, 2001 - ERNESTO L. JARDELEZA v. THE HON. PRESIDING JUDGE

  • G.R. Nos. 143850-53 December 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELEONOR JULIAN-FERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA December 19, 2001 - In Re: Derogatory News Items Charging Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria

  • G.R. No. 124809 December 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO SAUL and ELMER AVENUE

  • G.R. No. 134741 December 19, 2001 - SPOUSES BENNY CALVO and JOVITA S. CALVO v. SPOUSES BERNARDITO and ANGELINA VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142824 December 19, 2001 - INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, ET AL v. INTERPHIL LABORATORIES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 142861 December 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO OMBRESO

  • G.R. No. 148180 December 19, 2001 - CATALINA VDA. DE RETUERTO, ET AL., v. ANGELO P. BARZET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121327 December 20, 2001 - CECILIO P. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 137277 December 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALMENDRAS

  • G.R. Nos. 138306-07 December 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 EDUARDO ANCHETA Y RODIGOL

  • G.R. No. 142447 December 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO VICENTE