Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > February 2001 Decisions > A.M. No. P-00-1436 February 19, 2001 - ELPIDIO P. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. HELEN B. MONGAYA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-00-1436. February 19, 2001.]

ELPIDIO P. DE LA VICTORIA AND PO1 TEMISTOCLES R. AMBOS, JR., Complainant, v. INTERPRETER HELEN B. MONGAYA and PROCESS SERVER NELSON C. MANLOSA (MTCC-BRANCH 4, CEBU CITY), Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


BUENA, J.:


This administrative matter stems from a joint sworn affidavit-complaint 1 dated 28 July 1998, filed by herein complainants Elpidio P. De la Victoria and PO1 Temistocles R. Ambos, Jr. charging, in effect, respondents Helen B. Mongaya and Nelson C. Manlosa, both court employees of Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Cebu City, Branch 4, with violation of Section 3(e) 2 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, relative to the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 83539-R on the ground of non-prosequitur. 3

As borne by the records, complainants Elpidio Dela Victoria and PO1 Temistocles Ambos, Jr. are the Program Director and member, respectively, of the Bantay Dagat Commission and Bantay Dagat Task Force, while herein respondents Helen B. Mongaya and Nelson C. Manlosa, are the Court Interpreter and Process Server, respectively, of MTCC-Cebu City, Branch 4.

On 25 June 1998, herein complainants Dela Victoria and Ambos went to MTCC-Cebu City, Branch 4, to inquire about the status of Criminal Case No. 83539-R, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rogelio A. Enqueg, et. al.", for violation of Section 78, P.D. 705, filed by the Bantay Dagat Task Force. Complainants alleged that respondent Court Interpreter Mongaya deliberately withheld from them the information that a subpoena ad testificandum 4 dated 25 June 1998 was signed and issued by the latter, without any authority, directing the accused and the prosecution witnesses in the aforementioned criminal case, to appear and testify on a hearing scheduled on the 13th, 15th and 22nd of July 1998.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On 07 July 1998, respondent Process Server Manlosa proceeded to the Office of the Bantay Dagat Task Force located in Pasil, Cebu City, for the purpose of serving the aforesaid subpoena to the prosecution witnesses. However, the subpoena was returned "unserved" with the notation by respondent Manlosa that "SPO2 Vicente Lim and others was (sic) duly assigned at Talisay, Bantay Dagat, 7/7/98." 5

In their joint sworn affidavit-complaint, herein complainants submit that owing to the foregoing actuation of respondents, the prosecution witnesses failed to attend the scheduled hearings causing, in effect, the "dismissal of the (criminal) case to the prejudice of the state" and damage to the reputation of the Bantay Dagat Commission. 6

In a letter 7 dated 29 July 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas acknowledged receipt of the joint sworn affidavit-complaint dated 28 July 1998, together with its supporting documents. The case was then docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0611 and OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0453.

In a Joint Evaluation Report dated 30 July 1998, Graft Investigation Officer II Glenda C. Go recommended that "the administrative case be indorsed to the Supreme Court for administrative adjudication."cralaw virtua1aw library

In a Resolution 8 dated 25 March 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas, finding no probable cause to indict respondent Mongaya for the offense charged, recommended that the criminal charge against the latter be dismissed. Nonetheless, in the same Resolution, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that an information be filed against respondent Manlosa for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

As to the administrative case filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the OCA, in a 1st Indorsement dated 12 February 1999, required herein respondents Mongaya and Manlosa to submit their respective Comments within ten days from receipt thereof.

In her Comment dated 12 April 1999, respondent Mongaya denied the charges arguing that there is "absolutely no color or iota of truth to the allegation(s) that (she) misinformed and/or concealed from Mr. Dela Victoria the true status of Criminal Case No. 83569", considering that "court records are public instruments" 9 which any interested party may gain access to. Further, respondent Mongaya averred that in the morning of 25 June 1998, she was in fact at the MTCC-Cebu City, Branch 2 assisting in cases scheduled for hearing. 10

In a separate case docketed as OCA IPI No. 99-731-P, Judge Leopoldo Canete of MTCC-Cebu City, Branch 4, filed a complaint for Gross Neglect of Duty against respondent Manlosa relative to the service of subpoena and other court processes, and for reporting for work only once or twice a week. 11

In a Memorandum dated 09 August 2000, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the charge against respondent Mongaya for lack of merit. On the contrary, the OCA found respondent Manlosa administratively liable and recommended that said respondent be suspended for three (3) months without pay.

THE COURT’S RULING

We are in accord with the findings of the OCA, with certain modifications on the penalty to be imposed on respondent Manlosa. Adjudging respondent Manlosa to be liable for simple neglect of duty 12 as will be further discussed hereunder, this Court considers the recommendation of suspension for three (3) months a bit stiff in view of the nature of the offense committed, effects of said act on government service 13 and the attendant circumstances in the instant case. Contrarily, we find the dismissal of the charge against respondent Mongaya to be in order.

First, as to the charge against respondent Manlosa, we find him administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, and not for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 14 simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense and carries the corresponding penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first (1st) Offense. A circumspect perusal of the records furnishes credible substantiation to this finding of administrative liability for simple neglect of duty on the part of respondent Manlosa.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Evidently, respondent Manlosa was — to say the least — remiss and unmindful of his duties as Court Process Server; he was neglectful of the consequences of his actuation particularly when respondent made the subject notation on the subpoena without even ascertaining the veracity of the information that the prosecution witnesses were assigned or transferred to "Talisay, Bantay Dagat." To aggravate the matter, records belie the allegation that the Bantay Dagat Task Force maintains an office in Talisay, Cebu, 15 contrary to the information culled by respondent Manlosa.

Under these circumstances, had respondent Manlosa exhibited more prudence and earnestly endeavored in verifying raw information relative to the alleged transfer and assignment of the prosecution witnesses to "Talisay, Bantay Dagat," he would have easily unearthed the falsity and untruth behind such unverified information and in particular, discovered the inexistence of the Talisay office.

As an employee of the judiciary tasked, among other things, to serve subpoena and other court processes, respondent Manlosa indubitably failed to perform his assigned duties with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility — ideals which men and women in public service ought to cherish and dutifully observe. On the whole, respondent Manlosa as a Court Process Server, should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but its impact as well in the speedy administration of justice.

By liberal analogy, this Court in Reyes v. Anosa 16 , decreed that a utility worker’s failure to deliver the notices of hearing and subpoenas to litigants and witnesses amounts to an utter disregard of the duty as a court employee. To be sure, the wheels of justice will not run without the cooperation of the staff of judges composed of clerks of court, staff assistants, legal researchers, sheriffs, process servers, court stenographers, interpreters, bailiffs and court aides or utility workers. 17 True enough, the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with heavy burden of responsibility, 18 in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. 19

Nonetheless, it is our considered view that the actuation of respondent Manlosa does not constitute" gross inexcusable negligence" so as to render him administratively liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. By definition, gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. 20 In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 21

To our mind, respondent Manlosa although guilty of neglect in the performance of official duties, may not be held liable for "gross inexcusable negligence" as contemplated and punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. From our standpoint, the negligence displayed by said respondent and the breach of duty committed were not of such nature and degree so as to be considered brazen, flagrant, and palpable. Stated differently, respondent Manlosa is still liable for neglect in the performance of official duties, albeit not of such kind constitutive of that punishable under R.A. 3019, specifically Section 3(e) thereof.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On this matter, records 22 show that respondent Manlosa, upon discovering that the Bantay Dagat Office in Pasil was closed, attempted to cull information regarding the presence and whereabouts of the members of the task force summoned to court to testify. Nonetheless, as pointed earlier, respondent should not have, at first instance, recognized and immediately accepted as gospel truth such raw information; Manlosa should have confirmed the information by further proceeding to Talisay where supposedly the Bantay Dagat Office was located and where the prosecution witnesses were reportedly present and available, for the purpose of serving the subpoena ad testificandum. To us, this is the prudent course of action to take.

Second, with respect to the charge against respondent Mongaya, the same must necessarily fail considering that her explanation is sufficient and satisfactory so as to exonerate her from administrative liability. By and large, complainants assail respondent Mongaya’s acts of signing and issuing, allegedly without authority, the subpoena ad testificandum dated 25 June 1998, and deliberately withholding from herein complainants the fact that the aforesaid subpoena was issued requiring the prosecution witnesses to testify on the scheduled dates of hearing

On this particular score, the records bear that respondent Mongaya, as Court Interpreter, signed and issued the aforementioned subpoena for and on behalf of the Branch Clerk of Court Miguela Dinglasa. While it is admitted that respondent Mongaya has not shown any written authority to issue subpoena and other court processes, the records nevertheless reveal that respondent signed and issued the aforesaid subpoena for and on behalf 23 of the Branch Clerk of Court who, at that time, was on "indefinite leave" due to illness. 24 Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and considering the peculiar facts attendant to the instant case, we are inclined to believe that Branch Clerk of Court Dinglasa gave respondent Mongaya "prior verbal instruction" 25 to "sign judicial processes" in the former’s "incapacity or absence", for the purpose of facilitating and expediting court proceedings.

In the same vein, we find convincing respondent Mongaya’s explanation belying, in effect, allegations that she concealed from complainants the fact that a subpoena was issued requiring the prosecution witnesses to appear before the court. Interestingly, herein complainants failed to establish by convincing proof such bare allegation that respondent indeed was guilty of concealment and/or misrepresentation as to the fact of issuance of the subpoena dated 25 June 1998.

On the contrary, respondent Mongaya adduced evidence 26 to the effect that at the time of the alleged act of "concealment," she was in fact present at the MTCC-Cebu City, Branch 2, assisting in cases then scheduled for hearing and trial. Of equal importance is that court records are public records which may be assessed by the citizens, particularly the litigants and parties in a given case, subject to such limitations provided by law.

On the whole, we underscore the paramount importance of sowing seeds of professionalism and responsibility in all ranks and levels of government service. Proceeding from this noble objective, civil servants should then take it upon themselves to inject new blood in the performance of their sworn duties and persistently endeavor to draw the portals of government closer to the people.

Rightly so, for the judiciary offers no haven to the timorous and affords no respite to the lethargic.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent Nelson C . Manlosa guilty of simple neglect of duty and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without pay. Respondent Manlosa is further sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

As to respondent Helen B. Mongaya, the charge against her is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

2. Section 3(e). Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with grant of licenses, or permits or other concessions."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. Order of Dismissal dated 15 July 1998, signed by Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento; Rollo, pp. 33-34.

4. Annex "A", Rollo, p. 15.

5. Annex "A-1" ; Rollo, p. 15.

6. Rollo, p. 5.

7. Rollo, p. 9.

8. Rollo, pp. 37-40.

9. Rollo, p. 26.

10. Annex "F", Rollo, p. 35.

11. Rollo, p. 43.

12. Section 46, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 provides, "Discipline: General Provisions —

(a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.

(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Dishonest;

2) Oppression;

3) Neglect of duty; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

13. Section 52 (B) (1), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides, "Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service. . . .

x       x       x


B. The following we less grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Simple neglect of duty

1st Offense — Suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six months

2nd Offense — Dismissal

x       x       x."cralaw virtua1aw library

14. Section 52 (B) (1), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Uniform Rules published in the Manila Standard on 11 September 1999).

15. Rollo, p. 40.

16. 267 SCRA 523 [1997].

17. Ibid.

18. TC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption v. Dumlao, 247 SCRA 117 [1995].

19. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Br. 82, Odiongan, Romblon, 292 SCRA 1 [1998].

20. Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 655 [1994] citing Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400 [1989].

21. Quibal v. Sandiganbayan, 244 SCRA 224 [1995].

22. Rollo, pp. 39-40.

23. Rollo, p. 6.

24. Rollo, p. 8.

25. Rollo, p. 25.

26. Annex "F" ; Rollo, p. 35.




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






February-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108228 February 1, 2001 - MANUEL DEL CAMPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117971 February 1, 2001 - ESTRELLITA S. J. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124639 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. 125483 February 1, 2001 - LUDO AND LUYM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128448 February 1, 2001 - ALEJANDRO MIRASOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128636 February 1, 2001 - ZACARIAS BATINGAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129977 February 1, 2001 - JOSELITO VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137647 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 137751 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO LAUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117857 February 2, 2001 - LUIS S. WONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129401 February 2, 2001 - FELIPE SEVILLE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132529 February 2, 2001 - SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 145415 February 2, 2001 - UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112550 February 5, 2001 - DICK L. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122664 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE BAYOD

  • G.R. No. 134402 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO BAYANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141634 February 5, 2001 - REMEDIOS R SANDEJAS, ET AL. v. ALEX A. LINA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1174 February 6, 2001 - SANLAKAS NG BARANGAY JULO v. TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO

  • A. M. No. P-99-1336 February 6, 2001 - ELEONOR T. F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. MA. DINA A. BERNARDO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1347 February 6, 2001 - PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN, ET AL. v. INOCENTES M. MONTEROLA II

  • A.M. No. P-00-1437 February 6, 2001 - JULIAN B. SAN JUAN, SR. v. ARIEL S. SANGALANG

  • G.R. No. 108618 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PABILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113627 February 6, 2001 - CORAZON C. SHIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126026 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO LOYOLA

  • G.R. No. 137619 February 6, 2001 - REYNALDO L. LAUREANO v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140486 February 6, 2001 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. JESUS S. YUJUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141855 February 6, 2001 - ZACARIAS COMETA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 144491 February 6, 2001 - JAIME T. TORRES v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146528, 146549, 146579 & 146631 February 6, 2001 - JAIME N. SORIANO, ET AL. v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 133823 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL VELEZ RAYOS

  • G.R. No. 135200 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 136096 February 7, 2001 - NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY

  • G.R. No. 136154 February 7, 2001 - DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136894-96 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO CORDERO

  • G.R. No. 141853 February 7, 2001 - TERESITA V. IDOLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 134368 February 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO RONDILLA

  • G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. 110003 February 9, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117434 February 9, 2001 - BENGUET EXPLORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132696-97 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 133922 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOLITO OPTANA

  • G.R. No. 141968 February 12, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK v. FRANCIS S. GUECO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128089 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 134756 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 140065 February 13, 2001 - BENITO CALIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117952-53 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 136257 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR YBAÑEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341 February 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568 February 15, 2001 - ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ET AL. v. PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 117033 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL AVECILLA

  • G.R. No. 130522 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON

  • G.R. No. 133132 February 15, 2001 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135066 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLITO TUMANON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136394 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON NAAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137185-86 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MACAYA

  • G.R. No. 139884 February 15, 2001 - OCTAVIO LORBES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140420 February 15, 2001 - SERGIO AMONOY v. JOSE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1399 February 19, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. EFREN V. CACHERO

  • A.M. No. P-00-1436 February 19, 2001 - ELPIDIO P. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. HELEN B. MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112978-81 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO T. MENDI

  • G.R. No. 115079 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ALBIOR

  • G.R. No. 118982 February 19, 2001 - LORETA BRAVO CERVANTES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118986-89 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI DICHOSON

  • G.R. No. 119118 February 19, 2001 - RUFINO VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119361 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORAZON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127111 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO BLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 128851-56 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSSEL MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 132550 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MARIÑO

  • G.R. Nos. 133586-603 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY QUEIGAN

  • G.R. No. 133917 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NASARIO MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133919-20 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS AWING

  • G.R. No. 134727 February 19, 2001 - CESAR BARRERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138343 February 19, 2001 - GILDA C. LIM v. PATRICIA LIM-YU

  • G.R. No. 139834 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 140615 February 19, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141244 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. SALIPADA MUSTAPA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1323 February 20, 2001 - DAVID DE GUZMAN v. PAULO M. GATLABAYAN

  • G.R. No. 118334 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CONSEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132482-83 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO TIO

  • G.R. No. 133026 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD ENDINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141093 February 20, 2001 - PRUDENTIAL BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. CLARITA T. REYES

  • G.R. No. 143377 February 20, 2001 - SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124297 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAYAO

  • G.R. No. 126117 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON ZUNIEGA

  • G.R. No. 127957 February 21, 2001 - COLLIN A. MORRIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130597 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER BOLIVAR

  • G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135964-71 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MANALO

  • G.R. No. 136253 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD

  • A.M. No. 10019-Ret. February 22, 2001 - RE: MS. MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI

  • G.R. No. 117734 February 22, 2001 - VICENTE G. DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124704 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CUADRO

  • G.R. No. 128629 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMELO LENANTUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129238 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGALADO B. BURLAT

  • G.R. No. 131851 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BASADRE

  • G.R. Nos. 138859-60 February 22, 2001 - ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-00-1426 February 23, 2001 - JOSE P. SOBERANO, JR. v. ADELIA P. NEBRES

  • G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115678 & 119723 February 23, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126933 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILUMINADA DELMO VALLE

  • G.R. No. 132322 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. 138017 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO NATIVIDAD

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1255 February 26, 2001 - MELVIN L. ESPINO, ET AL. v. ISMAEL L. SALUBRE

  • G.R. No. 129933 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 130196 February 26, 2001 - LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ADJUTO ABILLE

  • G.R. No. 134529 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO SABALAN

  • G.R. No. 136967 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO VISAYA

  • G.R. No. 137046 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CAPITLE

  • G.R. No. 141536 February 26, 2001 - GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT v. RON ZABARTE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250 February 28, 2001 - RIMEO S. GUSTILO v. RICARDO S. REAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1312 February 28, 2001 - GERARDO UBANDO-PARAS v. OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. P-99-1302 February 28, 2001 - PLACIDO B. VALLARTA v. YOLANDA LOPEZ Vda. de BATOON

  • G.R. Nos. 109491 & 121794 February 28, 2001 - ATRIUM MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122858 February 28, 2001 - BIEN D. SEVALLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123891 February 28, 2001 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127227 February 28, 2001 - PAZ S. LIM v. VICTORIA K CHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128117 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CAWAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128538 February 28, 2001 - SCC CHEMICALS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129184 February 28, 2001 - EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 131136 February 28, 2001 - CONRADO L. DE RAMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133695 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAURICIO

  • G.R. No. 134373 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTANITO GANO

  • G.R. Nos. 135231-33 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLESIE VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 137480 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 137566 February 28, 2001 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137946 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFORMADOR VIDAL

  • G.R. No. 138042 February 28, 2001 - MAMERTO R. PALON, ET AL. v. GIL S. NINO BRILLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138146-91 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDY HINTO

  • G.R. No. 138805 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 140937 February 28, 2001 - EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 142029 February 28, 2001 - ERLINDA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. RICARDO FERRER JR, ET AL.