Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > August 2002 Decisions > A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323 August 22, 2002 - Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323. August 22, 2002.]

Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.), Complainant, v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, Cataingan, Masbate, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


Ignorance of the law excuses no one — certainly not a judge — from compliance therewith. This is particularly true in cases where the law is so elementary that to be unaware of it or to ignore it constitutes gross ignorance, which is administratively sanctionable.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Statement of the Case

A sworn Administrative Complaint 1 filed by Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr. (ret) charges Judge Celso A. Arcueno of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, with gross ignorance of the law.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Facts


The facts are summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Memorandum 2 dated September 25, 2001, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Complainant, who is the counsel for the accused [Benito Bucado 3 ] . . ., narrates that a complaint for Illegal Fishing was filed in respondent’s court for preliminary investigation and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC. Finding a prima facie case against all the accused, respondent issued a warrant of arrest fixing the bail bond at P50,000 for each of them. Benito Bucado, one of the accused, posted a property bond. Respondent, however, in violation of Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, allegedly refused to accept the bail bond upon the contention that he no longer ha[d] jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as the records were already forwarded to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review.

"When required to comment, respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno, denied the charges. He narrates that the aforementioned criminal case was filed in his court for preliminary investigation. Finding the existence of probable cause, he issued a warrant of arrest with the recommended bail of P50,000.00 for each of the accused. Upon the arrest of the accused, he issued an Order dated September 15, 1998 requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. However, the accused failed to submit their counter-affidavits. They also failed to post bail for their temporary liberty.

"After the lapse of the ten (10) day period as provided in Section 3 (f) of Rule 112, Rules of [C]ourt, respondent, finding the existence of probable cause against the accused, issued a resolution dated 13 October 1998 forwarding the entire records of the case to the RTC, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate thru the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, for review. On 15 October 1998, the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor received the records of the subject criminal case. On 4 November 1998, while the case was being reviewed by the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, complainant presented the bail bond of the accused Benito y Ferrer for respondent’s approval.

"Respondent claims that he initially refused to approve the property bond because he believed that he had already lost jurisdiction over the case. Also, the tax declaration of the property being put up as a bond was not attached to the bail bond form to show proof of ownership thereof by the bondsman. However, on 20 November 1998, he approved said bail bond and consequently ordered the release of accused Bucado.

"On 18 September 2000, the Third Division of this Court resolved to DOCKET the complaint as an administrative matter and to require the parties to MANIFEST to the Court within twenty (20) days from notice, whether they [were] submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.

"In compliance with the aforementioned resolution, respondent Judge filed a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss dated 30 October 2000. On 17 January 2001, the Court resolved to NOTE the respondent’s Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss and to consider as WAIVED the filing of Manifestation by complainant for his failure to submit the same within the period specified under the Resolution of 18 September 2000." 4

In his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, 5 respondent justified his refusal to approve the bail bond. His reason for his refusal was that, in notarizing the bail bond document, complainant grossly violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In so doing, he arrogated unto himself the power and authority pertaining to a judge. Respondent reiterated his previous Manifestation, dated July 12, 2000, praying for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the parties had mutually and amicably settled the case. He submitted, as proof of the settlement, the joint Motion to Dismiss signed by both parties.

The Court Administrator’s Recommendation

After a perusal of the records of the case, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, in his Report dated September 25, 2001, explained that the refusal of respondent judge to approve the bail bond posted by the accused showed the latter’s ignorance of the rules of procedure. Thus, the former submitted the following recommendations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED for lack of merit; and

"2. Respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be ordered to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or [a] similar act shall be dealt with more severely." 6

This Court’s Ruling


We agree with the OCA’s findings and recommendation, but with some modifications as to the penalty.

Administrative Liability

Complainant asserts that respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing to approve the bail bond of the accused in violation of Section 17 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Complainant also claims that this lapse unduly deprived the accused of the constitutional right to bail. 7

On the other hand, in his Comment 8 dated June 1, 1999, respondent explains that he refused to approve the bail bond, because he had lost jurisdiction over the case after forwarding for review the records thereof to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. He asserts that "once jurisdiction is lost, no further action can be entertained in connection therewith." 9 He adds that the tax declaration for the property put up as a bond was not attached to the bail bond form to show proof of the bondsman’s ownership or title. 10

However, in his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, 11 dated October 30, 2000, respondent judge proffered a different justification for his refusal to approve the bail bond. He theorized that complainant, as counsel for the accused Benito Bucado in Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC and as notary public, had grossly and seriously violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended. Complainant supposedly violated this provision by arrogating unto himself the power and authority that pertained to a judge.

We are not persuaded. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, the argument of respondent judge in his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss is clearly an afterthought; and, hence, deserves no credence.

To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. 12 Hence, they are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith. 13 They are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, 14 and discharge their duties in accordance therewith. 15

Further, judges should 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 are judges under the sanction of law. 16 It must be emphasized that this Court has formulated and promulgated rules of procedure to ensure the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Wanton failure to abide by these rules undermines the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect for the rule of law. 17

Before we can decide whether respondent judge erred in refusing to grant bail, we deem it necessary to determine first whether he had jurisdiction to grant it under the circumstances of this case. 18 Bail is defined as the "security given for the release of a person in custody of the law." 19 Section 17, paragraph (c) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 17. Bail, where filed. — (c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city or municipality where he is held."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case at bar, Benito Bucado was arrested in the Municipality of Cataingan after a preliminary investigation conducted by respondent judge. The latter therefore had the authority to grant bail and to order the release of the accused. 20 Even if the records of the case had been transmitted for review to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, respondent could have approved the bail bond posted by the accused. Such action cannot be validly attacked on jurisdictional grounds. 21

Considering that one of his responsibilities as a judge was to conduct preliminary investigations, it was therefore his duty to keep abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence on this matter. Because he had apparently lagged behind, 22 he fell short of his vow to live up to the injunction of the Code of Judicial Conduct to "maintain professional competence." 23

When the law is so elementary, as in this case, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance thereof. 24 Indeed, everyone is presumed to know the law. 25 Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one — certainly not a judge. 26

On July 7, 2000, a Joint Motion to Dismiss 27 was executed by complainant and Respondent. It should be remembered that a complaint for misconduct and similar charges against a judicial or other public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at any time. A simple expediency such as a complainant’s sudden claim of change of mind 28 followed by a withdrawal of the complaint would not result in the automatic dismissal of the case. 29

Further, the faith and confidence of the people in their government and its agencies and instrumentalities need to be maintained. The people should not be made to depend upon the whims and caprices of complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein. 30 To rule otherwise would subvert the fair and prompt administration of justice as well as undermine the discipline of court personnel. 31

In any case, it bears noting that the administrative liability for ignorance of the law does not necessarily arise from the mere fact that a judge issued an order that is adjudged to be erroneous. 32 Judges may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order; it is only when they act fraudulently or with gross ignorance that administrative sanctions are called for. 33

To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, the judge must be shown to have committed an error that was "gross or patent, deliberate or malicious." 34 Also administratively liable therefor is a judge who — shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption — ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence. 35

It must be pointed out that this is not the first infraction of Judge Arcueno. Previously, in Gimeno v. Arcueno Sr., 36 he was charged with and found guilty of ignorance of the law when, without any hearing, he granted bail to the accused who had been charged with a capital offense in a criminal case for robbery with homicide. 37 Respondent was consequently fined in the amount of P5,000 and warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future would be severely dealt with.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Indeed, it seems that respondent judge has remained undeterred in disregarding the law which he has pledged to uphold and the Code which he has promised to live by. 38 He appears to be unfazed by the previous penalty and warnings he received. 39 Because this is his second infraction, it warrants a heavier penalty. 40

WHEREFORE, Judge Celso A. Arcueno is hereby found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is FINED in the amount of fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000), payable within five days from notice. He is further warned that a repetition of this or similar offenses will be dealt with even more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Puno and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 2.

2. The Memorandum was signed by Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.

3. Also spelled "Bocado" in the records of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cataingan-Pio v. Corpus, Fifth Judicial Region of Cataingan, Masbate.

4. Rollo, pp. 43-44.

5. Id., pp. 29-30.

6. Id., p. 46.

7. Complaint, p. 1; ibid.

8. Comment, p. 1; id., p. 9.

9. Id., p. 2; id., p. 10.

10. Ibid.

11. Rollo, pp. 29-30.

12. Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.

13. Cortes v. Catral, 279, SCRA 1, September 10, 1997.

14. Carpio v. De Guzman, 262 SCRA 615, October 2, 1996.

15. Borromeo v. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322, January 3, 1921, per Malcolm, J.

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

17. Hilario v. Ocampo, A.M. MTJ-00-1305, December 3, 2001.

18. Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, January 16, 1997.

19. � 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

20. Cruz v. Yaneza, 304 SCRA 285, March 9, 1999.

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

22. Espiritu v. Jovellanos, 280 SCRA 579, October 16, 1997.

23. Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct; Aurillo Jr. v. Francisco, 235 SCRA 283, August 12, 1994.

24. Agcaoili v. Ramos, 229 SCRA 705, February 7, 1994; citing Santos v. Isidro, 200 SCRA 597, August 16, 1991.

25. Cortes v. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, August 20, 1998.

26. Ualat v. Ramos, 265 SCRA 345, December 6, 1996.

27. Rollo, p. 23.

28. Jacob v. Tambo, A.M. P-00-1411, November 16, 2001.

29. Malinao v. Legaspi, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475, December 12, 2001.

30. Malinao v. Legaspi, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475, December 12, 2001; Mosquera v. Legaspi, 335 SCRA 325, July 10, 2000; Florendo v. Enrile, 239 SCRA 22, December 7, 1994.

31. Caseñares v. Almeida Jr., 324 SCRA 388, February 2, 2000.

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

33. Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Joboco, RTC, Br. 16, Naval, 294 SCRA 119, August 12, 1998.

34. Zarate v. Balderian, 329 SCRA 558, April 3, 2000, citing In RE: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405, February 21, 1995.

35. Rallos v. Gako Jr., 344 SCRA 178, October 24, 2000.

36. 250 SCRA 376, November 29, 1995.

37. Gimeno v. Arcuenco Sr., 250 SCRA 376, November 29, 1995.

38. Marcos-Manotoc v. Agcaoili, 330 SCRA 268, April 12, 2000.

39. Ibid.

40. Cortes v. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, August 20, 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






August-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-5 August 1, 2002 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. REYNALDO B. STA. ANA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1575 August 1, 2002 - ARMANDO R. CANILLAS v. CORAZON V. PELAYO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-744 August 1, 2002 - LEOPOLDO E. SAN BUENAVENTURA v. JUDGE ANGEL S. MALAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128759 August 1, 2002 - RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO and LORENZA ROÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133790 August 1, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO CAÑAVERAL

  • G.R. No. 136109 August 1, 2002 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL DULAWON

  • G.R. No. 136844 August 1, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 RODOLFO CONCEPCION y PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 137264 August 1, 2002 - EULOGIO O. YUTINGCO and WONG BEE KUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138756 August 1, 2002 - PHIL. AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORP. v. RAFAEL M. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 139776 August 1, 2002 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. JUDGE LORE R. VALENCIA-BAGALACSA

  • G.R. No. 140058 August 1, 2002 - MABAYO FARMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140316 August 1, 2002 - JEFFREY DAYRIT v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

  • G.R. No. 141089 August 1, 2002 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP. and APOLINARIO AJOC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143200-01 August 1, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICHARD R. DEAUNA

  • G.R. Nos. 145449-50 August 1, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CELSO MORFI

  • G.R. Nos. 137037-38 August 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO ROMERO

  • Adm. Case No. 5094 August 6, 2002 - NOEMI ARANDIA v. ERMANDO MAGALONG

  • G.R. Nos. 116905-908 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. 128781 August 6, 2002 - TERESITA N. DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131589-90 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR CESISTA

  • G.R. No. 131807 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE B. CANICULA

  • G.R. No. 132915 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUNNY GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136158 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO F. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 138664 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO SERADO

  • G.R. No. 141463 August 6, 2002 - VICTOR ORQUIOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141910 August 6, 2002 - FGU INSURANCE CORP. v. G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142760 August 6, 2002 - BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 142985 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO B. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. 143071 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MAGNABE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 143397 August 6, 2002 - SANTIAGO ALCANTARA v. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PENINSULA MANILA

  • G.R. No. 143474 August 6, 2002 - PACIFICO FAELDONEA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144340-42 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO R. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 144505 August 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 146211 August 6, 2002 - MANUEL NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 146651 August 6, 2002 - RONALDO P. ABILLA, ET AL. v. CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146897-917 August 6, 2002 - DATUKAN M. GUIANI, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1890 August 7, 2002 - FEDERICO C. SUNTAY v. ATTY. RAFAEL G. SUNTAY

  • A.M. No. 02-5-111-MCTC August 7, 2002 - RE: MR. WENCESLAO P. TINOY

  • G.R. Nos. 132393-94 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DUMANLANG

  • G.R. No. 134278 August 7, 2002 - RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135054 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GANNABAN

  • G.R. No. 137024 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELOY MICLAT, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139235 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATHANIEL SURIO

  • G.R. Nos. 140642-46 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REYES

  • G.R. No. 141699 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON D. LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142900 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTITUTO GUARDIAN

  • G.R. No. 145303-04 August 7, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO T. OCAMPO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1509 August 8, 2002 - ASUNCION S. LIGUID v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 109568 & 113454 August 8, 2002 - ROLANDO SIGRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117018-19 August 8, 2002 - BENJAMIN D. YNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133176 August 8, 2002 - PILIPINAS BANK v. ALFREDO T. ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133267 August 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 135806 August 8, 2002 - TOYOTA MOTORS PHIL. CORP. LABOR UNION v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. CORP. EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. 140871 August 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTY SILVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142566 August 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. 143514 August 8, 2002 - ANDREW B. GONZALES v. LILIOSA R. GAYTA

  • G.R. No. 148267 August 8, 2002 - ARMANDO C. CARPIO v. SULU RESOURCES DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 149473 August 9, 2002 - TERESITA PACAÑA CONEJOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111397 August 12, 2002 - ALFREDO LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125027 August 12, 2002 - ANITA MANGILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135239-40 August 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ATADERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139610 August 12, 2002 - AUREA R. MONTEVERDE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 146636 August 12, 2002 - PABLO A. AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128576 August 13, 2002 - MARIANO A. VELEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DEMETRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134141 August 13, 2002 - LEODY MANUEL v. JOSE and DAISY ESCALANTE

  • A.M. No. P-02-1628 August 14, 2002 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. DELILAH GONZALES-MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 128593 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA MANALAD

  • G.R. Nos. 130659 & 144002 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ROQUE

  • G.R. No. 131815 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO LANSANG

  • G.R. No. 132481 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SALVADOR

  • G.R. No. 135975 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ABADIES

  • G.R. No. 141614 August 14, 2002 - TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO AND TRINIDAD MALVAR

  • G.R. No. 143644 August 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBIROSA T. PASTRANA

  • G.R. No. 133297 August 15, 2002 - MIRAFLOR M. SAN PEDRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135308 August 15, 2002 - BENEDICT URETA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140204 August 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAQUIM MEJARES

  • G.R. No. 148943 August 15, 2002 - AGNES GAPACAN, ET AL. v. MARIA GAPACAN OMIPET

  • G.R. No. 151228 August 15, 2002 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. LEOVIGILDO LAGRAMA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702 August 20, 2002 - ARSENIO R. SANTOS, ET AL. v. JUDGE MANUELA F. LORENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106880 August 20, 2002 - PEDRO ACLON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 129017 August 20, 2002 - CONCEPCION V. VDA. DE DAFFON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136423 August 20, 2002 - SPS. EFREN and ZOSIMA RIGOR v. CONSOLIDATED ORIX LEASING and FINANCE CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142981 August 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARMELITA ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 145503 August 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIE BALLESTEROL

  • G.R. No. 145719 August 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL HAROVILLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693 August 21, 2002 - OSCAR M. POSO v. JUDGE JOSE H. MIJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146684 August 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL SAJOLGA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323 August 22, 2002 - Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-01-1648 August 22, 2002 - BASA AIR BASE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSO. v. JUDGE GREGORIO G. PIMENTEL, JR.

  • G.R. No. 101115 August 22, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127086 August 22, 2002 - ARC-MEN FOOD INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129035 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANNABELLE FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 130965 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RESTITUTO CABACAN

  • G.R. No. 131812 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL YLANAN

  • G.R. No. 131874 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUDY MATORE

  • G.R. No. 132374 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUCIO ALBERTO

  • G.R. No. 134372 August 22, 2002 - MANUEL CAMACHO v. ATTY. JOVITO A. CORESIS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135877 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO O. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 136449 August 22, 2002 - CARMELITA S. MENDIGORIN v. MARIA CABANTOG

  • G.R. Nos. 146297-304 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 146687 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONNIE R. RABANAL

  • G.R. No. 146790 August 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVITO SITAO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1345 August 26, 2002 - ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA v. JUDGE PRUDENCIO A. YULDE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1718 August 26, 2002 - MIGUELA BONTUYAN v. JUDGE GAUDIOSO D. VILLARIN

  • G.R. No. 139695 August 26, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUILLERMO FERRER

  • G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002 - AVELINO CASUPANAN, ET AL. v. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454 August 27, 2002 - ARIEL Y. PANGANIBAN v. JUDGE MA. VICTORIA N. CUPIN-TESORERO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1630 August 27, 2002 - EFREN V. PEREZ v. ELADIA T. CUNTING

  • G.R. No. 136974 August 27, 2002 - SALVADOR K. MOLL v. HON. MAMERTO M. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 123340 August 29, 2002 - LUTGARDA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 134468 August 29, 2002 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134534 August 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 RAFAEL TRAPANE

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 29, 2002 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 139251 August 29, 2002 - MA. ERLY P. ERASMO v. HOME INSURANCE & GUARANTY CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 140067-71 August 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS MALAPIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 142779-95 August 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO SORIANO

  • G.R. Nos. 146357 & 148170 August 29, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MATIAS LAGRAMADA

  • G.R. No. 149839 August 29, 2002 - DRA. NEREA RAMIREZ-JONGCO, ET AL. v. ISMAEL A. VELOSO III