Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > July 2002 Decisions > A.M. No. P-02-1614 July 31, 2002 - ROMEO CORTEZ v. DANTE C. SORIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-02-1614. July 31, 2002.]

(A.M. No. OCA-IPI-99-640-P)

ROMEO CORTEZ, Complainant, v. DANTE C. SORIA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Alaminos, Pangasinan, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:


In a Complaint-Affidavit dated February 10, 1999, complainant Romeo Cortez charged respondent Dante Soria, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan, with Conduct Unbecoming of a Government Employee. It appears that respondent acted as witness in a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage whereby Gloria Dela Cruz mortgaged her parcel of land to complainant and his wife. Subsequently, respondent also acted as attorney-in-fact of complainant and his wife. 1chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Respondent was later appointed as attorney-in-fact of Fructuosa S. Pedro and, in such capacity, he bought the mortgaged property for and in behalf of Fructuosa S. Pedro. Thereafter, respondent, still acting for and in behalf of Fructuosa S. Pedro, filed a complaint for legal redemption and consignation against complainant. It was further alleged that respondent led a group of men who entered the property subject of the mortgage and cut the trees therein. 2

In an Affidavit dated June 22, 2000, respondent denied that he was appointed as agent of complainant and his wife but admitted that he was appointed by Fructuosa S. Pedro as her attorney-in-fact for purposes of filing and prosecuting an action for legal redemption against complainant and his spouse before the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan, Branch 55. Complainant filed a motion to dismiss the said case but the same was denied. After complainant failed to answer the complaint, respondent moved that complainant be declared in default, which motion was granted by the trial court. 3

Respondent argued that there was no conflict of interest on his part as he was only performing his duties as an attorney-in-fact. According to him, if it were true that he cut trees on the property, the same would constitute a crime for which complainant should have first filed a complaint before the Barangay Lupon, then to the police authorities of the locality. He alleged that the complaint was intended to harass him because complainant could no longer defend himself in the civil action, having been declared in default. Furthermore, the complaint was filed to frustrate respondent’s application to travel abroad.cralaw : red

The records show that the complaint filed by complainant against respondent before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, docketed as Ombudsman Case No. OMB-1-99-0413, for Violation of R.A. No. 3019, was dismissed on June 28, 1999. 4 Complainant’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 23, 1999. 5

Pursuant to the Court’s Resolution dated January 17, 2001, 6 complainant and respondent manifested their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. 7

Respondent compulsorily retired on March 31, 1999, but his clearance has not yet been acted upon on account of the pendency of the instant administrative case against him.

It should be stressed that cessation from office of a respondent because of death 8 or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor renders said administrative case moot and academic. 9 In other words, the jurisdiction that was this Court’s at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. 10 The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. 11 As pointed out by the Court in Gallo v. Cordero:12

This jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications . . . If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.

Since the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness. 13 Thus, as an officer of the court who is required to conduct himself with propriety and decorum, a sheriff must be circumspect and proper in his behavior. 14 Above all else, he must be beyond suspicion. 15

Certainly, respondent’s acceptance of his designation as attorney-in-fact to file an action in the same branch where he is employed, against a party to whom he had been an attesting witness in an earlier transaction involving the very property subject of the action, cannot but raise the suspicion that the assignment was accepted for less than noble motives. Indeed, there is the distinct possibility that respondent will intercede or intervene in his official capacity as sheriff in the said case.

Had respondent been imbued with that requisite degree of propriety demanded of all those involved in the administration and dispensation of justice, he would have in good grace declined the assignment at the outset. That would have forestalled the suspicion that he was impelled by dubious considerations to accept the position. His claim that there was no conflict of interest in his acceptance of the assignment is but a tenuous excuse to the prohibition against engaging directly in private business imposed on all officials and employees of the judiciary. 16

Furthermore, while judicial officials and employees are not prohibited from engaging in gainful activities other than their judicial functions, the permission to do so is circumscribed by the unmistakable command that they should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties. 17 Needless to state, such conflict is greatly magnified in this case when respondent accepted an appointment as attorney-in-fact for the singular purpose of prosecuting a complaint in the court where he is employed.

In fact, Fructuosa S. Pedro’s choice of respondent to act as her attorney-in-fact creates the disturbing thought that the latter’s services were purposely sought to help her in the proceedings filed before the trial court. The impropriety of respondent’s involvement in the controversy cannot be gainsaid, for Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states in no uncertain terms that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. 18

Indeed, the act of respondent in accepting the position of attorney-in-fact for Fructuosa S. Pedro, "for a period of ten (10) years from execution or until revoked by another instrument," 19 can be properly called "moonlighting." 20 As the Court pointed out in Hipolito v. Mergas. 21

While "moonlighting" is not normally considered as a serious misconduct, nonetheless, by the very nature of the position held by respondent, it obviously amounts to a malfeasance in office. In sum, he is bound, virtute officii, to bring to the discharge of his duties that prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their own affairs.

Indeed, respondent failed to observe that degree of dedication to the duties and responsibilities required of him as a Sheriff when he engaged in such irrelevant activities. 22

As had been stated earlier, the administration of justice is a sacred task and it demands the highest degree of efficiency, dedication and professionalism. 23 In this regard, the Court finds it necessary to reiterate that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. 24 They should always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.25cralaw:red

The conduct required of court personnel must be beyond reproach and must always be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary. 26 It is therefore incumbent upon every member of the judiciary family to work hand in hand in restoring and upholding, rather than destroying the integrity of the courts to which they belong. 27

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends that respondent be fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). We find the recommendation reasonable.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent Dante C. Soria, Sheriff IV is hereby ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for Conduct Unbecoming of a Government Employee, to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits may be due him.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Kapunan and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 1-2.

2. Ibid., pp. 3-7.

3. Id., pp. 15-17.

4. Id., pp. 18-20.

5. Id., pp. 21-23.

6. Id., p. 26.

7. Id., pp. 27, 29-30.

8. Mañozca v. Domagas, 248 SCRA 625 [1995]; Apiag v. Cantero, 268 SCRA 47 [1997].

9. Sy Bang v. Mendez, 287 SCRA 84, 92 [1998]; Tuliao v. Ramos, 284 SCRA 378, 388 [1998]; Secretary of Justice v. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301 [1977].

10. Flores v. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568, 569 [1977].

11. Lilia v. Fanuñal, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503, 13 December 2001; Cabarloc v. Cabusora, 348 SCRA 217, 226 [2000]; Cadauan v. Alivia, 344 SCRA 174 [2000].

12. 245 SCRA 219 [1995].

13. Anonymous v. Geverola, 279 SCRA 279 [1997].

14. Elipe v. Fabre, 241 SCRA 249, 253 [1995].

15. Bilag-Rivera v. Flora, 245 SCRA 603, 612 [1995]; OCA v. Fuentes, 247 SCRA 506, 516 [1995].

16. Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr., 232 SCRA 707, 712 [1994]; see Rules 5.02, 5.03, 5.06 (1) and 5.07, Code of Judicial Conduct.

17. Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct; see also Rule 5.07 of the same Code.

18. See also Miranda v. Mangrobang, Sr., A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665, 29 November 2001; Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel, 258 SCRA 503 [1996].

19. Annex B, Complaint; Rollo, p. 3.

20. Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr., supra.

21. 195 SCRA 6, 10 [1991].

22. Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr., supra.

23. Contreras v. Mirando, 280 SCRA 608, 610 [1997].

24. Llamado v. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597 [1997].

25. Ventura v. Concepcion, 346 SCRA 14, 18 [2000].

26. Abanil v. Ramos, Jr., 346 SCRA 20, 24 [2000].

27. Contreras v. Mirando, supra, p. 611.




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






July-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 145368 July 1, 2002 - SALVADOR H. LAUREL v. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • Adm Case No. 5645 July 2, 2002 - ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA. DE ROSALES v. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-00-1581 July 2, 2002 - GOVERNOR MAHID M. MUTILAN v. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1434 July 2, 2002 - TIERRA FIRMA ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JUDGE EDISON F. QUINTIN

  • G.R. No. 125383 July 2, 2002 - FORTUNATA N. DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132663 July 2, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGULBI PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 134855 July 2, 2002 - CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, ET AL. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136171 July 2, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. KER AND COMPANY LIMITED

  • G.R. No. 141009 July 2, 2002 - BATAAN SEEDLING ASSOCIATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 143709 July 2, 2002 - CEFERINO P. BUHAIN v. COURT OF APPEALS and SWIFT FOOD, INC.

  • G.R. No. 146587 July 2, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF LUIS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 146845 July 2, 2002 - SPS. MICHAELANGELO and GRACE MESINA v. HUMBERTO D. MEER

  • A.C. No. 2841 July 3, 2002 - RE: ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA

  • G.R. No. 129291 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRICO A. VALLEDOR

  • G.R. No. 131482 July 3, 2002 - REGALADO P. SAMARTINO v. LEONOR B. RAON

  • G.R. No. 135027 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTEMIO SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 136911 July 3, 2002 - SPS. LEON CASIMIRO and PILAR PASCUAL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 138203 July 3, 2002 - LILIA J. VICOY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 138726-27 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO BARROZO y CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 142774 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTOR JULIAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 144933 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. 145460 July 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELIPE PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 149380 July 3, 2002 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL II v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

  • G.R. No. 150469 July 3, 2002 - JUN RASCAL CAWASA v. COMELEC and ABDULMALIK M. MANAMPARAN

  • A.C. No. 3548 July 4, 2002 - JOSE A. RIVERA v. ATTY. NAPOLEON CORRAL

  • G.R. No. 125895 July 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141716 July 4, 2002 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. HEIRS OF SABINIANO INGUITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144942 July 4, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY

  • G.R. Nos. 137661-63 July 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO PONSICA

  • G.R. No. 139370 July 4, 2002 - RENE KNECHT AND KNECHT, INC. v. UNITED CIGARETTE CORP.

  • G.R. No. 139790 July 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE ASALDO

  • G.R. No. 140384 July 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONEL MANIO

  • G.R. No. 141135 July 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMANO ANTIPOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144712 July 4, 2002 - SPOUSES SILVESTRE and CELIA PASCUAL v. RODRIGO V. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 141149 July 5, 2002 - SEBASTIAN GARCIA v. JUANITO A. PAJARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144581 July 5, 2002 - SPOUSES ELANIO C. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS and EMMA A. GARAMAY ONG

  • G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVT. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 134775 July 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO OLICIA

  • G.R. No. 142873 July 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SALVADOR

  • G.R. No. 152295 July 9, 2002 - ANTONIETTE V.C. MONTESCLAROS, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-99-1343 July 10, 2002 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. SHERIFF IV ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1490 July 11, 2002 - CONCERNED CITIZEN v. VIVEN M. TORIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1649 July 11, 2002 - RENE U. GOLANGCO v. JUDGE CANDIDO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 124916 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE ALMANZOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126731 & 128623 July 11, 2002 - ESTEBAN YAU v. MANILA BANKING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 129889 July 11, 2002 - SPS. JESUS AND TERESITA FRILLES v. SPS. ROBERTO AND CLARA YAMBAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130528 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JETHRO NIERRAS

  • G.R. No. 135022 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 136591 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ORBITA

  • G.R. No. 138400 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO CAÑETE

  • G.R. No. 138401 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY LINING

  • G.R. Nos. 139346-50 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ABADIES

  • G.R. Nos. 141162-63 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141986 July 11, 2002 - NEPLUM, INC. v. EVELYN V. ORBESO

  • G.R. No. 142996 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 143136-37 July 11, 2002 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. ALFREDO B. LAO

  • G.R. No. 143215 July 11, 2002 - SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143574 July 11, 2002 - MANILA HOTEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143944 July 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASHER BONGCARAWAN

  • G.R. No. 143994 July 11, 2002 - LOS BAÑOS RURAL BANK v. PACITA O. AFRICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149240 July 11, 2002 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 149654 July 11, 2002 - MANUEL N. TORMES v. ALFREDO L. LLANES

  • G.R. Nos. 130517-21 July 16, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CANDIDO SOLOMON

  • G.R. No. 134230 July 17, 2002 - JOVENAL OUANO v. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111144 July 18, 2002 - EDITHA H. CANONIGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115838 July 18, 2002 - CONSTANTE AMOR DE CASTRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135542 July 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VIÑALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138395-99 July 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO RADAM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139333 July 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN VELARDE

  • G.R. No. 146308 July 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO PARAGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146309 July 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS

  • G.R. No. 150312 July 18, 2002 - BAGO P. PASANDALAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1603 July 23, 2002 - GEPTE M. PEREZ v. MARIA ISABEL D. HILARIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708 July 23, 2002 - CYNTHIA RESNGIT-MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. JUDGE VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 132726 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSEE "GEORGE" CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 134762 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135858-61 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO ABALA

  • G.R. No. 139447 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO APAREJADO

  • G.R. No. 140758 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO GERON

  • G.R. No. 141123 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NICOMEDES CANON

  • G.R. Nos. 141189-141202 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO D. PATANAYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 142901-02 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JIMMY MANLOD

  • G.R. Nos. 144344-68 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SEVERINO GONDAWAY DULAY

  • G.R. No. 146697 July 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.vs. LEONARDO FABRE

  • A.M. No. CA-01-31 July 25, 2002 - JOSELITO SALUNDAY, ET AL. v. EUGENIO S. LABITORIA

  • A.M. No. 02-2-09-SC July 25, 2002 - RE: BERNARDO S. DITAN

  • G.R. No. 127748 July 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOLITO ORANZA

  • G.R. Nos. 139341-45 July 25, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 138018 July 26, 2002 - RIDO MONTECILLO v. IGNACIA REYNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144047 July 26, 2002 - EULOGIO MORALES, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144494 July 26, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERDINAND CERCADO

  • A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC July 29, 2002 - IN RE: ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1524 July 29, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. VIRGILIO M. FORTALEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110524 July 29, 2002 - DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 146783 July 29, 2002 - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MAXIMINO GAMIDO v. NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 July 30, 2002 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1301 July 30, 2002 - CIRILO I. MERCADO v. JUDGE HECTOR F. DYSANGCO, ET AL.

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-00-1598 July 30, 2002 - WINNIE BAJET v. JUDGE VIVENCIO S. BACLIG

  • G.R. No. 127154 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLDAN A. OCHATE

  • G.R. No. 133228-31 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO L. TIZON, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135496 July 30, 2002 - LONGOS RURAL WATERWORKS & SANITATION ASSOC. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136831 July 30, 2002 - CAROLINA LIQUETE GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137586 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON TAMAYO

  • G.R. No. 140426 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ANDARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143618-41 July 30, 2002 - BENJAMIN "Kokoy" ROMUALDEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143765 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT M. DADIVO

  • G.R. No. 144429 July 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NORBERTO ORANI

  • G.R. No. 146891 July 30, 2002 - RUBEN T. LIMBO v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149692 July 30, 2002 - HEIRS OF SPS. DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUINTOS, SR.

  • G.R. No. 150660 July 30, 2002 - CALS POULTRY SUPPLY CORP., ET AL. v. ALFREDO ROCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-4-08-SC July 31, 2002 - RE: JUDGE GENIS B. BALBUENA

  • A.M. No. CA-02-14-P July 31, 2002 - LEONOR MARIANO v. SUSAN ROXAS

  • A.M. No. CA-02-33 July 31, 2002 - TAN TIAC CHIONG v. HON. RODRIGO V. COSICO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1441 July 31, 2002 - SPS. TERRY and MERLYN GERKEN v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. QUINTOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443 July 31, 2002 - JOSIE BERIN and MERLY ALORRO v. JUDGE FELIXBERTO P. BARTE

  • A.M. No. P-02-1611 July 31, 2002 - ARTHUR R. CAMAROTE v. PABLO R. GLORIOSO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1613 July 31, 2002 - JUDGE MANUEL R. ORTIGUERRA v. EUSTAQUIO P. GENOTA, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1614 July 31, 2002 - ROMEO CORTEZ v. DANTE C. SORIA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1312 July 31, 2002 - ERMELINDA ESCLEO v. MARITESS DORADO

  • G.R. Nos. 131867-68 July 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAUREANO SISTOSO

  • G.R. No. 140676 July 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME P. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 142874 July 31, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO ABAYON

  • G.R. No. 147870 July 31, 2002 - RAMIR R. PABLICO v. ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO

  • G.R. No. 151914 July 31, 2002 - TEODULO M. COQUILLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.