ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 138238 September 2, 2003 - EDUARDO BALITAOSAN v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

  • A.M. No. 02-10-614-RTC September 3, 2003 - RE: EDITORIAL OF THE NEGROS CHRONICLE AND OTHER CHARGES OF A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST JUDGE ROGELIO CARAMPATAN

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136274 September 3, 2003 - SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 128296 September 8, 2003 - NASIPIT LUMBER CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 September 12, 2003 - MARIA CRISTINA OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA v. ALBERTO L. LERMA

  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI

  • G.R. No. 136729 September 23, 2003 - ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 153885 & 156214 September 24, 2003 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148332 September 30, 2003 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORP.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480   September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480. September 10, 2003.]

    TRINIDAD CABAHUG, Complainant, v. JUDGE JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY, Municipal Trial Court, Consolacion, Cebu, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


    This is another occasion to reiterate our injunction that every judge should dispose of his court’s business promptly. Delay in resolving pending motions or incidents is inexcusable and impermissible.chanrob1es virtua1 law library

    In her affidavit-complaint dated June 3, 2002 filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Trinidad Cabahug charged respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay, pairing judge at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Consolacion, Metro Cebu, with undue delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration dated September 18, 2001 in Civil Case No. 217, entitled "Cirilo Cabahug, plaintiff, versus Remegio Cabahug, defendant," for recovery of possession of real property and damages.

    Complainant alleged that her husband Cirilo Cabahug (now deceased) obtained a favorable judgment in said civil case. On appeal, both the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTC Decision. The Decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory on February 17, 2000. 1

    On November 3, 2000, upon plaintiff’s motion, the MTC issued a writ of execution. The sheriff then ejected defendant Remegio Cabahug from the property.

    Complainant further averred that, despite the full implementation of the MTC judgment, Rosalinda Cabahug, defendant’s wife, caused the survey of the property and again encroached thereon.

    Thus, on July 24, 2001, complainant, who substituted her deceased husband as plaintiff, filed with the MTC a "Motion To Cite Defendant-Wife (Rosalinda) In Contempt Of Court." 2 The MTC denied the motion in an Order dated August 24, 2001.

    On September 19, 2001, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration 3 which was opposed by the defendant on November 22, 2001.

    Complainant claimed that from the time she filed her motion for reconsideration on September 19, 2001, it has remained unresolved.

    In his comment 4 dated August 9, 2002, respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay alleged that sometime in December 2001, complainant approached him about her unresolved motion. He advised her to see the Clerk of Court of the MTC, Consolacion, Cebu to inquire when her motion could be heard. The Clerk of Court gave her a list of tentative dates of hearing and told her to ask her counsel when he would be available to avoid unnecessary postponements. The Clerk of Court waited for her but she did not return. Instead, on April 22, 2002, her counsel filed a "Motion To Withdraw Appearance." She then requested the Clerk of Court for the deferment of the hearing of her motion as she will look for a new counsel. Thus, it was only on June 19, 2002 that respondent judge issued an Order setting the hearing of the motion on July 12, 2002 at 8:30 AM. On July 1, 2002, complainant, by herself and on her behalf, filed a "Motion For Inhibition." During the scheduled hearing of her motion for reconsideration on July 12, 2002, she failed to appear. Consequently, her motion for reconsideration and motion for inhibition were denied.

    On November 29, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. submitted his Report and Recommendation 5 finding respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed on him. The pertinent portions of the Report read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Respondent Judge failed to resolve the subject motion (for reconsideration of the Order denying complainant’s motion for contempt) within the 90-day reglementary period. Records reveal that the subject motion was filed on July 24, 2001. 6 The same was deemed submitted for resolution on November 22, 2001 when defendant filed his Comment/Opposition thereto. However, it was only after the lapse of 231 days 7 that respondent Judge issued an Order denying the motion.

    "His explanation that the delay was attributable to the complainant because she failed to choose a date for the hearing of the subject motion will not exculpate him from administrative liability. In the first place, there was no more need to set the motion for reconsideration for hearing because the motion could be acted upon by the respondent judge without prejudging the rights of the defendant as the latter has already filed an opposition thereto. Moreover, the Order dated 19 June 2002 (Annex ‘3’) of respondent judge failed to state clearly what motion filed by the plaintiff was being set for hearing. If the said order refers to the motion for reconsideration, then it can be inferred that it was merely issued to cover-up for respondent’s delay in resolving the subject motion. Lastly, if respondent judge had already resolved the motion, then he should have attached a copy of the same to his Comment to substantiate his claim."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In our Resolution dated January 20, 2003, we required the parties to manifest whether they are submitting the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted. Respondent judge was likewise required to furnish us with a copy of his Order dated July 12, 2002 denying complainant’s motion for reconsideration. In compliance, he filed on March 14, 2003 his "Manifestation" that he is submitting the case for resolution, attaching therewith a copy of his July 12, 2002 Order.

    We agree with the findings of the Court Administrator that respondent judge committed gross inefficiency. It is undisputed that he failed to resolve complainant’s motion within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from the time it was submitted for resolution on November 22, 2001 upon the filing of defendant Remegio Cabahug’s opposition thereto. It was only on July 12, 2002, or after an undue delay of 231 days, that respondent judge resolved the motion by denying it. His Order partly reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "The Motion for Reconsideration is hereby Ordered denied there being no new matters/issues not aptly taken up by the Court in its Order denying the Motion to Cite Defendant-Wife in Contempt of Court dated August 24, 2001, as well as the Motion for Inhibition which is deemed treated as a mere scrap of paper (for failure to indicate therein the date of hearing of the motion).

    "SO ORDERED." (Emphasis supplied)

    Clearly, respondent judge could have immediately resolved the motion even without an opposition thereto since there are no new matters/issues raised by complainant. There was, therefore, no need for him to conduct a hearing. Verily, his reasons why he failed to resolve the motion promptly are utterly bereft of merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal v. Judge Marino S. Buban, 8 we held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. 9 Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. 10 Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. 11 As a trial judge, respondent is a frontline official of the judiciary and should at all times act with efficiency and with probity. 12

    We, however, cannot agree with the Court Administrator’s recommendation that respondent "be ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)" only. Under Section 9, Rule 140, 13 as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense. Pursuant to Section 11(b) of the same Rule, such offense is punishable by:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

    "2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

    WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion and is FINED in the amount of Eleven Thousand (P11,000.00) Pesos and warned that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Panganiban, Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

    Puno, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Annex "E", Affidavit-Complaint, Rollo at 29.

    2. Annex "G", id. at 43.

    3. Annex "H", Rollo at 45.

    4. Id. at 53.

    5. Rollo at 60–63.

    6. Erroneously stated in the Report as September 26, 2001.

    7. Erroneously stated in the Report as 209 days.

    8. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1471, January 22, 2003.

    9. Echaves v. Fernandez, A.M. No. RTJ-001596, February 19, 2002; Gallego v. Doronila, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1278, June 26, 2000, 334 SCRA 339, 346; Seña v. Villarin, A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ, March 22, 2000, 328 SCRA 644, 648; Hilario v. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454, March 2, 2000, 327 SCRA 96, 104; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29, 53 & 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC, October 7, 1999, 316 SCRA 272, 280.

    10. Rivera v. Lamorena, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1391, October 16, 1997, 280 SCRA 633, 635; Guintu v. Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-794, August 23, 1996, 261 SCRA 1, 7.

    11. Martin v. Guerrero, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1499, October 22, 1999, 317 SCRA 166, 175.

    12. Ng v. Ulibari, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1158, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 342, 348.

    13. See A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.

    A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480   September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED