Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > June 2009 Decisions > G.R. No. 184915 - Nilo T. Pates v. Commission on Elections and Emelita B. Almirante:

G.R. No. 184915 - Nilo T. Pates v. Commission on Elections and Emelita B. Almirante



[G.R. NO. 184915 : June 30, 2009]




Our Resolution of November 11, 2008 dismissed the petition in caption pursuant to Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 3. Time to file petition.' The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

taking into account the following material antecedents:

A. February 1, 2008 - The COMELEC First Division issued its Resolution (assailed in the petition);

b. February 4, 2008 - The counsel for petitioner Nilo T. Pates (Petitioner) received a copy of the February 1, 2008 Resolution;

c. February 8, 2008 - The petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration (MR) of the February 1, 2008 Resolution (4 days from receipt of the February 1, 2008 Resolution)

d. September 18, 2008 - The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution denying the petitioner's MR (also assailed in the petition).

e. September 22, 2008 - The petitioner received the COMELEC en banc Resolution of September 18, 2008

Under this chronology, the last day for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari, i.e., 30 days from notice of the final COMELEC Resolution, fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as the petitioner only had the remaining period of 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4 days in preparing and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. Effectively, the last day for filing was October 20, 2008 - the following Monday or the first working day after October 18, 2008. The petitioner filed his petition with us on October 22, 2008 or two days late; hence, our Resolution of dismissal of November 11, 2008.

The Motion for Reconsideration

The petitioner asks us in his "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Reiteration for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order" to reverse the dismissal of his petition, arguing that the petition was seasonably filed under the fresh period rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases decided beginning the year 2005. The "fresh period" refers to the original period provided under the Rules of Court counted from notice of the ruling on the motion for reconsideration by the tribunal below, without deducting the period for the preparation and filing of the motion for reconsideration.

He claims that, historically, the fresh period rule was the prevailing rule in filing petitions for certiorari. This Court, he continues, changed this rule when it promulgated the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Circular No. 39-98, which both provided for the filing of petitions within the remainder of the original period, the "remainder" being the original period less the days used up in preparing and filing a motion for reconsideration. He then points out that on September 1, 2000 or only three years after, this Court promulgated A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC bringing back the fresh period rule. According to the petitioner, the reason for the change, which we supposedly articulated in Narzoles v. National Labor Relations Commission,1 was the tremendous confusion generated by Circular No. 39-98.

The fresh period rule, the petitioner further asserts, was subsequently applied by this Court in the following cases:

(1) Neypes v. Court of Appeals2 which thenceforth applied the fresh

eriod rule to ordinary appeals of decisions of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals;

(2) Spouses de los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat3 reiterating Neypes;

(3) Active Realty and Development Corporation v. Fernandez4 which, following Neypes, applied the fresh period rule to ordinary appeals from the decisions of the Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court; andcralawlibrary

(4) Romero v. Court of Appeals5 which emphasized that A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC is a curative statute that may be applied retroactively.

A reading of the ruling in these cases, the petitioner argues, shows that this Court has consistently held that the order or resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or new trial is considered as the final order finally disposing of the case, and the date of its receipt by a party is the correct reckoning point for counting the period for appellate review.

The Respondent's Comment

We asked the respondents to comment on the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), citing Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and its related cases, asked via a "Manifestation and Motion" that it be excused from filing a separate comment. We granted the OSG's manifestation and motion.

For her part, respondent Emelita B. Almirante (respondent Almirante) filed a comment stating that: (1) we are absolutely correct in concluding that the petition was filed out of time; and (2) the petitioner's reliance on Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC) is totally misplaced, as Rule 64, not Rule 65, is the vehicle for review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC. Respondent Almirante points out that Rule 64 and Rule 65 are different; Rule 65 provides for a 60-day period for filing petitions for certiorari, while Rule 64 provides for 30 days.


We do not find the motion for reconsideration meritorious.

A. As a Matter of Law

Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a Petition for Certiorari, subject to the exception clause - "except as hereinafter provided."6

Even a superficial reading of the motion for reconsideration shows that the petitioner has not challenged our conclusion that his petition was filed outside the period required by Section 3, Rule 64; he merely insists that the fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should likewise apply to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under Rule 64.

Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule. They exist as separate rules for substantive reasons as discussed below. Procedurally, the most patent difference between the two - i.e., the exception that Section 2, Rule 64 refers to - is Section 3 which provides for a special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).

Thus, as a matter of law, our ruling of November 11, 2008 to dismiss the petition for late filing cannot but be correct. This ruling is not without its precedent; we have previously ordered a similar dismissal in the earlier case of Domingo v. Commission on Elections.7 The Court, too, has countless times in the past stressed that the Rules of Court must be followed. Thus, we had this to say in Fortich v. Corona:8

Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed in the Constitution which guarantees that "all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies," the adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. There have been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

As emphasized above, exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons may have existed in the past when we either suspended the operation of the Rules or exempted a particular case from their application.9 But, these instances were the exceptions rather than the rule, and we invariably took this course of action only upon a meritorious plea for the liberal construction of the Rules of Court based on attendant exceptional circumstances. These uncommon exceptions allowed us to maintain the stability of our rulings, while allowing for the unusual cases when the dictates of justice demand a correspondingly different treatment.

Under this unique nature of the exceptions, a party asking for the suspension of the Rules of Court comes to us with the heavy burden of proving that he deserves to be accorded exceptional treatment. Every plea for a liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberal construction.10

Significantly, the petitioner presented no exceptional circumstance or any compelling reason to warrant the non-application of Section 3, Rule 64 to his petition. He failed to explain why his filing was late. Other than his appeal to history, uniformity, and convenience, he did not explain why we should adopt and apply the fresh period rule to an election case.

To us, the petitioner's omissions are fatal, as his motion does not provide us any reason specific to his case why we should act as he advocates.

B. As a Matter of Policy

In harking back to the history of the fresh period rule, what the petitioner apparently wants - for reasons of uniformity and convenience - is the simultaneous amendment of Section 3, Rule 64 and the application of his proposed new rule to his case. To state the obvious, any amendment of this provision is an exercise in the power of this Court to promulgate rules on practice and procedure as provided by Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. Our rulemaking, as every lawyer should know, is different from our adjudicatory function. Rulemaking is an act of legislation, directly assigned to us by the Constitution, that requires the formulation of policies rather than the determination of the legal rights and obligations of litigants before us. As a rule, rulemaking requires that we consult with our own constituencies, not necessarily with the parties directly affected in their individual cases, in order to ensure that the rule and the policy that it enunciates are the most reasonable that we can promulgate under the circumstances, taking into account the interests of everyone - not the least of which are the constitutional parameters and guidelines for our actions. We point these out as our adjudicatory powers should not be confused with our rulemaking prerogative.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

We acknowledge that the avoidance of confusion through the use of uniform standards is not without its merits. We are not unmindful, too, that no less than the Constitution requires that "motions for reconsideration of [division] decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc."11 Thus, the ruling of the Commission en banc on reconsideration is effectively a new ruling rendered separately and independently from that made by a division.

Counterbalanced against these reasons, however, are other considerations no less weighty, the most significant of which is the importance the Constitution and this Court, in obedience to the Constitution, accord to elections and the prompt determination of their results.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution expressly requires that the COMELEC's rules of procedure should expedite the disposition of election cases. This Court labors under the same command, as our proceedings are in fact the constitutional extension of cases that start with the COMELEC.

Based on these considerations, we do not find convenience and uniformity to be reasons sufficiently compelling to modify the required period for the filing of petitions for certiorari under Rule 64. While the petitioner is correct in his historical data about the Court's treatment of the periods for the filing of the different modes of review, he misses out on the reason why the period under Section 3, Rule 64 has been retained. The reason, as made clear above, is constitutionally-based and is no less than the importance our Constitution accords to the prompt determination of election results. This reason far outweighs convenience and uniformity. We significantly note that the present petition itself, through its plea for the grant of a restraining order, recognizes the need for haste in deciding election cases.

C. Our Liberal Approach

Largely for the same reason and as discussed below, we are not inclined to suspend the rules to come to the rescue of a litigant whose counsel has blundered by reading the wrong applicable provision. The Rules of Court are with us for the prompt and orderly administration of justice; litigants cannot, after resorting to a wrong remedy, simply cry for the liberal construction of these rules.12 Our ruling in Lapid v. Laurea13 succinctly emphasized this point when we said:

Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and, thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. [Emphasis supplied.]

We add that even for this Court, liberality does not signify an unbridled exercise of discretion. It has its limits; to serve its purpose and to preserve its true worth, it must be exercised only in the most appropriate cases.14

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Our Resolution of November 11, 2008 is hereby declared FINAL. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.



* On leave.

1 G.R. No. 141959, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 533.

2 G.R. No. 141524, September 15, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.

3 G.R. No. 149508, October 10, 2007, 535 SCRA 411.

4 G.R. No. 157186, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 116.

5 G.R. No. 142803, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 643.

6 RULES OF COURT, Rules 64, Section 2.

7 G.R. No. 136587, August 30, 1999, 313 SCRA 311

8 G.R. No. 131457, November 17, 1998, 298 SCRA 679, 690-691

9 See: Ponciano v. Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R. No. 1745636, October 29, 2008 and Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 424

10 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146559, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 478, 483.

11 CONSTITUTION, Article IX-C, Section 3.

12 Aguila v. Baldovizo, G.R. No. 163186, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA 91.

13 G.R. No. 139607, October 28, 2002, 391 SCRA 277.

14 See: Lozano, et al. v. Nograles, G.R. NOS. 187883 and 187910, June 16, 2009, that, from another perspective, also speaks of the limits of liberality.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

June-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5688 - Felipe E. Abella v. Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra

  • A.C. No. 6674 - Robert Bernhard Buehs v. Atty. Inocencio T. Bacatan

  • A.C. No. 7036 - Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum v. Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana

  • A.C. No. 8010 - KeldStemmerik, represented by Attys. Herminio. Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1588 Formerly No. 04-9-511-RTC - Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan v. Presiding Judge Nicasio Bartolome, et al.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659, A.M. NO. P-06-2254 and A.M. NO. MTJ-09-1730 - Anna Jane D. Lihaylihay, etc. v. Judge Alejandro Canda etc. / Judge Alejandro Canda, etc., v. Anna Jane D. Lihaylihay

  • A.M. No. P-04-1830 Formerly A.M. No. 04-6-151-MCTC - Office of the Court Administrator v. Sylvia Canque etc.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2400 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2589-P - Judge Isidra A. Arganosa-Maniego v. Rogelio T. Salinas etc.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2434 - Lyn L. Llamasares, etc. v. Mario M. Pablico, etc.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2450 Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-27-CA-P - Aurora B. Go v. Margarito A. Costela, Jr., etc.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2579 - Odaline B. Narag v. Maritess R. Manio, Court Interpreter III, RTC of Tuguegarao City, Branc 4

  • A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2255-RTJ - Valeriano F. Nu es v. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, etc.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-06-1991 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Tibing A. Asaali

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2588-RTJ, A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2064 : June 26, 2009 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2608-RTJ and A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2066 : June 26, 2009 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2628-RTJ - Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Ramon S

  • G.R. No. 147097 - Carmelo Lazatin, et al. v. Hon. Aniano A. Disierto, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147925-26 - Elpidio S. Uy, etc. v. Public Estates Authority and the Honorable Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 149273 - Beinvenido C. Gilles v. Court of Appeals, Schema Konsult and Edgardo Abores

  • G.R. No. 150677 - Renato Reyes So v. Lorna Valera

  • G.R. No. 152889 - Enrique V. Viudez v. Hon Basilio R. Gabo, Jr. etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 152928 - Metropilitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, Felipe A. Patag and Bienvenido C. Flora

  • G.R. No. 154717 - Bonifacio M. Mejillano v. Enrique Lucillo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155502 - Sarabia Optical and Vivian Sarabia-Orn v. Jeanet B. Camacho

  • G.R. No. 155504 - Professional Video, Inc. v. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority

  • G.R. No. 156009 - Rommel C. Briones v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 157384 - Erlinda I. Bildner and Maximo K. Illusorio v. Erlinda K. Illusorio, Ramon K. Illusorio, Marrietta K. Illusorio, Sheree K. Illusorio, Cecilia A. Bisu a, and Atty. Manuel R. Singson

  • G.R. No. 154211-12, G.R. NO. 158252, G.R. NO. 166200, G.R. NO. 168272, G.R. NO. 170683 and G.R. NO. 173392 - Spouses Ernesto F. Curata, et al. v. Philippine Ports Authority, Philippine Ports Authority v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al., Philippine Ports A

  • G.R. No. 157714 - Municipality of Pateros Vs.The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158093 - Alberto Imperial v. Hon. Court of Appeals and the Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 158703 - Technological Institute of the Philippines Teachers and Employees Organization and its member Magdalena T. Salon v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158820-21 - Stronghold Insurance, Company, Inc. v. Tokyu Construction Company, Ltd.

  • G.R. No. 158877 - Joven De Grano, etc., v. Gregorio Lacaba

  • G.R. No. 159186 - Jesse Y Yap v. Hon. Monico G. Cabales, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159517-18 - Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan v. People of the Philippines, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, adn Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation

  • G.R. No. 159755 - Grace Gosiengfiao Guillen, etc. v. The Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160080 - National Power Corporation v. Carlos Villamor

  • G.R. No. 161027 - Francisco G. Calma v. Arsenio Santos, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161034 - Zenaida Acosta, et al. v. Trinidad Salazar, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161366 - Sycip, Gorres, Velayo, & Company v. Carol De Raedt

  • G.R. No. 161407 - Joaquin Villegas, et al. v. Rural Bank of Tanay, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 161533 - Filomena Soneja v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Ramon Saura, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 161794 - Nestor J. Balladares, etal., v. Peak VenturesCorporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162103 - Marylou B. Tolentino, M.D. v. Shenton Realty Corp.

  • G.R. No. 162286 - Glen Pascual Y Malumbay, et al. v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 162374 - Rodolfo B. Arce o v. Government Serivec Insurance System

  • G.R. No. 162538 - Nissan North Edsa Balintawak, Quezon City v. Angelito Serrano, Jr. and Edwin Tagulao

  • G.R. No. 163244 - Spouses Jose T. Valenzuela & Gloria Valenzuela v. Kalayaan Development and Industrial Corporation

  • G.R. No. 163868 - Romualdo Pagsibigan v. People of the Philippines and Eleazar Cabasal

  • G.R. No. 163924 - ''J'' Marketing Corporation, represented by its Branch Manager Elmundo Dador

  • G.R. No. 164423 - Triumph International (PHILS.), Inc., v. Ramon L. Apostol, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164584 - Philip Mattews v. Benjamin A. Taylor and Joselyn C. Taylor

  • G.R. No. 164631 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rene Ralla Belista

  • G.R. No. 164648 - Eric L. Lee v. Hon. Henry J. Trocino, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165407 - Herminigildo Inguillom, et al. v. First Philippine Scales, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 165411 - Wilma Tabaniag v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165424 - Lester Benjamin S. Halili v. Chona M. Santos-Halili and the Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165742 - Tri-Corp Land & Development, Inc. represented by Solita S. Jimenez-Paulino v. Court of Appeals and Greystone Corporation

  • G.R. No. 165756 - Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., etc. v. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant, etc.

  • G.R. No. 165781 - Raul S. Tello v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165895 - Terlyngrace Rivera v. Florencio L. Vargas

  • G.R. No. 166036 - Nena A. Cari o v. Estrella M. Espinosa, represented by her atty-in-fact Manuel P. Mejia, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 166393 - Cristina F. Reillo, et al. v. Galicano E. San Jose etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 166498 - Hon. Secretary of Finance, et al. v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166518 - National Housing Authority v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelorido, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167017 - Serafin Cheng v. Spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini

  • G.R. No. 167420 - Allied Banking Corporation v. Ruperto Jose H. Mateo, represented by Warlito Mateo, as Attorney-in-fact

  • G.R. No. 167710 - People of the Philippines v. joven De Grano, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168039 - Office of the Ombudsman v. Fernando J. Beltran

  • G.R. No. 168184 - Republic of the Philippines v. Ruby Lee Tsai

  • G.R. No. 168215 - LBC Express Metro Manila, Inc. and Lorenzo A. Ni o v. James Mateo

  • G.R. No. 168332 and G.R. NO. 169053 - Teodoro O. Arcenas, Jr., et al. v. Hon. Sixto Marella, Jr., Presiding Judge Branch 138, RTC, Makati City and Ana Maria Koruga

  • G.R. No. 168660 - Hilarion, Jr. and Enrico Orendain, represented by Fe Orendain v. Trusteeship of the Estate of Do a Margarita Rodriquez

  • G.R. No. 168693 - The People of the Philippines v. Jessie Mariano y Isla

  • G.R. No. 168848 and G.R. NO. 169019 - Heirs of the late Jose Luzuriaga, etc., v. Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor General/Heirs of the late Jose Luzuriaga, etc., v. Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor G

  • G.R. No. 168859 and G.R. NO. 168897 - United Coconut Planters Bank, et al. v. E. Ganzon, Inc./E. Ganzon, Inc. v. united Coconut Planters Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168863 - Hi-Yield Realty, Incorporated v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 169173 - M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. and Rolf Wiltschek v. Trinidad M. Enriquez

  • G.R. No. 169276 - Dionosia Monis Lagunilla, et al., v. Andrea Monis Velasco, et al.

  • G.R. No. 169589 - Joaquin Soliman, et al., v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), Inc., and Gerry Rodriguez

  • G.R. No. 170126 - Philippines Veterans Bank v. Solid Homes, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 170182 - Leonardo Tarona, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170222 - Edgar Esqueda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 170312 - Philippine Basketball Association v. Honorable Manuel B. Gaite, in his capacity as Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170447 - Bienvenido Di o, et al. v. Pablo Olivarez

  • G.R. No. 170782 - Siain Enterprises, Inc. v. Cupertino Realty Corp. and Edwin R. Catacutan

  • G.R. No. 171137 - Philippine Commericial International Bank v. Sps. Wilson Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy and Sps Primo Chuyaco, Jr. and Chuyaco

  • G.R. No. 171188 - People of the Philippines v. Jessie B. Castillo and Felicito R. Mejia

  • G.R. No. 171453 - People of the Philippines v. Manuel Delpino

  • G.R. No. 171535 - Mactan-Ceby International Airport Authority v. Sps. Edito and Merian Tirol and Sps. Alejandro and Mirando Ngo

  • G.R. No. 171762 - Lynn Maagad and Director of Lands v. Juanito Maagad

  • G.R. No. 171763 - Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc., v. Samantha Marie T. Almendras and Pia Angela T. Almendras

  • G.R. No. 172045 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. First Express Pawnshop Company, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 172198 - Ma. Lourdes C. De Castro v. Crispino De Castro, Jr., Office of the City Prosecutor for Manila, and the Office of the Solicitor General

  • G.R. No. 172367 - Felicidad Dadizon, et al. v. Socorro Bernadas, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172400 - Zosimo Octavio and Jesus Albona (substituted by his wife, Violeta Albona) v. Enrico R. Perovano

  • G.R. No. 172547 - Precy Bunyi and Mila Bunyi v. Fe S. Factor

  • G.R. No. 172785-86 - Cruzvale, Inc. v. Jose Armando L. Eduque, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172925 - Government Service Insurance System v. Jaime K. Ibarra

  • G.R. No. 172931 - Republic of the Philippines v. RTC Br. 18, Roxas City, Capiz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174141 - Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174286 - Traders Royal Bank v. Cuison Lumber Co., Inc., Josefa Jerodias Vda. Cuison

  • G.R. No. 174316 - Teodoro S. Miranda, Jr. v. Asian Terminals, Inc. and Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 174862 - People of the Philippines v. Yvonne Sevilla y Caballero

  • G.R. No. 175375 - Conrado O. Lasquite and Teodora I. Andrade v. Victory Hills, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 175788 - Enriquita Angat and the Legal Heirs of Federico Angat v. Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 176015 - Mercedita T. Guasch v. Arnaldo Dela Cruz

  • G.R. No. 176135 - Carlos Irwin G. Baldo v. Commission on Elections. et al.

  • G.R. No. 176157 Formerly G.R. No. 155937 - People of the Philippines v. Elpidio Impas y Polbera

  • G.R. No. 176380 - Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs

  • G.R. No. 176530 - Sps. Constante Agbulos and Zanaida Padilla Agbulos v. Nicasio Gutierrez, Josefa Gutierrez and Elena G. Garcia

  • G.R. No. 176744 - People of the Philippines v. Adelado Anguac y Ragadao

  • G.R. No. 177011 - Joseph Peter Sison, et al. v. Rogelio Tablang


  • G.R. No. 177164 - People of the Philippines v. Ramon Frodonzo y Dalida

  • G.R. No. 177179 - V C. Cadangen, et al. v. The Commission on Elections

  • G.R. No. 177404 and G.R. NO. 178097 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation Company Incorporated / Kumassie Plantation Company Incorporated v. Land Bank of the Philippines and the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform

  • G.R. No. 177549 - Anthony S. Yu, et al., v. Joseph S. Yukayguan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177795 - Leah M. Nazareno, et al. v. City of Dumaguete, represented by City Mayor Agustin Percides, et al.

  • G.R. No. 178337 - Carment R. Ritualo v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 178461 - California Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. The City of Las Pi as, et al.

  • G.R. No. 178520 - AMA Computer College-East Rizal, et al. v. Allan Raymond R. Ignacio

  • G.R. No. 178624 - Jose Concepcion, Jr. v. Commission on Elections

  • G.R. No. 179090 - Leonilo Sanchez Alias Nilo v. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 179452 - Civil Service Commission, Anicia De Lima, in her capacity as Regional Director of CSC-NCR v. Larry M. Alfonso

  • G.R. No. 179700 - People of the Philippines v. Gwyn Quinicot y Curativo

  • G.R. No. 179943 - People of the Philippines v. Marlon Albert De Leon y Homo

  • G.R. No. 180048 - Roseller De Guzman v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180067 - Republic of the Philippines v. Iglesia ni Cristo, Trustee and Applicant, with its Executive Minister Era o Manalo as Corporate Sole

  • G.R. No. 180197 - Francisco N. Villanueva v. Virgilio P. Balaquer, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180755 - Pedriatica, Inc. v. Joselito T. Rafaeles

  • G.R. No. 180817 - Multi-Trans Agency Phils., Inc. v. Oriental Assurance Corporation

  • G.R. No. 180941 - Chairman Percival C. Chavez, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor v. Lourdes R. Ronidel and Honorable Court of Appeals 9th Division

  • G.R. No. 181084 - People of the Philippines v. Bartolome Tampus and Ida Monresclaros

  • G.R. No. 181132 - Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag, etc. v. Eva Verna De Guzman Maramag, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181675 - Spouses Eduardo Tnakiang and Mayda Tankiang v. Metropolitan and Trust Company, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 181688 - Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Alberto J. Raza

  • G.R. No. 183211 - Philippine National Bank v. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 183753 - Archinet International, Inc., et al. v. Becco Philippines, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 184081 - Global Holiday Ownership Corporation v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

  • G.R. No. 184704 - People of the Philippines v. Leodegario Bascuguin y Agquiz

  • G.R. No. 184756 - People of the Philippines v. Joven Jumawid

  • G.R. No. 184804 - People of the Philippines v. Rashamia Hernandez y Santos and Grace Katipunan y Cruz

  • G.R. No. 184861 - Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Cleofe S. Janiola and Hon. Arthur A. Famini

  • G.R. No. 184915 - Nilo T. Pates v. Commission on Elections and Emelita B. Almirante

  • G.R. No. 185140 - Jerry B. Aguilar v. The Commission on Elections and Romulo R. Insoy

  • G.R. No. 185164 - People of the Philippines v. Frederick Richie Teodoro y Dela Cruz

  • G.R. No. 185284 - People of the Philippines v. Jason Sy

  • G.R. No. 185380 - People of the Philippines v. Rogelio Marcos

  • G.R. No. 185724 - People of the Philippines v. Jessie Malate y Canete

  • G.R. No. 185860 - Antonio and Rodolfo Duran v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 187883 and G.R. NO. 187910 - Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano v. Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, Representative, Majority, House of Representatives - Louis "Barok" C. Biraogo v. Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, Representa