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
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1745 : August 27, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, FORMER JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 153952-71 : August 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIV.) AND HENRY BARRERA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159665 : August 03, 2010] ANSELMO TAGHOY AND THE LATE VICENTA T. APA, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY, MANUEL T. APA, NICASIO T. APA, DELFIN T. APA, ALMA A. JACALAN, ARLENE A. SUMALINOG, AIDA A. ARONG, ELENA A. COSEP, ALFREDO T. APA, ISABELO T. APA, JR., ISABELO T. APA III, SHERWIN T. APA, AND FLORITO T. APA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. FELIXBERTO TIGOL, JR. AND ROSITA TIGOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179743 : August 02, 2010] HADJA FATIMA GAGUIL MAGOYAG, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, HADJI HASAN MADLAWI MAGOYAG, PETITIONERS, VS. HADJI ABUBACAR MARUHOM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183140 : August 02, 2010] NORTH BULACAN CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184603 : August 02, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO LABAGALA Y ABIGONIA, ALVIN LABAGALA Y JUAT, AND RICHARD ALLAN ALEJO Y SIGASIG, ACCUSED, ROMEO LABAGALA Y ABIGONIA, ALVIN LABAGALA Y JUAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 150666 : August 03, 2010] LUCIANO BRIONES AND NELLY BRIONES, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE MACABAGDAL, FE D. MACABAGDAL AND VERGON REALTY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158929 : August 03, 2010] ROSARIO P. TAN, PETITIONER, VS. ARTEMIO G. RAMIREZ, MOISES G. RAMIREZ, RODRIGO G. RAMIREZ, DOMINGO G. RAMIREZ, AND MODESTA RAMIREZ ANDRADE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 154622 : August 03, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. RAMON P. JACINTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161083 : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO ZUƑO, STATE PROSECUTOR GERONIMO SY AND PROSECUTION ATTORNEY IRWIN MARAYA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BASILIO R. GABO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, BRANCH II AND WILSON CUA TING, EDWARD NGO YAO, WILLY SO TAN AND CAROL FERNAN ORTEGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162025 : August 03, 2010] TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY, PETITIONER, VS. ASIA BREWERY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165321 : August 03, 2010] RICARDO P. TORING, PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA M. TORING AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 16641 : August 03, 2010] ELPIDIO CALIPAY, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRIANGLE ACE CORPORATION AND JOSE LEE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168103 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155930-32] : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA Y TADEO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176354 : August 03, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILSON LOPEZ, VICTORINO CRUZ @ BONG MADAYAG AND FELIPE MAGLAYA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171033 : August 03, 2010] CITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY ASSESSOR, ALL OF QUEZON CITY, AND ALVIN EMERSON S. YU, PETITIONERS, VS. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170847 : August 03, 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. FELICITAS ZARATE, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY, MELANIE, JOCELYN, ANALIE AND HENRY JOSEPH, JR., ALL SURNAMED ZARATE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169569 : August 03, 2010] RAMON TORRES AND JESSIE BELARMINO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES VIHINZKY ALAMAG AND AIDA A. NGOJU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179333 : August 03, 2010] JOEPHIL C. BIEN, PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO B. BO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178778 : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. T/SGT. PORFERIO R. ANGUS, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179498 : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RUSTICO BARTOLINI Y AMPIS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181970 : August 03, 2010] BERNARDO DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY SUBSTITUTED BY THE CITY OF PARAƑAQUE, RAMON ARELLANO, JR., RICARDO PENA AND REYMUNDO ORPILLA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 182678] PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY (NOW PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY), SUBSTITUTED BY THE CITY OF PARAƑAQUE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SELMA PALACIO ALARAS, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 135, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, AND BERNARDO DE LEON. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182677 : August 03, 2010] JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, HON. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182364 : August 03, 2010] AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182789 : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NORLITO SAMBAHON Y NUEVA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187104 : August 03, 2010] SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1743 [Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 08-1954-MTJ] : August 03, 2010] JOSEPHINE SARMIENTO AND MARY JANE MANSANILLA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. AZNAR D. LINDAYAG, ASSISTING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 8481 [Formerly B.M. No. 1524] : August 03, 2010] ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO AND SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190696 : August 03, 2010] ROLITO CALANG AND PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188197 : August 03, 2010] LEONARDO U. FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAUL S. GONZALEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, AND EUGENE LIM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186529 : August 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183891 : August 03, 2010] ROMARICO J. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178609 : August 04, 2010] MANUEL P. NEY AND ROMULO P. NEY, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES CELSO P. QUIJANO AND MINA N. QUIJANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152092 : August 04, 2010] PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. RADIOMARINE NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-02-1625 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 02-6-144-MCTC) : August 04, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARINA GARCIA PACHECO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, PAETE, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2242 [FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 09-3149-RTJ] : August 06, 2010] ATTY. RAUL L. CORREA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151454 : August 08, 2010] HEIRS OF ANTONIO SANTOS AND LUISA ESGUERRA SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF CRISPULO BERAMO, AND/OR PACIFICO BERAMO, SR., NAMELY, PACIFICO BERAMO, JR., AND ROMEO BERAMO; HEIRS OF PETRA BERAMO, NAMELY, VIVENCIO BERAMO PENALOSA AND JOSE B. BASINANG; HEIRS OF RAMON BERAMO, NAMELY, BERNABE BERAMO; HEIRS OF AGAPITO BERAMO, NAMELY, JESSIE P. BERAMO AND SAMUEL BERAMO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173900 : August 08, 2010] GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, REPRESENTED BY LULU LABRADOR USON, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. ILDEFONSO PERLAS AND PACENCIA PERLAS AND SPS. ROGELIO POBRE AND MELINDA FOGATA POBRE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169170 : August 08, 2010] D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO GOBRES, MAGELLAN DALISAY, GODOFREDO PARAGSA, EMILIO ALETA AND GENEROSO MELO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165950 : August 08, 2010] EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. OJ-MARK TRADING, INC. AND SPOUSES OSCAR AND EVANGELINE MARTINEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170693 : August 08, 2010] EMILIA MICKING VDA. DE CORONEL AND BENJAMIN CORONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL TANJANGCO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171643 : August 08, 2010] FILEMON A. VERZANO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. FRANCIS VICTOR D. PARO, JANET A FLORENCIO, HON. REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR, AND HON. CITY PROSECUTOR OF BACOLOD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171630 : August 08, 2010] CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION, RICARDO T. PO, JR. AND AMANCIO C. RONQUILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE RANDY R. RAMIL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172276 : August 08, 2010] SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A., PETITIONER, VS. MARTIN T. DY, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172541 : August 08, 2010] JAY HIDALGO UY, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, ANTONIO J. UY, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO MEDINA AND NATIVIDAD MEDINA, ANTONIO MANAGUELOD AND SWIFT FOODS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172589 : August 08, 2010] JEFFREY NACAGUE, PETITIONER, VS. SULPICIO LINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175837 : August 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LEONITO AMATORIO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180836 : August 08, 2010] GILBERT URMA, TEOFILO URMA, DANTE URMA, AND JERRY URMA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ORLANDO BELTRAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC BRANCH 11, TUAO, CAGAYAN, LOLITA URMA, MELBA R. MAMUAD, MARCELA URMA CAINGAT, HIPOLITO MARTIN, EDMUND URMA, ALBINA URMA MAMUAD, CIANITA AGUSTIN FAUSTO MADAMBA, AND LAUREANO ANTONIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182937 : August 08, 2010] ERNESTO VILLEZA, PETITIONER, VS. GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES, INC., DOMINGO RENE JOSE, PIO DIOKNO, SESINANDO FAJARDO, BAYANI OLIPINO, ROLANDO ROMILO AND JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187741 : August 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PETER M. CAMPOMANES AND EDITH MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168672 : August 08, 2010] EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DNG REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185091 : August 08, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF LIPA CITY (FOR PANINSINGIN PRIMARY SCHOOL), PETITIONER, VS. PRIMO MENDOZA AND MARIA LUCERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163582 : August 09, 2010] WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. RAY BURTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160828 : August 09, 2010] PICOP RESOURCES, INCORPORATED (PRI), PETITIONER, VS. ANACLETO L. TAƑECA, GEREMIAS S. TATO, JAIME N. CAMPOS, MARTINIANO A. MAGAYON, JOSEPH B. BALGOA, MANUEL G. ABUCAY, MOISES M. ALBARAN, MARGARITO G. ALICANTE, JERRY ROMEO T. AVILA, LORENZO D. CANON, RAUL P. DUERO, DANILO Y. ILAN, MANUEL M. MATURAN, JR., LUISITO R. POPERA, CLEMENTINO C. QUIMAN, ROBERTO Q. SILOT, CHARLITO D. SINDAY, REMBERT B. SUZON ALLAN J. TRIMIDAL, AND NAMAPRI-SPFL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179029 : August 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180761 : August 09, 2010] ROMAN GARCES, PETITIONER, VS. SIMPLICIO HERNANDEZ, JR., CANDIDO HERNANDEZ, ROSITA HERNANDEZ, AND JEFFREY MANGUBAT,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165770 : August 09, 2010] HEIRS OF FRANCISCA MEDRANO, NAMELY YOLANDA R. MEDRANO, ALFONSO R. MEDRANO, JR., EDITA M. ALFARO, MARITES M. PALENTINOS, AND GIOVANNI MEDRANO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, MARITES MEDRANO-PALENTINOS, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTANISLAO DE VERA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175315 : August 09, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ELIZER BEDUYA AND RIC BEDUYA, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179859 : August 09, 2010] IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF BASILIO SANTIAGO, MA. PILAR SANTIAGO AND CLEMENTE SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. ZOILO S. SANTIAGO, FELICIDAD SANTIAGO-RIVERA, HEIRS OF RICARDO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF CIPRIANO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS SANTIAGO, RESPONDENTS. FILEMON SOCO, LEONILA SOCO, ANANIAS SOCO, URBANO SOCO, GERTRUDES SOCO AND HEIRS OF CONSOLACION SOCO, OPPOSITORS.

  • [G.R. No. 181244 : August 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANITA "KENNETH" TRINIDAD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183352 : August 09, 2010] HEIRS OF JOSE M. CERVANTES, NAMELY ROSALINA S. CERVANTES, TEODORO S. CERVANTES, LUSITIO S. CERVANTES AND JOSELITO S. CERVANTES, PETITIONERS, VS. JESUS G. MIRANDA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186533 : August 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EFREN CASTILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187288 : August 09, 2010] SPOUSES BRAULIO NAVARRO AND CESARIA SINDAO, PETITIONERS, VS. PERLA RICO GO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 159355 : August 09, 2010] GABRIEL C. SINGSON, ANDRE NAVATO, EDGARDO P. ZIALCITA, ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA, TYRONE M. REYES, JOSE CLEMENTE, JR., FEDERICO PASCUAL, ALEJANDRA C. CLEMENTE, ALBERT P. FENIX, JR., AND MELPIN A. GONZAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164538 : August 09, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. ROGELIO REYNADO AND JOSE C. ADRANDEA,** RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171115 : August 09, 2010] NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) AND HELEN VALENZUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179441 : August 09, 2010] ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAƑAQUE; JAIME T. TORRES, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, JAMES KENLEY M. TORRES; AND MYRNA M. TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180915 : August 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182877 : August 09, 2010] SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FFW, PETITIONER, VS. SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187698 : August 09, 2010] RODOLFO J. SERRANO, PETITIONER, VS. SEVERINO SANTOS TRANSIT AND/OR SEVERINO SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139 : August 09, 2010] MICHAEL B. BELEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA CITY, BRANCH 36, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189818 : August 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL LINDO Y VERGARA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164301 : August 10, 2010] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172880 : August 11, 2010] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CEBU PRINTING AND PACKAGING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168842 : August 11, 2010] VICENTE GO, PETITIONER, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 173219-20 : August 11, 2010] ALC INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175578 : August 11, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ZENAIDA GUINTO-ALDANA, IN HER OWN BEHALF AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF MA. AURORA GUINTO-COMISO, MA. LUISA GUINTO-DIONISIO, ALFREDO GUINTO, JR., PACITA R. GUINTO, ERNESTO R. GUINTO, NATIVIDAD R. GUINTO AND ALBERTO R. GUINTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174979 : August 11, 2010] BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 175010] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174806 : August 11, 2010] SOLOIL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180665 : August 11, 2010] HEIRS OF PAULINO ATIENZA, NAMELY, RUFINA L. ATIENZA, ANICIA A. IGNACIO, ROBERTO ATIENZA, MAURA A. DOMINGO, AMBROCIO ATIENZA, MAXIMA ATIENZA, LUISITO ATIENZA, CELESTINA A. GONZALES, REGALADO ATIENZA AND MELITA A. DELA CRUZ PETITIONERS, VS. DOMINGO P. ESPIDOL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 137794 : August 11, 2010] ERLINDA REYES AND ROSEMARIE MATIENZO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, PRESIDING, BRANCH 49, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY; SPOUSES BERNARD AND FLORENCIA PERL, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT BENJAMIN MUCIO; HON. JUDGE VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES, PRESIDING, BRANCH 124, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY AND SEGUNDO BAUTISTA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 149664 ] SPS. ALBERTO EMBORES AND LOURDES EMBORES, SPS. ROBERTO AND EVELYN PALAD, DENNIS HENOSA AND CORAZON LAURENTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RAYMUNDO G. VALLEGA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 52, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY; HON. ELEANOR R. KWONG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 51, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY; HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 49, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY; VICTORIA C. SALIRE-ALBIS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MR. MENELIO C. SALIRE; MA. FE R. ROCO, ALFREDO TAN, MANUELITO ESTRELLA; AND HON. JUDGE ANTONIO FINEZA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 131, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157049 : August 11, 2010] CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. CARLOS ROMULO N. CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 158298 : August 11, 2010] ISIDRO ABLAZA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161834 : August 11, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIR OF TRINIDAD S. VDA. DE ARIETA, REPRESENTED BY THE SOLE AND ONLY HEIR, ALICIA ARIETA TAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167606 : August 11, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170830 : August 11, 2010] PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA), AND ERLINDA VAZQUEZ, RICARDO Ā· SACRISTAN, LEONIDA CATALAN, MAXIMO PEDRO, NATHANIELA DIMACULANGAN,* RODOLFO MOJICO, ROMEO CARAMANZA, REYNALDO GANITANO, ALBERTO BASCONCILLO,** AND RAMON FALCIS, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF PILA, AND ANGELITA BALOSA,*** DANILO BANAAG, ABRAHAM CADAY, ALFONSO CLAUDIO, FRANCISCO DALISAY,**** ANGELITO DEJAN,***** PHILIP GARCES, NICANOR ILAGAN, FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON,****** NEMESIO MAMONONG, TEOFILO MANALILI, ALFREDO PEARSON,******* MARIO PEREA,******** RENATO RAMOS, MARIANO ROSALES, PABLO SARMIENTO, RODOLFO TOLENTINO, FELIPE VILLAREAL, ARSENIO ZAMORA, DANILO BALTAZAR, ROGER CABER,********* REYNALDO CAMARIN, BERNARDO CUADRA,********** ANGELITO DE GUZMAN, GERARDO FELICIANO,*********** ALEX IBAƑEZ, BENJAMIN JUAN, SR., RAMON MACAALAY, GONZALO MANALILI, RAUL MICIANO, HILARIO PEƑA, TERESA PERMOCILLO,************ ERNESTO RIO, RODOLFO SANIDAD, RAFAEL STA. ANA, JULIAN TUGUIN AND AMELIA ZAMORA, AS MEMBERS OF PILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176066 : August 11, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186571 : August 11, 2010] GERBERT R. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186979 : August 11, 2010] SOCORRO LIMOS, ROSA DELOS REYES AND SPOUSES ROLANDO DELOS REYES AND EUGENE DELOS REYES PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO P. ODONES AND ARWENIA R. ODONES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162291 : August 11, 2010] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. SHEMBERG BIOTECH CORPORATION AND BENSON DAKAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 153736 : August 12, 2010] SPOUSES NICANOR TUMBOKON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY: ROSARIO SESPEƑE AND THEIR CHILDREN, NAMELY: NICANOR S. TUMBOKON, JR., NELIA S. TUMBOKON, NEMIA T. SEGOVIA, NOBELLA S. TUMBOKON, NABIGAIL T. TAAY, NAZARENE T. MONTALVO, NORGEL S. TUMBOKON, NEYSA S. TUMBOKON, SILVESTRE S. TUMBOKON, NORA T. MILCZAREK, NONITA T. CARPIO, NERLYN S. TUMBOKON, AND NINFA T. SOLIDUM, PETITIONERS, VS. APOLONIA G. LEGASPI, AND PAULINA S. DE MAGTANUM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 177105-06 : August 12, 2010] JOSE REYES Y VACIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2211 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2752-RTJ) : August 12, 2010] EVANGELINE VERA CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE WINSTON M. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154124 : August 13, 2010] NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158377 : August 13, 2010] HEIRS OF JOSE REYES, JR., NAMELY: MAGDALENA C. REYES, OSCAR C. REYES, GAMALIEL C. REYES, NENITA R. DELA CRUZ, RODOLFO C. REYES, AND RODRIGO C. REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. AMANDA S. REYES, CONSOLACION S. REYES, EUGENIA R. ELVAMBUENA, LUCINA R. MENDOZA, PEDRITO S. REYES, MERLINDA R. FAMODULAN, EDUARDO S. REYES, AND JUNE S. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 149588 : August 16, 2010] FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS AND CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185122 : August 16, 2010] WENSHA SPA CENTER, INC. AND/OR XU ZHI JIE, PETITIONERS, VS. LORETA T. YUNG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185848 : August 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL SEMBRANO Y CASTRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190065 : August 16, 2010] DERMALINE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MYRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188271 : August 16, 2010] JESUS E. DYCOCO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO), RENE BUENAVENTURA AND SILES SAMALEA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190216 : August 16, 2010] ARNOLD F. ANIB, PETITIONER, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. AND/OR RHOGIE FELICIANO RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172604 (Formerly G.R. Nos. 155345-47) : August 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. VENANCIO ROXAS Y ARGUELLES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 157383 : August 18, 2010] WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO I. MOLINA AND ALBERT M. VELASCO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 174137] WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO I. MOLINA AND ALBERT M. VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158708 : August 18, 2010] JUSTINA MANIEBO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171982 : August 18, 2010] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. TRADERS ROYAL BANK and PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (VICE ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175116 : August 18, 2010] JERRY ONG, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182094 : August 18, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN ALFONSO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183688 : August 18, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO AND HEIRS OF ROMEO BARRIDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185286 : August 18, 2010] MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, PETITIONER, VS. RAMON REYES, RESPONDENT.

  • Name[G.R. No. 189092 : August 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELVIN LOLOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165339 : August 23, 2010] EQUITABLE PCI BANK, PETITIONER, VS. ARCELITO B. TAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172724 : August 23, 2010] PHARMACIA AND UPJOHN, INC. (NOW PFIZER PHILIPPINES, INC.), ASHLEY MORRIS, ALEDA CHU, JANE MONTILLA & FELICITO GARCIA, PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO P. ALBAYDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182779 : August 23, 2010] VICTORINA (VICTORIA) ALICE LIM LAZARO, PETITIONER, VS. BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186094 : August 23, 2010] PACIENCIA A. DALEON[1] AND CLARO EDUARDO D. JAVIER, JR., REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GLORIA BAYONA, AXEL LEONARD DALEON, GINA DALEON, BENJAMIN A. DALEON, JR., FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF NOELA DALEON VELOSO, LUCY ANN DALEON-BREVA AND PETER A. DALEON, PETITIONERS, VS. MA. CATALINA P. TAN, FIDEL P. TAN AND MANUEL P. TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189971 : August 23, 2010] FREDDIE CABILDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 07-1-05-RTC : August 23, 2010] RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE SALVADOR M. IBARRETA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, DAVAO CITY, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CIVIL CASE NOS. 30,410-04, 30,998-05, 7286-03 AND 8278-5.

  • [G.R. No. 176951 : August 24, 2010] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF ILOILO REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF CALBAYOG REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO, AND JERRY P. TREƑAS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, RESPONDENTS. CITY OF TARLAC, CITY OF SANTIAGO, CITY OF IRIGA, CITY OF LIGAO, CITY OF LEGAZPI, CITY OF TAGAYTAY, CITY OF SURIGAO, CITY OF BAYAWAN, CITY OF SILAY, CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS, CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, CITY OF GINGOOG, CITY OF CAUAYAN, CITY OF PAGADIAN, CITY OF SAN CARLOS, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, CITY OF TACURONG, CITY OF TANGUB, CITY OF OROQUIETA, CITY OF URDANETA, CITY OF VICTORIAS, CITY OF CALAPAN, CITY OF HIMAMAYLAN, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF BAIS, CITY OF CADIZ, AND CITY OF TAGUM, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION. [G.R. NO. 177499] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF ILOILO REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF CALBAYOG REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO, AND JERRY P. TREƑAS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF LAMITAN, PROVINCE OF BASILAN; MUNICIPALITY OF TABUK, PROVINCE OF KALINGA; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYUGAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BATAC, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF MATI, PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL; AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIHULNGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. CITY OF TARLAC, CITY OF SANTIAGO, CITY OF IRIGA, CITY OF LIGAO, CITY OF LEGAZPI, CITY OF TAGAYTAY, CITY OF SURIGAO, CITY OF BAYAWAN, CITY OF SILAY, CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS, CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, CITY OF GINGOOG, CITY OF CAUAYAN, CITY OF PAGADIAN, CITY OF SAN CARLOS, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, CITY OF TACURONG, CITY OF TANGUB, CITY OF OROQUIETA, CITY OF URDANETA, CITY OF VICTORIAS, CITY OF CALAPAN, CITY OF HIMAMAYLAN, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF BAIS, CITY OF CADIZ, AND CITY OF TAGUM, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION. [ G.R. NO. 178056] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF ILOILO REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JERRY P. TREƑAS, CITY OF CALBAYOG REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO, AND JERRY P. TREƑAS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF CABADBARAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PROVINCE OF CEBU; AND MUNICIPALITY OF EL SALVADOR, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. CITY OF TARLAC, CITY OF SANTIAGO, CITY OF IRIGA, CITY OF LIGAO, CITY OF LEGAZPI, CITY OF TAGAYTAY, CITY OF SURIGAO, CITY OF BAYAWAN, CITY OF SILAY, CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS, CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, CITY OF GINGOOG, CITY OF CAUAYAN, CITY OF PAGADIAN, CITY OF SAN CARLOS, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, CITY OF TACURONG, CITY OF TANGUB, CITY OF OROQUIETA, CITY OF URDANETA, CITY OF VICTORIAS, CITY OF CALAPAN, CITY OF HIMAMAYLAN, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF BAIS, CITY OF CADIZ, AND CITY OF TAGUM, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [A.C. No. 6258 : August 24, 2010] LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J : August 24, 2010] ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, AND RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605 : August 24, 2010] SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK III, MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARYANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO V. MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR. AND MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY- IN-FACT, ROSA R. MANOTOK, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, REPRESENTED BY TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 154152 : August 25, 2010] LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ARTURO LEDESMA, HON. JUDGE ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 83, QUEZON CITY, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168387 : August 25, 2010] SALUN-AT MARQUEZ AND NESTOR DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. ELOISA ESPEJO, ELENITA ESPEJO, EMERITA ESPEJO, OPHIRRO ESPEJO, OTHNIEL ESPEJO, ORLANDO ESPEJO, OSMUNDO ESPEJO, ODELEJO ESPEJO AND NEMI FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173089 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE C. ASIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BILIRAN PROVINCE, BRANCH 16, AND JAIME ABORDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174593 : August 25, 2010] ALEX GURANGO, PETITIONER, VS. BEST CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS INC. AND MOON PYO HONG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 179045-46 : August 25, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. SMART COMMUNICATION, INC.,* RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177970 : August 25, 2010] AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, DAILY HARVEST MERCANTILE, INC., JOSEPH C. SIA HETIONG AND REYNALDO M. RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. JUEBER P. SIAZAR AND THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186192 : August 25, 2010] THE HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN AND ROMANA BIGO, NAMELY: PACITA PIDACAN VDA. DE ZUBIRI AND ADELA PIDACAN VDA. DE ROBLES, PETITIONERS, VS. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING DIRECTOR BIENVENIDO MANGA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151168 : August 25, 2010] CEBU AUTOMETIC MOTORS, INC. AND TIRSO UYTENGSU III, PETITIONERS, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156125 : August 25, 2010] FRANCISCO MUƑOZ, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ERLINDA RAMIREZ AND ELISEO CARLOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159275 : August 25, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), RICARDO C. SILVERIO, FERDINAND E. MARCOS (NOW SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), IMELDA R. MARCOS AND PABLO P. CARLOS, JR. (NOW SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165153 : August 25, 2010] CARLOS DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. AND EDGARDO QUIOGUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165442 : August 25, 2010] NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA (NAGA-PEMA), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165641 : August 25, 2010] ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER OF THE LEYTE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (LMWD), TACLOBAN CITY, PETITIONER, NAPOLEON G. ARANEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF "NO TAX, NO IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS COALITION, INC.," PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. HON. CORNELIO C. GISON, UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169345 : August 25, 2010] DEE PING WEE, ARACELI WEE AND MARINA U. TAN, PETITIONERS, VS. LEE HIONG WEE AND ROSALIND WEE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170146 : August 25, 2010] HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. ARTHUR P. AUTEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC), PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185206 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL AGUILAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179577 : August 25, 2010] VON MADARANG Y MONTEMAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175784 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME AYOCHOK Y TAULI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174084 : August 25, 2010] SPIC N' SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA PAJE, LOLITA GOMEZ, MIRIAM CATACUTAN, ESTRELLA ZAPATA, GLORIA SUMANG, JULIET DINGAL, MYRA AMANTE, AND FE S. BERNANDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186175 : August 25, 2010] 3A APPAREL CORPORATION AND RAY SHU, PETITIONERS, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO., JAIME T. DEE, ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, SHERIFF VICTOR S. STA. ANA, EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF GRACE S. BELVIS AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188315 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ISIDRO FLORES Y LAGUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182010 : August 25, 2010] SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171015 : August 25, 2010] CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AND SECURITY AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A. M. No. P-10-2837 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I No. 07-2613-P) : August 25, 2010] PO2 PATRICK MEJIA GABRIEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. WILLIAM JOSE R. RAMOS, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 166, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2132 : August 25, 2010] PRESENTATION V. ANOTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. AGERICO P. BALLES, CLERK OF COURT IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MTCC, TACLOBAN CITY, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188328 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO NASARA Y DAHAY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170414 : August 25, 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ELY BUNGABONG, AND MICHAEL GALVEZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170418] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., ROGELIO CASIƑO, AND RUEL ISAAC, PETITIONERS, VS. PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ELY BUNGABONG AND MICHAEL GALVEZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170460] AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, DANILO ALZOLA, AND ERNESTO* LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ELY BUNGABONG, AND MICHAEL GALVEZ, RESPONDENTS, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 182526 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO DEGAY Y UNDALOS @ CALDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182651 : August 25, 2010] HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES, PETITIONERS, VS. JONATHAN HONRALES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 182657] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES, PETITIONERS, VS. JONATHAN HONRALES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186557 : August 25, 2010] NEGROS METAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ARMELO J. LAMAYO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188330 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 189091 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARMAN APACIBLE Y RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186526 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FEDERICO CAMPOS Y RANILE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174269 : August 25, 2010] POLO S. PANTALEON, PETITIONER, VS. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191988 : August 31, 2010] ATTY. EVILLO C. PORMENTO, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH "ERAP" EJERCITO ESTRADA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 171115 : August 09, 2010]   NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) AND HELEN VALENZUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

     
    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 171115 : August 09, 2010]

    NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) AND HELEN VALENZUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the November 2, 2005 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91718 dismissing outright the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, as well as its January 6, 2006 Resolution[3] denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

    Factual Antecedents

    Petitioner Helen Valenzuela (Helen) was a production associate in respondent Keihin Philippines Corporation (Keihin), a company engaged in the production of intake manifold and throttle body used in motor vehicles manufactured by Honda.

    It is a standard operating procedure of Keihin to subject all its employees to reasonable search before they leave the company premises.[4]  On September 5, 2003, while Helen was about to leave the company premises, she saw a packing tape near her work area and placed it inside her bag because it would be useful in her transfer of residence.  When the lady guard on duty inspected Helen's bag, she found the packing tape inside her bag. The guard confiscated it and submitted an incident report[5] dated September 5, 2003 to the Guard-in-Charge, who, in turn, submitted a memorandum[6] regarding the incident to the Human Resources and Administration Department on the same date.

    The following day, or on September 6, 2003, respondent company issued a show cause notice[7] to Helen accusing her of violating F.2 of the company's Code of Conduct, which says, "Any act constituting theft or robbery, or any attempt to commit theft or robbery, of any company property or other associate's property.  Penalty: D (dismissal)."[8]  Paul Cupon, Helen's supervisor, called her to his office and directed her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.

    Helen, in her explanation,[9] admitted the offense and even manifested that she would accept whatever penalty would be imposed upon her.  She, however, did not reckon that respondent company would terminate her services for her admitted offense.[10]

    On September 26, 2003, Helen received a notice[11] of disciplinary action informing her that Keihin has decided to terminate her services.

    On October 15, 2003, petitioners filed a complaint[12] against respondent for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay, with a prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, as well as moral and exemplary damages.  Petitioners alleged that Helen's act of taking the packing tape did not constitute serious misconduct, because the same was done with no malicious intent.[13]  They believed that the tape was not of great value and of no further use to respondent company since it was already half used. Although Helen admitted that she took the packing tape, petitioners claimed that her punishment was disproportionate to her infraction.

    Keihin, on the other hand, maintained that Helen was guilty of serious misconduct because there was a deliberate act of stealing from the company.  Respondent company also claimed that motive and value of the thing stolen are irrelevant in this case.

    Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

    On July 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter[14] rendered his Decision[15] dismissing the complaint of illegal dismissal.  He brushed aside petitioners' argument that the penalty imposed on Helen was disproportionate to the offense committed,[16] and held that she indeed committed a serious violation of the company's policies amounting to serious misconduct,[17] a just cause for terminating an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code.  The Labor Arbiter likewise upheld the right of the company to terminate Helen on the ground of loss of confidence or breach of trust.[18]

    The Labor Arbiter further held that Keihin observed the requirements of procedural due process in implementing the dismissal of Helen.[19]  He ruled that the following circumstances showed that the company observed the requirements of procedural due process: a) there was a show cause letter informing Helen of the charge of theft and requiring her to submit an explanation; b) there was an administrative hearing giving her an opportunity to be heard; and c) the respondent company furnished her with notice of termination stating the facts of her dismissal, the offense for which she was found guilty, and the grounds for her dismissal.[20]

    Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

    On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed in toto the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.  It held that petitioners admitted in their Position Paper that Helen took the packing tape strewn on the floor near her production line within the company premises.[21]  By the strength of petitioners' admission, the NLRC held that theft is a valid reason for Helen's dismissal.[22]

    As to the issue of due process, the pertinent portion of the Decision[23] of the NLRC reads:

    Complainant's dismissal too, was with due process. Procedural due process only requires employers to furnish their errant employees written notices stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for their dismissal and to hear their side of the story (Mendoza vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 846 [1999]). Complainant's claim that the show-cause letter did not pass the stringent requirement of the law is belied by her admission in her position paper that Mr. Cupon furnished her a "form," simultaneously asking her why she did such an act and x x x that Mr. Cupon directed her to submit a written explanation on the matter, which she complied with. By Complainant's own admission then, it is clear that she was furnished a written notice informing her of the particular act constituting the ground for her dismissal and that x x x her side of the story [was heard]. Evidently then, Complainant was afforded due process prior to her dismissal.

    The dispositive portion of the Decision of the NLRC reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant's appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter's assailed Decision in the above-entitled case is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

    SO ORDERED.[24]

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    After having their Motion for Reconsideration[25] denied[26] by the NLRC, the petitioner union, the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA praying that the Decision of the NLRC be set aside.  However, in a Resolution[27] dated November 2, 2005, the CA dismissed the petition outright for not having been filed by an indispensable party in interest under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

    SEC 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

    Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[28] but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution[29] of January 6, 2006.

    Hence, petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, asking the Court to reverse the Resolutions of the CA and enter a new one declaring Helen's dismissal unjustified. They anchor their petition on the following grounds:

    I.

    THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE UNION AND MS. HELEN VALENZUELA WAS NOT FILED BY AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.

    II.

    THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN FAILING TO DECIDE THE CASE ON THE MERITS DESPITE SHOWING THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS VERIFIED BY THE UNION PRESIDENT AND MS. HELEN VALENZUELA.

    III.

    THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT UNDER EXISTING LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO HEREIN PETITIONER HELEN VALENZUELA BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE NLRC IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.[30]

    Our Ruling

    We affirm the ruling of the CA.

    It is clear that petitioners failed to include the name of the dismissed employee Helen Valenzuela in the caption of their petition for certiorari filed with the CA as well as in the body of the said petition.  Instead, they only indicated the name of the labor union Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA) as the party acting on behalf of Helen.  As a result, the CA rightly dismissed the petition based on a formal defect.

    Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants."  If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness.[31]  It is "precisely `when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed.'  The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present."[32]  The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.  A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.

    At any rate, we are aware that it is the policy of courts to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal.  Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds, especially an appeal by a worker who was terminated and whose livelihood depends on the speedy disposition of her case, is frowned upon.  Thus, while we affirm the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari, we shall still discuss the substantive aspect of the case and go into the merits.

    The petitioners argue that serious misconduct under existing law and jurisprudence could not be attributed to Helen because she was not motivated by malicious intent.  According to petitioners, during the routine inspection and even before the guard opened Helen's bag, she readily admitted that the bag contained a packing tape.  Petitioners claim that the mental attitude of Helen negates depravity, willful or wrongful intent and, thus, she cannot be held guilty of serious misconduct.  Rather, it was a mere error of judgment on the part of Helen.  Furthermore, it was Helen's honest belief that the tape she took was of no use or value and that she did not hide the same.

    Thus, the issue boils down to whether, in taking the packing tape for her own personal use, Helen committed serious misconduct, which is a just cause for her dismissal from service.

    Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination.  It provides:

    ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

    (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

    (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

    (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

    (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and

    (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

    Misconduct is defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment."[33]  For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer."[34]

    In the case at bar, Helen took the packing tape with the thought that she could use it for her own personal purposes.  When Helen was asked to explain in writing why she took the tape, she stated, "Kumuha po ako ng isang packing tape na gagamitin ko sa paglilipat ng gamit ko sa bago kong lilipatang bahay."[35]  In other words, by her own admission, there was intent on her part to benefit herself when she attempted to bring home the packing tape in question.

    It is noteworthy that prior to this incident, there had been several cases of theft and vandalism involving both respondent company's property and personal belongings of other employees.  In order to address this issue of losses, respondent company issued two memoranda implementing an intensive inspection procedure and reminding all employees that those who will be caught stealing and performing acts of vandalism will be dealt with in accordance with the company's Code of Conduct.  Despite these reminders, Helen took the packing tape and was caught during the routine inspection.  All these circumstances point to the conclusion that it was not just an error of judgment on the part of Helen, but a deliberate act of theft of company property.

    In the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Lariosa[36] involving an employee who was caught by the security guards of the company during a routine inspection with possession of company property, we held that:

    There is no gainsaying that theft committed by an employee constitutes a valid reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property are a different matter.[37]

    We hold that Helen is guilty of serious misconduct in her act of taking the packing tape.

    The petitioners also argue that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the offense committed since the value of the thing taken is very minimal.  Petitioners cite the case of Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission[38] where Arnelio M. Clarete (Clarete) was found to have willfully breached the trust and confidence reposed in him by taking a bottle of lighter fluid.  In said case, we refrained from imposing the supreme penalty of dismissal since the employee had no violations "in his eight years of service and the value of the lighter fluid x x x is very minimal compared to his salary x x x."[39]

    After a closer study of both cases, we are convinced that the case of Caltex is different from the case at hand.  Although both Clarete and Helen had no prior violations, the former had a clean record of eight years with his employer.  On the other hand, Helen was not even on her second year of service with Keihin when the incident of theft occurred. And what further distinguishes the instant case from Caltex is that respondent company was dealing with several cases of theft, vandalism, and loss of company and employees' property when the incident involving Helen transpired.

    Regarding the requirement of procedural due process in dismissal of employees, petitioners argue that the first notice failed to explain the charge being leveled against Helen.  According to the petitioners, the notice was vague and lacked sufficient definitiveness.

    The show-cause notice states:

    Please explain in writing within 48 hours upon receipt hereof, why you have committed an offense against company property specifically F.2 of the company's Code of Conduct: "Any act constituting theft or robbery, or any attempt to commit theft or robbery, of any company property or other associate's property."[40]

    We reject petitioners' claim that respondent company failed to observe the requirements of procedural due process. "In the dismissal of employees, it has been consistently held that the twin requirements of notice and hearing are essential elements of due process.  The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (a) a notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b) a subsequent notice informing the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him."[41]

    In this case, respondent company furnished Helen a show-cause notice dated September 6, 2003 accusing her of violating F.2 of the company's Code of Conduct which says, "Any act constituting theft or robbery, or any attempt to commit theft or robbery, of any company property or other associate's property."[42] We find that such notice sufficiently informed Helen of the charge of theft of company property against her. We are convinced that such notice satisfies the due process requirement to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought.

    With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies in an opportunity to be heard.  Such opportunity was afforded the petitioner when she was asked to explain her side of the story. In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos,[43] we held that, "the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held."  Similarly in Philippine Pasay Chung Hua Academy v. Edpan,[44] we held that, "[e]ven if no hearing or conference was conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since he was accorded a chance to explain his side of the controversy."

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated November 2, 2005 and January 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91718 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin,* and Perez, JJ., concur.  

    Endnotes:


    * In lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 876 dated August 2, 2010.

    [1] Rollo, pp. 4-43.

    [2] CA rollo, p. 191; penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.

    [3] Id. at 236-237.

    [4] Id. at 85.

    [5] Id. at 86.

    [6] Id. at 87.

    [7] Id. at 88.

    [8] Id. at 91.

    [9] Id. at 88.

    [10] Id. at 43.

    [11] Id. at 91.

    [12] Id. at 55-56.

    [13] Id. at 88.

    [14] Enrico Angelo C. Portillo.

    [15] CA rollo, 122-126.

    [16] Id. at 124.

    [17] Id.

    [18] Id. at 124-125.

    [19] Id. at 125.

    [20] Id.

    [21] Id. at 163.

    [22] Id. at 164.

    [23] Id. at 158-167; penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan.

    [24] Id. at 167.

    [25] Id. at 168-186.

    [26] Id. at 188-189.

    [27] Id. at 191.

    [28] Id. at 192-234.

    [29] Id. at 236-237.

    [30] Rollo, pp. 14-15.

    [31] Aracelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 267 (1997).

    [32] Id.

    [33] Austria v. National Labor Relations Commission, 371 Phil. 340, 360 (1999).

    [34] Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 250, 261 (2000).

    [35] Rollo, p. 130.

    [36] 232 Phil. 201 (1987).

    [37] Id. at 206.

    [38] 316 Phil. 335 (1995).

    [39] Id. at 344.

    [40] CA rollo, p. 88.

    [41] Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 311, 321-322.

    [42] CA rollo, p. 88.

    [43] Supra note 41 at 322.

    [44] G.R. No. 168876, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 262, 271.

    [G.R. No. 171115 : August 09, 2010]   NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) AND HELEN VALENZUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.




    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