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. 165442 : August 25, 2010]   NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA (NAGA-PEMA), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO), RESPONDENT.

     
    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 165442 : August 25, 2010]

    NASECO GUARDS ASSOCIATION-PEMA (NAGA-PEMA), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO), RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

    This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Decision[1] dated May 27, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 76667.  The appellate court set aside the January 15, 2003[2] and March 11, 2003[3] Orders of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and ordered the latter to allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective positions.

    The facts follow.

    Respondent National Service Corporation (NASECO) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) organized under the Corporation Code in 1975.  It supplies security and manpower services to different clients such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, Food Terminal Incorporated, Forex Corporation and PNB.  Petitioner NASECO Guards Association-PEMA (NAGA-PEMA) is the collective bargaining representative of the regular rank and file security guards of respondent.  NASECO Employees Union-PEMA (NEMU-PEMA) is the collective bargaining representative of the regular rank and file (non-security) employees of respondent such as messengers, janitors, typists, clerks and radio-telephone operators.[4]

    On December 2, 1993, respondent entered into a memorandum of agreement[5] with petitioner. The terms of the agreement covered the monetary claims of the petitioner such as salary adjustments, conversion of salary scheme under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758[6] to R.A. No. 6727,[7] signing bonus, leaves and other benefits. A year after, petitioner demanded full negotiation for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the respondent and submitted its proposals thereto.

    On June 8, 1995, petitioner and respondent agreed to sign a CBA on non-economic terms.[8]

    On September 24, 1996, petitioner filed a notice of strike because of respondent's refusal to bargain for economic benefits in the CBA.  Following conciliation hearings, the parties again commenced CBA negotiations and started to resolve the issues on wage increase, productivity bonus, incentive bonus, allowances, and other benefits but failed to reach an agreement.

    Meanwhile, respondent and NEMU-PEMA entered into a CBA on non-economic terms.[9]  Unfortunately, a dispute among the leaders of NEMU-PEMA arose and at a certain point, leadership of the organization was unclear.  Hence, the negotiations concerning the economic terms of the CBA were put on hold until the internal dispute could be resolved.

    On April 29, 1997, petitioner filed a notice of strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) against respondent and PNB due to a bargaining deadlock.  The following day, NEMU-PEMA likewise filed a notice of strike against respondent and PNB on the ground of unfair labor practices.[10]  Efforts by the NCMB to conciliate failed and pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code,[11] as amended, then DOLE Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano assumed jurisdiction over the strike notices on June 25, 1998.[12]

    On November 19, 1999, then DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma issued a Resolution[13] directing petitioner and respondent to execute a new CBA incorporating therein his dispositions regarding benefits of the employees as to wage increase, productivity bonus, vacation and sick leave, medical allowances and signing bonus. Respondent was further ordered to negotiate, for purposes of collective bargaining agreement, with NEMU-PEMA led by its president, Ligaya Valencia.  The charge of unfair labor practice against respondent and PNB was dismissed.[14]

    Respondent promptly filed a petition for certiorari before the CA questioning the DOLE Secretary's order and arguing that the ruling of the DOLE Secretary in favor of the unions and awarding them monetary benefits totaling five hundred thirty-one million four hundred forty-six thousand six hundred sixty-six and 67/100 (P531,446,666.67) was inimical and deleterious to its financial standing and will result in closure and cessation of business for the company.

    By Decision[15] dated March 19, 2001 (first CA Decision), the CA partly granted the petition and ruled that a recomputation and reevaluation of the benefits awarded was in order.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED in that the case is remanded to the Secretary of Labor for purposes of recomputation and reevaluation of the CBA benefits.

    SO ORDERED.[16]

    In compliance with the CA directive, then DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas conducted several clarificatory hearings.  On January 15, 2003, Secretary Sto. Tomas issued an Order which provides:

    From the above, it is indubitable that the total cost to NASECO of our questioned award would amount to only P322,725,000, not P531,446,666.67 as claimed by the company. Thus, our November 19, 1999 Order is hereby affirmed en toto.

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
    1. [D]irecting NAGA-PEMA and NASECO to execute a new collective bargaining agreement effective November 1, 1993, incorporating therein the dispositions contained in our November 19, 1999 Order as well as all other items agreed upon by the parties.

    2. Ordering NASECO to negotiate with NEMA-PEMA for a new collective bargaining agreement.
    The charges of unfair labor practice against NASECO and PNB are dismissed for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.[17]

    Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOLE Secretary which was denied on March 11, 2003.

    Respondent thus filed a petition for certiorari with the CA arguing that the DOLE Secretary, in issuing the January 15, 2003 Order deprived respondent of due process of law for there was no reevaluation that took place in the DOLE.  It also argued that the order merely recomputed the DOLE Secretary's initial award of P531,446,666.67 and reduced it to P322,725,000.00, contrary to the ruling of the CA to recompute and reevaluate.  Respondent claimed that what the DOLE Secretary should have done was to let the parties introduce evidence to show the proper computation of the monetary awards under the approved CBA.

    In its second Decision dated May 27, 2004, the CA granted the petition, thus:

    WHEREFORE, the orders dated 15 January 2003 and 11 March 2003 are hereby SET ASIDE and the case remanded to the public respondent to allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective positions.

    SO ORDERED.[18]

    A motion for reconsideration was filed by herein petitioner but the same was denied by the CA on September 22, 2004[19] finding no reason to reverse and set aside its earlier decision.

    Petitioner now comes to this Court for relief by way of a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside and reverse the May 27, 2004 Decision and the September 22, 2004 Resolution of the CA.

    The main issue in this case is whether or not the respondent's right to due process was violated.  A side issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not PNB, being the undisputed owner of and exercising control over respondent, should be made liable to pay the CBA benefits awarded to the petitioner.

    Petitioner argues first that there was no violation of due process because respondent was never prohibited by the DOLE Secretary to submit supporting documents when the instant case was pending on remand. Petitioner contends that due process is properly observed when there is an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence and to file pleadings, which was never denied to respondent.

    Second, petitioner argues that the CA erred in stating that respondent was a company operating at a loss and therefore cannot be expected to act generously and confer upon its employees additional benefits exceeding what is mandated by law.  It is the petitioner's position that based on the "no loss, no profit" policy of respondent with PNB, respondent in truth has no "pocket" of its own and is, in effect, one (1) and the same with PNB with regard to financial gains and/or liabilities.  Thus, petitioners contend that the CBA benefits should be shouldered by PNB considering the poor financial condition of respondent. To support such claim, petitioner submitted evidence[20] to show that PNB is in superb financial condition and is very much capable of shouldering the CBA award.[21]

    Respondent on the other hand maintains that the DOLE Secretary violated its right to due process when she merely recomputed the CBA award instead of reevaluating the entire case and allowing it to present supporting documents in accordance with the first CA decision.[22] It claims that the order of the CA to reevaluate included and required a full assessment of the case together with reception of evidence such as financial statements, and the omission of such is a violation of its right to due process.

    As to the petitioner's argument that respondent and PNB are essentially the same when it comes to financial condition, respondent contends that although a subsidiary, it has a separate and distinct personality from PNB with its own charter.  Hence, the issue of PNB's financial well-being is immaterial in this case.

    The petition is partly meritorious.

    In simple terms, the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a litigant be given "a day in court."  It is the availability of the opportunity to be heard that determines whether or not due process was violated.  A litigant may or may not avail of the opportunity to be heard but as long as such was made available to him/her, there is no violation of the due process clause.  In the case of Lumiqued v. Exevea,[23] this Court declared that "[a]s long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.  Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."

    The respondent's right to due process in this case has not been denied.  The order in the first CA decision to recompute and reevaluate was satisfied when the DOLE Secretary reexamined their initial findings and adjusted the awarded benefits. A reevaluation, contrary to what the respondent claims, is a process by which a person or office (in this case the DOLE secretary) revisits its own initial pronouncement and makes another assessment of its findings.  In simple terms, to reevaluate is to take another look at a previous matter in issue.  A reevaluation does not necessitate the introduction of new materials for review nor does it require a full hearing for new arguments.

    From a procedural standpoint, a reevaluation is a continuation of the original case and not a new proceeding.  Hence, the evidence, financial reports and other documents submitted by the parties in the course of the original proceeding are to be visited and reviewed again. In this light, the respondent has been given the opportunity to be heard by the DOLE Secretary.

    Also, contrary to the claim of the respondent that it was barred by the DOLE Secretary to introduce supporting documents during the recomputation and reevaluation, the records show that an Order by then Secretary of Labor Patricia A. Sto. Tomas dated July 11, 2002 specifically allowed both parties to submit their respective computations as regards the awarded benefits. To wit:

    WHEREFORE, the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby directed to submit to this Office a detailed computation of the CBA benefits indicated in the resolution of November 19, 2001 within twenty (20) days from receipt of this Order. The parties may submit their own computations to the Bureau for validation.

    SO ORDERED.[24]  (Italics supplied.)

    It is thus inaccurate for the respondent to claim that it was denied due process because it had all the opportunity to introduce any supporting document in the course of the recomputation and reevaluation of the DOLE Secretary.  Respondent admits that it did attach the financial statements and other documents in support of its alleged financial incapacity to pay the CBA awarded benefits, the same evidence it had earlier submitted before the CA (Memorandum in the first CA decision) in the motion for reconsideration of the DOLE Secretary's January 15, 2003 Order.[25] There is thus no showing that the DOLE Secretary denied respondent this basic constitutional right.

    On the issue of liability, petitioner contends that PNB should be held liable to shoulder the CBA benefits awarded to them by virtue of it being a company having full financial, managerial and functional control over respondent as its subsidiary, and by reason of the unique "no loss, no profit" scheme implemented between respondent and PNB.

    We are not persuaded.

    Verily, what the petitioner is asking this Court to do is to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of respondent and hold PNB (being the mother company) liable for the CBA benefits.

    In Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC,[26] we explained the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, as follows:

    It is a fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be connected. But, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. So, when the notion of separate juridical personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a device to defeat the labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation.

    Also in Pantranco Employees Association (PEA-PTGWO) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] this Court ruled:

    Whether the separate personality of the corporation should be pierced hinges on obtaining facts appropriately pleaded or proved. However, any piercing of the corporate veil has to be done with caution, albeit the Court will not hesitate to disregard the corporate veil when it is misused or when necessary in the interest of justice. After all, the concept of corporate entity was not meant to promote unfair objectives.

    Applying the doctrine to the case at bar, we find no reason to pierce the corporate veil of respondent and go beyond its legal personality.  Control, by itself, does not mean that the controlled corporation is a mere instrumentality or a business conduit of the mother company. Even control over the financial and operational concerns of a subsidiary company does not by itself call for disregarding its corporate fiction. There must be a perpetuation of fraud behind the control or at least a fraudulent or illegal purpose behind the control in order to justify piercing the veil of corporate fiction.  Such fraudulent intent is lacking in this case.

    Petitioner argues that the appreciation, analysis and inquiry of this case may go beyond the presentation of respondent, and therefore must include the PNB, the bank being the undisputed whole owner of respondent and the sole provider of funds for the company's operations and for the payment of wages and benefits of the employees, under the "no loss, no profit" scheme.[28]

    We disagree.  There is no showing that such "no loss, no profit" scheme between respondent and PNB was implemented to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a device to defeat the labor laws, nor does the scheme show that respondent is a mere business conduit or alter ego of PNB. Absent proof of these circumstances, respondent's corporate personality cannot be pierced.

    It is apparent that petitioner wants the Court to disregard the corporate personality of respondent and directly go after PNB in order for it to collect the CBA benefits.  On the same breath, however, petitioner argues that ultimately it is PNB, by virtue of the "no loss, no profit" scheme, which shoulders and provides the funds for financial liabilities of respondent including wages and benefits of employees.  If such scheme was indeed true as the petitioner presents it, then there was absolutely no need to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of respondent.  Moreover, the Court notes the pendency of a separate suit for absorption or regularization of NASECO employees filed by petitioner and NEMU-PEMA against PNB and respondent, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 06-03944-96), which is still on appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), as per manifestation by respondent.  In the said case, petitioner submitted for resolution by the labor tribunal the issues of whether PNB is the employer of NASECO's work force and whether NASECO is a labor-only contractor.[29]

    WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated May 27, 2004 and Resolution dated September 22, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 76667 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE as to the order to remand the case to the Secretary of Labor for introduction of supporting evidence.  Accordingly, the Orders of the Secretary of Labor dated January 15, 2003 and March 11, 2003 are REINSTATED and UPHELD.

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, and Sereno, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Rollo, pp. 27-39. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring.

    [2] CA rollo, pp. 30-31.

    [3] Id. at 176-179.

    [4] Records, Vol. I, p. 459; records, Vol. II, p. 817.

    [5] Id. at 130-134.

    [6] AN ACT PRESCRIBING A REVISED COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    [7] AN ACT TO RATIONALIZE WAGE POLICY DETERMINATION BY ESTABLISHING THE MECHANISM AND PROPER STANDARDS THEREFOR, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 99 OF, AND INCORPORATING ARTICLES 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126 AND 127 INTO, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FIXING NEW WAGE RATES, PROVIDING WAGE INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRIAL DISPERSAL TO THE COUNTRYSIDE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    [8] Records, Vol. I, pp. 117-128; CA rollo, p. 183.

    [9] Id. at 103-115; id. at 190.

    [10] Id. at 5-6, 18.

    [11] Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended.

    [12] Records, Vol. I, p. 17.

    [13] CA rollo, pp. 180-194.

    [14] Id. at 194.

    [15] Rollo, pp. 58-63.

    [16] Id. at 63.

    [17] CA rollo, p. 31.

    [18] Rollo, p. 39.

    [19] Id. at 41.

    [20] CA rollo, pp. 542-575.

    [21] Rollo, pp. 14-16.

    [22] Id. at 38.

    [23] G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 125, 146-147, citing Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997, 280 SCRA 642, 657 and Pizza Hut/Progressive Dev't. Corp. v. NLRC, 322 Phil. 579, 584 (1996).

    [24] Records, Vol. I, p. 553.

    [25] See CA rollo, pp. 37-38.

    [26] G.R. No. 108734, May 29, 1996, 257 SCRA 149, 157-158.

    [27] G.R. Nos. 170689 & 170705, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 598, 614.

    [28] Rollo, p. 15.

    [29] Id. at 290-370, 412-413.

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