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

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 146206 : August 01, 2011] SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172110 : August 01, 2011] MINDA VILLAMOR, APPELLEE, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLANT. [G.R. NO. 181804] GLICERIO VIOS, JR., APPELLEE, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171569 : August 01, 2011] UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ALAIN* JUNIAT, WINWOOD APPAREL, INC., WINGYAN APPAREL, INC., NONWOVEN FABRIC PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2896 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2977-P] : August 02, 2011] PROSERPINA V. ANICO, COMPLAINANT, VS. EMERSON B. PILIPIÑA, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188086 : August 03, 2011] FRANCIS BELLO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS DAUGHTER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GERALDINE BELLO-ONA, PETITIONER, VS. BONIFACIO SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND SAMUEL TOMAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182237 : August 03, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169901 : August 03, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. CIRIACO JUMAMOY AND HEIRS OF ANTONIO GO PACE, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA PACE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191995 : August 03, 2011] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. JUSTINA CALLANGAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND/OR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179344 : August 03, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO AND JOB MADAYAG, JR., Y BALDERAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183018 : August 03, 2011] ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ROLAND YOUNG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177816 : August 03, 2011] NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC., AND/OR TADASHI OTA, HOROSHI TAKADA, YUSUHIRO KAWATA, MR. NOBOYUSHI AND JOEL REYES PETITIONERS, VS. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 174507-30 : August 03, 2011] ATTY. EMELITA H. GARAYBLAS AND ATTY. RENATO G. DE LA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. GREGORY ONG, HON. JOSE HERNANDEZ AND HON. RODOLFO PONFERRADA, AS CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, 4TH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184454 : August 03, 2011] CO GIOK LUN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY: MAGDALENA D. CO, MILAGROS D. CO, BENJAMIN D. CO, ALBERT D. CO, ANGELITA C. TENG, VIRGINIA C. RAMOS, CHARLIE D. CO, AND ELIZABETH C. PAGUIO, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE CO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY: ROSALINA CO, MARLON CO, JOSEPH CO, FRANK CO, ANTONIO CO, NELSON CO, ROLAND CO, JOHNSON CO, CORAZON CO, ADELA CO, SERGIO CO, PAQUITO CO, JOHN CO, NANCY CO, AND TERESITA CO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 194031 : August 08, 2011] JOBEL ENTERPRISES AND/OR MR. BENEDICT LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SEVENTH DIVISION, QUEZON CITY) AND ERIC MARTINEZ, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152141 : August 08, 2011] CORNELIO DEL FIERRO, GREGORIO DEL FIERRO, ILDEFONSO DEL FIERRO, ASUNCION DEL FIERRO, CIPRIANO DEL FIERRO, MANUELA DEL FIERRO, AND FRANCISCO DEL FIERRO PETITIONERS, VS. RENE SEGUIRAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169510 : August 08, 2011] ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JESUS P. GISON, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187858 : August 09, 2011] THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. RICHARD G. CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167398 : August 09, 2011] AUGUSTUS GONZALES AND SPOUSES NESTOR VICTOR AND MA. LOURDES RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. QUIRICO PE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 195953 : August 09, 2011] CERIACO BULILIS, PETITIONER, VS. VICTORINO NUEZ, HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, 6TH MCTC, UBAY, BOHOL, HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 52, TALIBON, BOHOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185352 : August 10, 2011] COASTAL SAFEWAY MARINE SERVICES INC., PETITIONER, VS. ELMER T. ESGUERRA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193188 : August 10, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO APATTAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187536 : August 10, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL BOKINGO ALIAS "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" AND REYNANTE COL, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176008 : August 10, 2011] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY MERIDIAN (SPV-AMCI) CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 176131] CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING, PETITIONER, VS. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174926 : August 10, 2011] AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER, VS. F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176350 : August 10, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO Y DELA CRUZ @ "NOGNOG," APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186487 : August 15, 2011] ROSITO BAGUNU, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO AGGABAO & ROSENDA ACERIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182178 : August 15, 2011] STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193379 : August 15, 2011] CESAR D. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165476 : August 15, 2011] AGRIPINO V. MOLINA, PETITIONER, VS. PACIFIC PLANS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196426 : August 15, 2011] MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 19TH DIVISION, NOW SPECIAL FORMER 19TH DIVISION, GALLERA DE MANDAUE / SPOUSES VICENTE AND MARIA LUISA LOOT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175073 : August 15, 2011] ESTATE OF MARGARITA D. CABACUNGAN, REPRESENTED BY LUZ LAIGO-ALI, PETITIONER, VS. MARILOU LAIGO, PEDRO ROY LAIGO, STELLA BALAGOT AND SPOUSES MARIO B. CAMPOS AND JULIA S. CAMPOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R No. 187167 : August 16, 2011] PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, AND MARCELINO VELOSO III, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, AND HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014 : August 16, 2011] NILDA VERGINESA-SUAREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RENATO J. DILAG AND COURT STENOGRAPHER III CONCEPCION A. PASCUA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293 (formerly A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC)] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RENATO J. DILAG, ESTER A. ASILO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, AND ATTY. RONALD D. GAVINO, DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OLONGAPO CITY RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174654 : August 17, 2011] FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES SAAPIA B. ALONTO AND DIAGA ALONTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159941 : August 17, 2011] HEIRS OF SPOUSES TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA, NAMELY: EDUARDO M. RETERTA, CONSUELO M. RETERTA, AND AVELINA M. RETERTA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168008 : August 17, 2011] PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA, PETITIONER, VS. ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NESTOR D. DAYSON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193629 : August 17, 2011] RCJ BUS LINES, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166970 : August 17, 2011] MA. ANA M. TAMONTE AND EDILBERTO A. TAMONTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD., HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MANUEL G. MONTECILLO, STUART P. MILNE AND ALEJANDRO CUSTODIO; ALEJANDRO CUSTODIO; RTC CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF AND SHERIFF IN CHARGE CLEMENTE BOLOY AND BENEDICTO G. HEBRON, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188562 : August 17, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODEL LANUZA Y BAGAOISAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171634 : August 17, 2011] LEONARDO S. UMALE, SUBSTITUTED BY CLARISSA VICTORIA UMALE,[1] PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ALFREDO VILLAMOR, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156358 : August 17, 2011] ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO, PETITIONER, VS. ELIZA M. TORTOGO, LEONILA FLORES, ANANIAS SEDONIO, ADELINO MONET, ANGIE MONET, JUANITO GARCIA, ELEONOR GARCIA, BENITA MOYA, JULIO ALTARES, LEA ALTARES, CLARITA SABIDO, JULIE ANN VILLAMOR, JUANITA TUALA, VICTOR FLORES III, JOHNNY MOYA, HAZEL AVANCEÑA, SONIA EVANGELIO, AND GENNY MONTAÑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152239 : August 17, 2011] MAKING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SPOUSES JOAQUIN TAMANO AND ANGELITA TAMANO, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE MARFORI AND EMERENCIANA MARFORI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 153829 : August 17, 2011] ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE INCUMBENT ARCHBISHOP, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO SORIANO, JR., EDNA YALUN, EVANGELINA ABLAZA, FELICIDAD Y. URBINA, FELIX SALENGA, REYNALDO I. MALLARI, MARCIANA B. BARCOMA, BIENVENIDO PANGANIBAN, BRIGIDA NAVARRO, EUFRANCIA T. FLORES, VICTORIA B. SUDSOD, EUFRONIO CAPARAS, CRISANTO MANANSALA, LILY MASANGCAY, BENJAMIN GUINTO, JR., MARTHA G. CASTRO AND LINO TOLENTINO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 160909] BENJAMIN GUINTO, JR.,[1] PETITIONER, VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE INCUMBENT ARCHBISHOP, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163827 : August 17, 2011] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO AND CRISTINA TRINIDAD ZARATE ROMERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167545 : August 17, 2011] ATIKO TRANS, INC. AND CHENG LIE NAVIGATION CO., LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190317 : August 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LARRY TORRES, SR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193161 : August 22, 2011] DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, PETITIONER, VS. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163433 : August 22, 2011] SPOUSES NELSON R. VILLANUEVA AND MYRA P. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PROVIDENT RURAL BANK OF SANTA CRUZ (LAGUNA), INC., AND THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAGUNA AS EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149 : August 23, 2011] RENALD F. VILANDO, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG AND HON. SPEAKER PROSPERO NOGRALES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2011-01-SC : August 23, 2011] RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF MR. RECARREDO S. VALENZUELA, CLERK IV, PERSONNEL DIVISION, OAS-OCA AGAINST MR. RICARDO R. GIGANTO, UTILITY WORKER II, PERSONNEL DIVISION, OAS-OCA

  • [G.R. No. 165828 : August 24, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT SANGKAY, NAMELY: CEBU, BATOWA-AN, SAYANA, NASSER, MANTA, EDGAR, PUTRI , MONGKOY*, AND AMIR, ALL SURNAMED MACABANGKIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173180 : August 24, 2011] ALBERT TISON AND CLAUDIO L. JABON, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. GREGORIO POMASIN AND CONSORCIA PONCE POMASIN, DIANNE POMASIN PAGUNSAN, CYNTHIA POMASIN, SONIA PEROL, ANTONIO SESISTA, GINA SESISTA, AND REYNALDO SESISTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172331 : August 24, 2011] RAMON ARANDA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160322 : August 24, 2011] PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. RADIOMARINE NETWORK (SMARTNET) PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2739 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3015-P] : August 24, 2011] WILFRIED ERDENBERGER, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOHN V. AQUINO, CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188775 : August 24, 2011] CENON R. TEVES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DANILO R. BONGALON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188995 : August 24, 2011] EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY (NOW PHILIPPINE EXPORT ZONE AUTHORITY), PETITIONER, VS. JOSE PULIDO, VICENTA PANGANIBAN, RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC., FRANCISCA M. PRODIGALIDAD, ABELARDO PRODIGALIDAD, CARMEN PRECIOSA TABLANTE, CARMENCITA M. PRODIGALIDAD, MELVIN J. BOUCHER, MARY LOU M. PRODIGALIDAD, SALVADOR MENES, JR., DELILAH M. PRODIGALIDAD, NANNETTE M. PRODIGALIDAD, ANSELMO M. PRODIGALIDAD III, GREGORIO M. PRODIGALIDAD, AND ESTATE OF SALUD JIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176129 : August 24, 2011] HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO (EUPROCINIA, ROYCE AND IRISH CRISOSTOMO), PETITIONERS, VS. RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184960 : August 24, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CLEOFE BAROQUILLO Y VILLANUEVA AND LEONARDO MAHILUM Y CAÑETE, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.C. No. 6689 : August 24, 2011] RIZALINA L. GEMINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168973 : August 24, 2011] CITY OF DUMAGUETE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR, AGUSTIN R. PERDICES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183789 : August 24, 2011] POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176091 : August 24, 2011] RENE ANTONIO, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO MANAHAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171468 : August 24, 2011] NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. NYK-FILJAPAN SHIPPING CORP., LEP PROFIT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ORD), LEP INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., DMT CORP., ADVATECH INDUSTRIES, INC., MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., SERBROS CARRIER CORPORATION, AND SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 174241] NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185023 : August 24, 2011] CITY OF PASIG, REPRESENTED BY THE CITY TREASURER AND THE CITY ASSESSOR, VS. PETITIONER, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172660 : August 24, 2011] EUGENIO BASBAS, TEOFILO ARAS, RUFINO ARAS, GERVACIO BASBAS, ISMAEL ARAS, EUGENIO ARAS, SIMFRONIO ARAS, FELICIANO ARAS, ROSITA ARAS, EUGENIO BASBAS, JR. AND SPOUSES PABLITO BASARTE AND MARCELINA BASBAS BASARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. BEATA SAYSON AND ROBERTO SAYSON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174774 : August 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO S. DELOS REYES, ALIAS "BOTONG," AND RAYMUNDO G. REYES, ALIAS "MAC-MAC," ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175289 : August 31, 2011] CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN AND ANIANO LATAYADA, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170728 : August 31, 2011] D. M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF PARAAQUE, PARAAQUE CITY ASSESSOR, PARAAQUE CITY TREASURER AND PARAAQUE CITY COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184053 : August 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VIRGINIA BABY P. MONTANER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175074 : August 31, 2011] JESUS TORRES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165025 : August 31, 2011] FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. FEDERICO AGCAOILI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 155849 : August 31, 2011] LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, OCEANIC CONTAINER LINES, INC., SOLID SHIPPING LINES CORPORATION, SULPICIO LINES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, LORENZO CINCO, AND CORA CURAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173792 : August 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSARIO "ROSE" OCHOA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181902 : August 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ATILANO AGATON Y OBICO, AND NOEL MALPAS Y GARCIA, ACCUSED. JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176077 : August 31, 2011] ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. Y CERBO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175991 : August 31, 2011] JOSE R. CATACUTAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186387 : August 31, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN MENDOZA Y VICENTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174980 : August 31, 2011] RADITO AURELIO Y REYES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179978 : August 31, 2011] DCD CONSTRUCTION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  •  





     
     

     [G.R. No. 193161 : August 22, 2011]   DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, PETITIONER, VS. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO, RESPONDENTS.

     
    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 193161 : August 22, 2011]

    DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, PETITIONER, VS. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    VELASCO JR., J.:

    The Case

    This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the April 30, 2009 Decision[1] and July 21, 2010 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 74531-MIN, entitled Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Avila Parreño v. Hon. Erasto D. Salcedo, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC (Branch 2), Tagum City, and Diosdado Salinas (Manungas). The CA Decision set aside as null and void the Order dated November 4, 2002[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2 in Tagum City, Davao del Norte, in Special Proceedings No. 708 entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased Engracia N. Vda de Manungas, Diosdado Manungas, petitioner, wherein the RTC reversed its appointment of respondent Florencia Avila Parreño (Parreño) as the special administrator of the estate of Engracia Manungas and appointed petitioner Diosdado Salinas Manungas (Diosdado) in her stead.

    The Facts

    Engracia Manungas was the wife of Florentino Manungas. They had no children. Instead, they adopted Samuel David Avila (Avila) on August 12, 1968. Florentino Manungas died intestate on May 29, 1977, while Avila predeceased his adoptive mother.[4] Avila was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte Vda. de Manungas.

    Thereafter, Engracia Manungas filed a Motion for Partition of Estate on March 31, 1980 in the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas, of which she was the administratrix. There, she stated that there are no other legal and compulsory heirs of Florentino Manungas except for herself, Avila and a Ramon Manungas whom she acknowledged as the natural son of Florentino Manungas.[5] Meanwhile, Avila's widow executed a Waiver of Rights and Participation on October 29, 1980, renouncing her rights over the separate property of her husband in favor of Engracia Manungas. Thereafter, a Decree of Final Distribution was issued in the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas distributing the properties to Engracia Manungas and Ramon Manungas, the surviving heirs.[6]

    On October 25, 1995, the RTC, Branch 4 in Panabo City, appointed Parreño, the niece of Engracia Manungas, as the Judicial Guardian of the properties and person of her incompetent aunt.[7]

    Engracia Manungas, through Parreño, then instituted Civil Case No. 5196-96 against the spouses Diosdado Salinas Manungas and Milagros Pacifico for illegal detainer and damages with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Panabo City. In their answer, the spouses Salinas claimed that Diosdado is the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas. However, the answer was filed beyond the reglementary period and was not considered by the MTC. Thus, the MTC issued a summary judgment in favor of Engracia Manungas, ordering the spouses to vacate the premises and to restore possession to Engracia Manungas. The Decision was appealed by the spouses Salinas to the RTC of Tagum, Davao City which affirmed in toto the Decision of the MTC.[8] On appeal to this Court, defendants' petition was denied for having been filed out of time in a Resolution which became final on April 20, 1998.[9]

    Thereafter, on August 7, 1998, Diosdado instituted a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over the Estate of Engracia Manungas (Estate of Manungas) in his favor before the RTC, Branch 2 in Tagum City, Davao. He alleged that he, being an illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas, is an heir of Engracia Manungas.[10]  The petition was opposed by Margarita Avila Loreto (Loreto) and Parreño alleging that Diosdado was incompetent as an administrator of the Estate of Manungas claiming that he was not a Manungas, that he was not an heir of Engracia Manungas, he was not a creditor of Engracia Manungas or her estate and that he was in fact a debtor of the estate having been found liable to Engracia Manungas for    PhP 177,000 by virtue of a Decision issued by the MTC in Civil Case No. 5196-96. On May 15, 2002, the RTC issued an Order appointing Parreño as the administrator of the Estate of Manungas, the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Florencia A. Parreño is hereby appointed as Special Administrator of the property of the late Engracia N. Vda. de Manungas. The Special Administrator is hereby directed to post a bond in the amount of P200,000.00 pursuant to Sec. 4 of Rule 81.

    SO ORDERED.[11]

    Diosdado filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.[12] In his motion, Diosdado argued that Parreño's appointment as special administrator of the Estate of Manungas was by virtue of her being the judicial guardian of the latter but which relation ceased upon Engracia Manungas' death, concluding that her appointment as special administrator was without basis. He added that Parreño was not fit to become a special administrator having already been fined by the court for failing to render a timely accounting of Engracia Manungas' property as her judicial guardian. Diosdado also reasoned that Parreño is a mere niece, a collateral relative, of Engracia Manungas, while he is the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas.

    On November 4, 2002, the RTC issued an Order reversing itself and ordering the revocation of its earlier appointment of Parreño as the administrator of the Estate of Manungas while appointing Diosdado as the Special Administrator.[13]

    Parreño and Loreto appealed the ruling of the RTC to the CA. The CA issued its assailed April 30, 2009 Decision finding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in revoking its earlier appointment of Parreño as the administrator of the Estate of Manungas and appointing Diosdado instead. The CA further reinstated Parreño as the special administrator of the estate. The dispositive portion reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated November 4, 2002 setting aside the appointment of Florencia Parreño as special administrator of the estate of the late Engracia Vda. de Manungas, and denying the property bond posted by Florencia Parreño [is] hereby declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE as having been issued by Public Respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum City, Davao del Norte with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

    SO ORDERED.[14]

    Diosdado assailed the CA Decision in a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 15, 2009[15] which the CA denied in the July 21, 2010 Resolution.

    Hence, We have this petition.

    The Issues

    Diosdado raises the following issues:

    The Court a Quo utterly disregarded the jurisprudence that certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available.[16]

    The Court a Quo in denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration grossly violated the rule that once a decision or order is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.[17]

    The Court a Quo committed a grave error when it ruled to annul the appointment of petitioner, Diosdado Manungas as judicial administrator and reinstating the appointment of Florencia Parreño as special administrator.[18]

    The Court a Quo gravely erred in [giving] due course to oppositors' petition that is flawed.[19]

    The Court's Ruling

    The petition must be denied.

    The RTC Order dated November 4, 2002 is an interlocutory order

    The first two issues raised by Diosdado revolve around the issue of whether the RTC Order dated November 4, 2002 is an interlocutory order.

    Diosdado alleges that, following the ruling of this Court that Certiorari cannot be the substitute for a lost appeal, Parreño should have appealed the RTC Order dated November 4, 2002 to the CA through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Diosdado contends that the Order dated November 4, 2002 became final and executory, Parreño having failed to file the petition within the reglementary period; thus, the Order cannot be the subject of review even by this Court. However, Diosdado's position assumes that the RTC Order dated November 4, 2002 is a final order instead of an interlocutory order.

    In Philippine Business Bank v. Chua,[20] the Court stated what an interlocutory order is:

    Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is "interlocutory", e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x. Unlike a final judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.

    The Court has considered an appointment of a special administrator as an interlocutory or preliminary order to the main case for the grant of letters of administration in a testate or intestate proceeding. In Ocampo v. Ocampo,[21] the Court succinctly held, "The appointment or removal of special administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court."

    With such categorical ruling of the Court, the Order dated November 4, 2002 is clearly an interlocutory order. As such, the order cannot be the subject of an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as argued by petitioner. The proper remedy is the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Thus, Section 1(c) of Rule 41 states:

    Section 1. Subject of appeal.

    An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

    No appeal may be taken from:

    x x x x

    (c) An interlocutory order;

    x x x x

    In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.


    Verily, respondents made use of the proper mode of review by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Respondents filed the petition well within the prescribed period under this rule.

    There was no necessity to file a motion for reconsideration

    As properly noted by petitioner, the general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is required before a decision may be appealed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Under the rule, there must be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration, to justify the filing of a petition for certiorari. Thus, petitioner argues that respondent's failure to move for the reconsideration of the Order dated November 4, 2002 is fatal to an appeal from it.  Such general rule, however, admits of exceptions as explained in Delos Reyes v. Flores:[22]

    We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus are available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration. The writ of certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error. x x x However, there are several exceptions where a petition for certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration, to wit:

    x x x x

    i. where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (Emphasis supplied.)

    The instant case is clearly an exception to the general rule. An examination of the issues raised by respondents in appealing the Order dated November 4, 2002, reveals that the issues are only questions of law. Ergo, there is no need for a motion for reconsideration.

    In addition, the Court has even allowed the filing of a petition for certiorari despite the existence of an appeal or other appropriate remedy in several instances, including when the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order.[23]

    Thus, while respondent failed to move for the reconsideration of the November 4, 2002 Order of the RTC, a petition for certiorari may still prosper, as in this case.

    The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion

    The lower court stated in its November 4, 2002 Order that:

    After carefully scrutinizing the arguments and grounds raised by both petitioner and oppositors, this Court finds merit in the contention of petitioner. In the case of Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 324, the Supreme Court ruled:

    The presence of illegitimate children precludes succession by collateral relatives to his estate;

    Diosdado Manungas, being the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas inherits the latter's property by operation of law;

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the order appointing Florencia Parreño as special administrator of the estate of the late Engracia Vda. de Manungas is ordered set aside.

    Such reasoning is a non sequitur.

    The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of Florentino Manungas does not mean that he is entitled or even qualified to become the special administrator of the Estate of Manungas.

    Jurisprudence teaches us that the appointment of a special administrator lies within the discretion of the court. In Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel,[24] it was stated that:

    It is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred right of certain persons to the appointment of administrator under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory provisions as to causes for removal of an executor or administrator under section 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply to the selection or removal of special administrator. x x x As the law does not say who shall be appointed as special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or court has discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion which must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity. (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted.)

    This principle was reiterated in the Ocampo case, where the Court ruled that:

    While the RTC considered that respondents were the nearest of kin to their deceased parents in their appointment as joint special administrators, this is not a mandatory requirement for the appointment. It has long been settled that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, do not obtain. As long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher courts is unwarranted.[25] (Emphasis supplied.)

    While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a special administrator of the estate, such discretion must be exercised with reason, guided by the directives of equity, justice and legal principles. It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the role of a special administrator is to preserve the estate until a regular administrator is appointed. As stated in Sec. 2, Rule 80 of the Rules:

    Section 2. Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. -- Such special administrator shall take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased and preserve the same for the executors or administrator afterwards appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits as administrator. He may sell only such perishable and other property as the court orders sold. A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased unless so ordered by the court.

    Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would, therefore, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone interested in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs. Such choice would ensure that such person would not expose the estate to losses that would effectively diminish his or her share. While the court may use its discretion and depart from such reasoning, still, there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. To do so would be tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.

    Hence, the CA ruled that the trial court erred in issuing the November 4, 2002 Order, acting with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as the special administrator of Engracia Manungas' estate:

    In any case, the trial court erred in revoking the appointment of Florencia Avila Parreño as Special Administrator on the ground that it found merit in Diosdado's contention that he is the illegitimate child of the late Florentino Manangus. The evidence on record shows that Diosdado is not related to the late Engracia and so he is not interested in preserving the latter's estate. On the other hand, Florencia, who is a former Judicial guardian of Engracia when she was still alive and who is also the niece of the latter, is interested in protecting and preserving the estate of her late aunt Engracia, as by doing so she would reap the benefit of a wise administration of the decedent's estate. Hence, the Order of the lower court revoking the appointment of Florencia Avila Parreño as special administrator constitutes not only a reversible error, but also a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the instant case, the lower court exercised its power in a despotic, arbitrary or capricious manner, as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[26] (Emphasis supplied.)

    To reiterate, the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of Engracia Manungas. It must be remembered that the estate of Florentino Manungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings that have long been terminated with the proceeds distributed to the heirs with the issuance of a Decree of Final Distribution.[27] With the termination of the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas, Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of Manungas. In fact, Diosdado is a debtor of the estate and would have no interest in preserving its value. There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator.  The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as special administrator of the Estate of Manungas. The CA correctly set aside the November 4, 2002 Order of the RTC.

    Consequently, with the setting aside of the November 4, 2002 Order of the trial court, reversing its May 15, 2002 Order and appointing Diosdado as the special administrator of Engracia Manungas' estate, the May 15, 2002 Order is necessarily reinstated and Parreño's appointment as special administrator is revived.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The CA's April 30, 2009 Decision and July 21, 2010 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 74531-MIN declaring as null and void the November 4, 2002 Order of the RTC in Special Proceedings No. 708 are AFFIRMED. Consequently, the Order dated May 15, 2002 of the RTC is hereby REINSTATED and Florencia Avila Parreño is REINSTATED as the special administrator of the estate of Engracia Manungas.

    SO ORDERED.

    Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, and Sereno,* JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Additional member per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.

    [1] Rollo, pp. 22-36.  Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Michael P. Elbinias.

    [2] Id. at 50-51.

    [3] CA rollo, pp. 113-114. Penned by Judge Erasto D. Salcedo.

    [4] Rollo, p. 23.

    [5] Id.

    [6] Id. at 24.

    [7] Id. at 25.

    [8] Id. at 25.

    [9] Id. at 25-26.

    [10] Id. at 26.

    [11] Id. at 28.

    [12] Id.

    [13] Id. at 29.

    [14] Id. at 35.

    [15] Id. at 37-46.

    [16] Id. at 4.

    [17] Id. at 6.

    [18] Id.

    [19] Id. at 9.

    [20] G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010.

    [21] G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 559, 571.

    [22] G.R. No. 168726, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 270, 277-278.

    [23] Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 491, 502.

    [24] G.R. No. 162934, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 747, 759-760.

    [25] Supra note 21.

    [26] Rollo, p. 35.

    [27] Id. at 24.

     [G.R. No. 193161 : August 22, 2011]   DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, PETITIONER, VS. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO, RESPONDENTS.


    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