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. 176129 : August 24, 2011]   HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO (EUPROCINIA, ROYCE AND IRISH CRISOSTOMO), PETITIONERS, VS. RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

     
    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 176129 : August 24, 2011]

    HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO (EUPROCINIA, ROYCE AND IRISH CRISOSTOMO), PETITIONERS, VS. RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

    D E C I S I O N


    LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

    This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to reverse and set aside the October 6, 2006[2] and January 5, 2007[3] Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 95920, which dismissed outright the petitioners' Petition for Review dated September 13, 2006 for being filed one day beyond the 15-day extended period granted by the Court of Appeals.

    Petitioners Euprocinia, Royce, and Irish, are the wife and children, respectively, of the late complainant, Rodolfo Crisostomo, who died during the pendency of the case. [4]

    The respondent, Rudex International Development Corporation, is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business.[5]

    On December 17, 2001, the Crisostomo spouses were offered a house and lot at Patricia South Villa, a subdivision developed by the respondent in Anabu II-F, Imus, Cavite.  After seeing the model house on Block 8, Lot 3, the Crisostomos decided to buy the property priced at ?833,000.00 on installment basis.  On the same day, they paid ?10,000.00 as down payment and signed a Reservation Agreement.  On December 21, 2001, the couple paid an additional ?50,000.00, executed a promissory note, and issued 36 postdated checks to cover the monthly amortizations on the property.  The Crisostomos were then given a Key Acceptance, Walk Through, and Final Turnover Certificate.[6]

    On February 10, 2002, the Crisostomo family moved in to their new house; however, they started to notice several construction defects on the house and inadequate facilities in the subdivision.  Thus, on March 22, 2002, the late Rodolfo asked his wife Euprocinia to discontinue paying their monthly amortizations and to ask for a rescission of the contract.  On May 17, 2002, Rodolfo personally delivered a letter of complaint to the respondent, wherein he rescinded their Contract to Sell, demanded the refund of all the payments he had made, and reiterated that he would no longer pay the monthly amortizations.[7]

    On May 27, 2002, Rodolfo filed a Complaint[8] for violation of Presidential Decree Nos. 1344 and 957, and Board Resolution No. 579 of 1995, before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

    In view of respondent's failure to answer the Complaint, it was declared in default on November 26, 2003.[9]

    The HLURB conducted an ocular inspection in Patricia South Villa on March 12, 2003 and found Rodolfo's allegations to be supported by its findings.  The HLURB held that under Section 20 of Presidential Decree No. 957, its findings justified the right of Rodolfo to demand rescission of his contract with the respondent.  Thus, on July 7, 2003, the HLURB issued its Judgment by Default,[10] the dispositive portion of which reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the rescission of the contract to sell as valid and ordering the respondent to refund the total payments in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment.

    After full payment, complainant is directed to peacefully surrender the subject property in favor of the respondent.

    Further, respondent is directed to pay complainant P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay this Board P10,000.00 by way of administrative fine for violation of Section 20 in relation to Section 38 of P.D. 957.[11]

    On August 26, 2003, the respondent asked the HLURB to review[12] its July 7, 2003 Decision.  It alleged that Rodolfo's allegations were concocted to get out of their contract because he could no longer pay his monthly amortizations on the property.  On August 17, 2004, the HLURB rendered a Decision[13] on respondent's Petition for Review, to wit:

    Wherefore, the decision of the office below is hereby modified to read as follows:

    Wherefore premises considered, judgment is hereby rescinding the reservation agreement of parties and subject to legal compensation or offsetting, ordering respondent to refund the total payments in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at legal interest from the time of the filing of the complaint; ordering complainant to turn over possession of the unit to the respondent and ordering complainant to pay respondent reasonable compensation for the use of the unit in the amount of P4,000.00 per month until possession of the unit is turned over to the respondent.

    Further, respondent is directed to pay complainant P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay this board P10,000.00 by way of administrative fine for violation of section 20 in relation to section 38 of P.D. 957.[14]

    This was appealed[15] by the petitioners, who substituted Rodolfo upon his death, to the Office of the President.  On November 18, 2005, the Office of the President decided[16]  in their favor, as follows:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners dated August 23, 2004 is hereby reversed and set aside.  Judgment is hereby rendered:

    1. Declaring the contract of sale entered into between the parties as rescinded;
    2. Appellants are hereby ordered to turn over possession of the property to the Appellee;
    3. Appellee is hereby ordered of refund to the appellants the latter's total payment in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from June 10, 2002 (time of the filing of the complaint);
    4. Appellee is likewise ordered to pay appellants P25,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
    5. Appellee is ordered to pay appellants P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
    6. Appellee is ordered to pay administrative fine in the amount of P10,000.00.[17]

    The respondent asked for a reconsideration[18] of this decision and on May 9, 2006, the Office of the President granted respondent's motion and reinstated the August 17, 2004 decision of the HLURB.[19]

    The Office of the President, in resolving the issue of whether it properly deleted the previous award of rentals by the HLURB, held that "P.D. [No.] 957 does not authorize oppression of perceived unscrupulous subdivision developers, each time a home buyer cries foul or alleges any infirmity on the former."[20]  Agreeing with the respondent that the deletion of the award of rentals would result in unduly enriching the petitioners, the Office of the President held:

    By staying at the questioned premises for free and without compensation, to the prejudice of [respondent], it is clear that [petitioners] unduly enriched themselves at the expense of another.

    Rental payments are legally supported by virtue of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.  Eventhough the same is not prayed for by herein appellee, it could still be recognized and awarded by our Office considering that said issue, or award thereof, is inextricably linked to the issues involved as well as the facts proven in the case, and it is necessary for a just and equitable determination of the case.[21]

    The petitioners sought for a reconsideration[22] of this Order,[23] but this was denied by the Office of the President on August 2, 2006.

    On September 15, 2006, the petitioners filed their Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals.  However, this was dismissed outright in a Resolution[24] for being filed out of time, the deadline being September 14, 2006.  The Court of Appeals said that the petitioners were already granted a 15-day extension and yet no justification or reason was given to explain why they still filed beyond the extended period.  The Court of Appeals held:

    We have no more jurisdiction to entertain the Petition much less to alter the judgment which has become final and executory.  We only have the power to dismiss the appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances to warrant such delay.[25]

    The petitioners sought reconsideration of this dismissal but the Court of Appeals found their motion to be "bereft of merit."[26]

    The petitioners are now before us, seeking not only that we give their petition due consideration, but also that we declare the HLURB August 17, 2004 Decision as null and void.  They submit the following issues for our resolution:

    5.1. AN APPEAL IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE COURTS SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION, SO AS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIONERS OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, PARTICULARLY, IF THE APPEAL IS MERITORIOUS.

    5.2. THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT OF HLURB PROPER GRANTING RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT PRAYED FOR ALLEGED IN THE PLEADINGS, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.

    5.3. THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION WHEN IT MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT OF HLURB PROPER, AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, LIKEWISE HAS ACTED, IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED EN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD.[27]

    Discussion

    We shall limit our discussion to the core issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review filed by petitioners before it, on the ground that the petition was filed late.

    The petitioners are claiming that their one-day delay in filing their petition before the Court of Appeals constitutes excusable negligence in the absence of an intent to delay the administration of justice.  The petitioners explained that their petition was ready as early as September 13, 2006, with only the annexes to be attached. Their counsel assigned her secretary to arrange and attach these annexes but without their counsel's knowledge, the secretary did this in a vacant room outside their office.  The following day, the secretary, a single mother of two small children, failed to report for work because she had to take her kids to a doctor as they had been sick since she found them home, abandoned by their nanny, the night before.  It was only late in the afternoon that the secretary remembered that she forgot to leave instructions about the petition in their office.[28]

    The petitioners are asking that this Court exercise its equity jurisdiction since their delay was neither intended nor prejudicial to respondent.[29]

    Ruling of this Court

    We grant the petition.

    This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.  Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their petition's dismissal.[30]

    In Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales v. Pennisi,[31] this Court elucidated on the rules on reglementary periods, to wit:

    The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.  The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[32]

    In Samala v. Court of Appeals,[33] we said:

    The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.  Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.  Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality.  Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts.[34]

    In this case, the last day for filing the petition for review was on September 13, 2006.  The petitioners entrusted the drafting of their petition with their counsel, who in turn entrusted the attaching of the required annexes to the petition with her secretary.  The secretary resigned from her job sometime later to avoid giving her employer "problems for unexpected absences in the future."[35]  Aside from this, the petitioners also submitted an Affidavit[36] from the secretary, who narrated her ordeal that day and why she was not able to inform her employer of the whereabouts of the petition.  A certification from the doctor of one of the secretary's children was also submitted to prove that the secretary indeed brought her children to the doctor on September 14, 2006, the deadline for filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

    In light of the foregoing, we are inclined to give the same consideration in this case pursuant to the rules on justice, equity, and fair play.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The October 6, 2006 and January 5, 2007 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 95920 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  CA-G.R. SP No. 95920 is ordered REINSTATED and REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

    SO ORDERED.

    Corona, C.J.,  (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] 1997 Rules of Court, Rule 45.

    [2] Rollo, pp. 45-46; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring.

    [3] Id. at 39-42.

    [4] Id. at 10.

    [5] Id. at 222.

    [6] Id. at 22.

    [7] Id. at 23-25.

    [8] Id. at 53-62.

    [9] Id. at 65-66.

    [10] Id. at 93-97.

    [11] Id. at 97.

    [12] Id. at 98-112.

    [13] Id. at 185-188.

    [14] Id. at 187.

    [15] Id. at 191-220.

    [16] Id. at 260-273.

    [17] Id. at 272-273.

    [18] Id. at 274-282.

    [19] Id. at 290-293.

    [20] Id. at 291.

    [21] Id. at 292.

    [22] Id. at 294-309.

    [23] Id. at 317.

    [24] Id. at 45-46.

    [25] Id.

    [26] Id. at 40.

    [27] Id. at 26.

    [28] Id. at 26-27.

    [29] Id. at 27.

    [30] Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, 511 Phil. 486, 498 (2005).

    [31] G.R. No. 169958, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 292.

    [32] Id. at 301.

    [33] 416 Phil. 1 (2001).

    [34] Id. at 8.

    [35] Rollo, p. 51, Resignation Letter.

    [36] Id. at 48-49.

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


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



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