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
 

   
July-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 181035 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL DION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176061 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BINGKY CAMPOS AND DANNY "BOY" ACABO, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2011-04-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: GROSS VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND DOUBLE COMPENSATION IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMITTED BY MR. EDUARDO V. ESCALA, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

  • [G.R. No. 183711 : July 05, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183712] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183713] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO; CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [A.C. NO. 8292] ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA AND NASSER MAROHOMSALIC, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON AND RAYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171101 : July 05, 2011] HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA [1] AND HIS SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. AND WINDSOR ANDAYA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 190795 : July 06, 2011] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICIY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS, INC. (NASECORE), REPRESENTED BY PETRONILO ILAGAN; FEDERATION OF VILLAGE ASSOCIATIONS (FOVA), REPRESENTED BY SIEFRIEDO VELOSO; AND FEDERATION OF LAS PIÑAS VILLAGE (FOLVA), REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIO DAZO, PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. (MERALCO), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192235 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169196 : July 06, 2011] PETRA C. MARTINEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER, CLAVERIA AGRI-BASED MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 169198] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184253 : July 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE PHILIPPINE NAVY, REPRESENTED BY CAPT. RUFO R. VILLANUEVA, SUBSTITUTED BY CAPT. PANCRACIO O. ALFONSO, AND NOW BY CAPT. BENEDICTO G. SANCEDA PN, PETITIONER, VS. CPO MAGDALENO PERALTA PN (RET.), CPO ROMEO ESTALLO PN (RET.), CPO ERNESTO RAQUION PN (RET.), MSGT SALVADOR RAGAS PM (RET.), MSGT DOMINGO MALACAT PM (RET.), MSGT CONSTANTINO CANONIGO PM (RET.), AND AMELIA MANGUBAT, RESPONDENTS. MSGT ALFREDO BANTOG PM (RET.), MSGT RODOLFO VELASCO PM (RET.), AND NAVY ENLISTEDMEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT-INTERVENORS.

  • [G.R. No. 175926 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192816 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175457 : July 06, 2011] RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 175482] VS. ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011] THE ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160138 : July 13, 2011] AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC. (AER), ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, LOURDES T. INDUCIL, JOCELYN T. INDUCIL AND MA. CONCEPCION I. DONATO, PETITIONERS, VS. PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA, ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 160192] PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA, ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, PETITIONERS, VS. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC., AND ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160088 : July 13, 2011] AGUSTIN P. DELA TORRE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION, RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION, AND ROLAND G. DELA TORRE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 160565] PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION AND ROLAND G. DELA TORRE, PETITIONERS, VS. CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION, AGUSTIN DELA TORRE AND RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193003 : July 13, 2011] FRANCISCO IMSON Y ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185440 : July 13, 2011] VICELET LALICON AND VICELEN LALICON, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186467 : July 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2284 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3304-RTJ] : July 13, 2011] SPOUSES SUR AND RITA VILLA AND LETICIA GOREMBALEM VALENZUELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/ LEGAL RESEARCHER VIRGINIA M. BARTOLOME AND SHERIFF IV CRISPIN S. CALSENIA, JR., ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, SURALLAH, SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2945 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 11-3590-P] : July 13, 2011] RE: LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. FRANCISCO A. PUA, JR., CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, LUCENA CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175091 : July 13, 2011] P/CHIEF INSPECTOR FERNANDO BILLEDO, SPO3 RODRIGO DOMINGO, PO3 JORGE LOPEZ, FERDINAND CRUZ, AND MARIANO CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. WILHELMINA WAGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BRANCH III, PASAY CITY, PUBLIC RESPONDENT. ALBERTO MINA, NILO JAY MINA AND FERDINAND CAASI, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2946 [Formerly A.M. No. 11-5-52-MTCC] : July 13, 2011] RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF CORNELIO RENIETTE CABRERA, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, LIPA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 165487 : July 13, 2011] COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO LAGMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 153982 : July 18, 2011] SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 116121 : July 18, 2011] THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., REPRESENTED BY RUBEN REINOSO JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, AND FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION,** RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163551 : July 18, 2011] DATU KIRAM SAMPACO, SUBSTITUTED BY HADJI SORAYA S. MACABANDO, PETITIONER, VS. HADJI SERAD MINGCA LANTUD, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163653 : July 19, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 167689] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193007 : July 19, 2011] RENATO V. DIAZ AND AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL, PETITIONERS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187246 : July 20, 2011] EDWIN TABAO Y PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169594 : July 20, 2011] BIENVENIDO BARRIENTOS, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO RAPAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193723 : July 20, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. LIBRADO RAMOS AND REMEDIOS RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 181919 : July 20, 2011] JONES INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, EDWARD G. CUE, PETITIONER, VS. BELLA AGCAOILI-BARIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166863 : July 20, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. JUM ANGEL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192760 : July 20, 2011] JOJIT GARINGARAO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167246 : July 20, 2011] GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, PETITIONER, VS. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011] MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186227 : July 20, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 08-2034-MTJ] : July 25, 2011] ATTY. CONRADO B. GANDEZA, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA CLARITA C. TABIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 4, BAGUIO CITY. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173259 : July 25, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. F.F. CRUZ AND CO., INC. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165777 : July 25, 2011] CEFERINA DE UNGRIA [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY LOLITA UNGRIA SAN JUAN-JAVIER, AND RHODORA R. PELOMIDA AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 35, ROSARIO DIDELES VDA. DE CASTOR, NEPTHALIE CASTOR ITUCAS, FEROLYN CASTOR FACURIB, RACHEL DE CASTOR, LEA CASTOR DOLLOLOSA, AND ROSALIE CASTOR BENEDICTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152695 : July 25, 2011] VICTORIA CLARAVALL, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, LORETO CLARAVALL, PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO LIM, ROBERTO LIM, AND ROGELIO LIM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151911 : July 25, 2011] EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, DOMICIANO CABIGAO, NESTOR DOMACENA, ROLANDO DOBLADO, ERNESTO PAMPUAN, EDGARDO PRADO, ROMEO DOMINICO, RAMON GARCIA, AND CARLOS PACHECO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 154535] NESTOR DOMACENA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC : July 26, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE AND TRAVEL ABROAD OF PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCISCO P. RABANG III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, COTABATO CITY

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2261 (Formerly oca ipi No. 10-3386- RTJ) : July 26, 2011] ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175485 : July 27, 2011] CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. RENATO L. MATEO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175343 : July 27, 2011] LORETO LUGA (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY CELERINA LUGA - DECEASED (WIFE) AND CHILDREN NAMELY: PURIFICACION LUGA-BIONG, ELIZABETH LUGA-CABAÑA, ROSALIE LUGA-TANUTAN, LEDIA LUGA-GUY AB, MARITESS LUGA-GRAVINO, NESTOR LUGA AND DAVID LUGA. PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ELENA AND ROGELIO ARCIAGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186417 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

  • [G. R. No. 172699 : July 27, 2011] ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIRIACO LAGUNZAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; AND HON. HANS LEO J. CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA NG ELECTROMAT-WASTO, PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164679 : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. NO. P-11-2944 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 10-3342-P) : July 27, 2011] CAROL A. ABADIANO, CLEOFE ABADIANO-BONACHITA, RYAN M. ABADIANO AND CHERRY MAE M. ABADIANO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. GENEROSO B. REGALADO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163252 : July 27, 2011] ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION) AND ARNULFO R. FLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159101 : July 27, 2011] SPS. GONZALO T. DELA ROSA & CRISTETA DELA ROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF JUAN VALDEZ AND SPOUSES POTENCIANO MALVAR AND LOURDES MALVAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175291 : July 27, 2011] THE HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS, NAMELY: LOLITA ZABATE CABIGAS, ANECITA C. CANQUE, DIOSCORO CABIGAS, FIDEL CABIGAS, AND RUFINO CABIGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MELBA L. LIMBACO, LINDA L. LOGARTA, RAMON C. LOGARTA, HENRY D. SEE, FREDDIE S. GO, BENEDICT Y. QUE, AWG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND UNIVERSITY OF CEBU BANILAD, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2888 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3252-P) : July 27, 2011] GOLDEN SUN FINANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY RACHELLE L. MARMITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICARDO R. ALBANO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC), BRANCH 62, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2852 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3270-P) : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. LEDA O. URI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ALAMINOS, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178941 : July 27, 2011] JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, LEONARD S. DE VERA, ROMULO A. RIVERA, DANTE G. ILAYA, PURA ANGELICA Y. SANTIAGO, ROSARIO T. SETIAS-REYES, JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR, MANUEL M. MONZON, IMMANUEL L. SODUSTA, CARLOS L. VALDEZ, JR., AND LYDIA A. NAVARRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 48, RTC-PUERTO PRINCESA AND GLENN C. GACOTT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164356 : July 27, 2011] HEIRS OF MARGARITO PABAUS, NAMELY, FELICIANA P. MASACOTE, MERLINDA P. CAILING, MAGUINDA P. ARCLETA, ADELAIDA PABAUS, RAUL MORGADO AND LEOPOLDO MORGADO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF AMANDA YUTIAMCO, NAMELY, JOSEFINA TAN, AND MOISES, VIRGINIA, ROGELIO, ERLINDA, ANA AND ERNESTO, ALL SURNAMED YUTIAMCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168251 : July 27, 2011] JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE D. MILLORA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171868 : July 27, 2011] SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP AND WHELMA S. YAP, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO AND REMEDIOS L. MAXINO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS ORIENTAL AND DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171991] DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC. (DRBI) HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MR. WILLIAM D.S. DICHOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO AND REMEDIOS MAXINO, AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP AND WHELMA S. YAP, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172506 : July 27, 2011] JERRY MAPILI, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC./NATIVIDAD NISCE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182042 : July 27, 2011] THUNDER SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY/ LOURDES M. LASALA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY (REGION I) AND NFA REGIONAL BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (REGION I), RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2498- RTJ) : July 27, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CYRIL DEL CALLAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180390 : July 27, 2011] PRUDENTIAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168105 : July 27, 2011] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEVERINO LISTANA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156686 : July 27, 2011] NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, BARANGAY SUN VALLEY, PARAÑAQUE CITY, ROBERTO GUEVARRA IN HIS CAPACITY AS PUNONG BARANGAY AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182551 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 153809 : July 27, 2011] ELOISA L. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR, DOMINGO C. FLORES, MUNICIPAL BUDGET OFFICER, ALICIA L. OLIMPO, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, ANNALIZA L. BARABAT, MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTANT, AMADOR B. ALUNIA, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, NENITA L. ERNACIO, MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURIST, AMELIA C. SAMSON, HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER IV, EDWIN E. TOLENTINO, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER IV, DOMINGO R. TENEDERO AND ROEL Z. MANARIN, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB) MEMBERS, ALL FROM CARMONA, CAVITE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2285 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3472-RTJ : July 27, 2011] MAYOR MACARIO T. HUMOL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, 11th JUDICIAL REGION, NABUNTURAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011]   THE ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, RESPONDENTS.

     
    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011]

    THE ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    An act will be struck down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion only when the abuse of discretion is patent and gross. [1]

    Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus [2] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the June 1, 2004 [3] and December 29, 2004 [4] Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 51242, entitled Bernardo Aseneta v. Spouses Salvacion Serrano Ladanga and Agustin Ladanga where the CA refused to act on petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the November 7, 2000 Decision [5] in the said case.  The dispositive portion of the assailed June 1, 2004 Resolution reads:

    ACCORDINGLY, on account of the pendency before the Supreme Court of a petition for review filed by defendant-appellant Agustin Ladanga from the decision of the Court, the Court will again refrain from acting on the aforesaid Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

    SO ORDERED. [6]

    The assailed December 29, 2004 Resolution, [7] on the other hand, denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the June 1, 2004 Resolution.

    Petitioners seek (1) to annul and set aside the aforesaid Resolutions for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) to require the CA to act on their earlier Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties, as well as their Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

    Factual antecedents

    In 1975, during her lifetime, Clemencia Aseneta (Clemencia), through her adopted son and judicially-appointed guardian, [8] respondent Bernardo Aseneta (Bernardo), filed a reconveyance case [9] (Reconveyance Case) against respondent-spouses Salvacion and Agustin Ladanga (spouses Ladanga) before Branch 93 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.  The complaint sought to annul the Deeds of Sale allegedly executed by Clemencia in favor of the spouses Ladanga over a Diliman property [10] and a Cubao property [11] on grounds of lack of intent to convey and lack of consideration.  In 1977, Clemencia died during the pendency of the reconveyance case and was substituted as plaintiff by her known putative heir, Bernardo. [12]

    Meanwhile, Clemencia's death also brought about estate settlement proceedings (Probate Case) between  Soledad Maninang (Maninang), represented by petitioner Law Firm of Quisumbing Torres (QT), and  Bernardo. Maninang claimed that Clemencia bequeathed to her the entire estate in her last will and testament.  Bernardo countered that the will is void on the ground of preterition.

    This Probate Case was eventually decided based on a compromise agreement executed by Bernardo, Maninang, and their respective counsels.  The compromise agreement identified certain properties of the estate and provided for their distribution among the parties.  It further provided that as to "any other properties, known or unknown," Maninang would get 35% interest while QT would get 15% interest.  The following are the relevant excerpts from the November 5, 1992 Decision Based on Compromise Agreement in the Probate Case:

    BERNARDO ASENETA and the ESTATE OF SOLEDAD L. MANINANG, assisted by their respective counsels, respectfully state:

    1.  On 6 October 1992, they have reached and concluded a mutually satisfactory settlement of their claims in the above-referenced cases.  Consequently, they freely entered into and executed a Compromise Agreement to effect a prompt distribution of the Estate of Clemencia A. Aseneta, as follows:

    WHEREAS, the parties hereto are the sole claimants to the estate of Clemencia A. Aseneta x x x presently the subject of consolidated Special Proceeding Nos. Q-23304 and 8569 in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 161, and Special Proceeding No. M-2176 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145;

    WHEREAS, the deceased Clemencia A. Aseneta left no other heirs;

    x x x x

    WHEREAS, MANINANG is indebted to the law firms of N.J. Quisumbing & Associates and Quisumbing Torres & Evangelista (QTE) for professional services rendered in the aforesaid estate proceedings in an amount equivalent to thirty percent (30%) of MANINANG's recovery of inheritance, and therefore MANINANG has assigned directly to QTE, a thirty percent (30%) share of her distributions under this Compromise Agreement;

    x x x x

    NOW, THEREFORE,  the parties hereto agree as follows:

    1.  The aforesaid real properties of the Estate shall belong and be distributed to the parties hereto and to ALGR [Bernardo's counsel] and QTE, as follows:

    x x x x

    (h)  Any other real properties, known or unknown, to ASENETA (37.5% undivided interest), to ALGR (12.5% undivided interest), to MANINANG (35% undivided interest), and to QTE (15% undivided interest)

    x x x x

    6.  The Estate shall be distributed, as soon as possible after approval of this Compromise Agreement, in accordance with the terms hereof, and the parties hereto shall voluntarily hand over whatever titles, cases, papers, documents, exhibits and personal properties appertaining to the other as per the distribution above.

    x x x x

    8.  x x x Any claims, causes of action or liabilities arising as a result of a breach of this Compromise Agreement are specifically reserved and excluded from this release and discharge.

    x x x x [13]

    Back in 1987, while the Probate Case was still pending, a development allegedly took place in the Reconveyance Case. According to Bernardo, [14] the parties to the Reconveyance Case - Bernardo and respondent spouses Ladanga - allegedly entered into a Compromise Agreement with respect to the Cubao property.  (The records of this case does not include a copy of such alleged Compromise Agreement.) This Compromise Agreement, which was allegedly approved by the trial court, stated that Bernardo and the spouses Ladanga have agreed to sell the Cubao property to an unmentioned third party. [15]  The parties did not disclose to whom payment was made for such alleged sale.

    The Reconveyance Case then proceeded and, after 20 years in the trial court, was finally decided in favor of Clemencia's estate. The trial court's February 24, 1995 Decision ordered the reconveyance of both the Diliman property (TCT No. 197624) and the Cubao property (TCT No. 204090) to "[Bernardo Aseneta] for and in behalf of Miss Clemencia Aseneta."  The dispositive portion reads thus:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, by preponderance of evidence, the Court finds in favor of [Bernardo Aseneta] and against the [Spouses Ladanga], and hereby orders as follows:

    A.  For x x x spouses Ladanga to reconvey the titles and possession to the property now covered [by] TCT Nos. 197624 and 204090 to [Bernardo Aseneta] for and in behalf of Miss Clemencia Aseneta;

    B.  For the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel TCT Nos. 197624 and 204090 and to issue new transfer certificates of title in lieu of those cancelled, upon payment of the required fees by [Bernardo Aseneta], in the name of Miss Clemencia Aseneta;

    C.  For the x x x spouses Ladanga to render within fifteen (15) days an accounting of rentals received from the properties covered by TCT No. 197624 from April, 1974 up to the present and so with the property under TCT No. 204090 from November 1974 up to the present and to remit said rentals to [Bernardo Aseneta] minus any amount paid by the x x x [spouses] Ladanga as realty taxes for the period mentioned;

    D.  For x x x [spouses] Ladanga to pay [Bernardo Aseneta] P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees; and

    E.  Cost of suit.

    SO ORDERED. [16]

    The spouses Ladanga appealed the adverse decision in the Reconveyance Case to the CA.  The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51242.

    It was at this stage that petitioners Estate of Soledad Maninang (Estate of Maninang) and QT attempted to join Bernardo as appellees in the Reconveyance Case by filing a Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties on September 2, 1996. [17]  Petitioners claimed that under the Decision in the Probate Case, they had a 50% undivided interest in the Cubao property, which the trial court in the Reconveyance Case adjudicated in favor of the estate of Clemencia.  They posited that while the Cubao property was not specifically identified in the compromise agreement in the Probate Case, it falls under the clause "any other property, known or unknown."

    Bernardo opposed petitioners' motion on the ground that the spouses Ladanga's appeal in the Reconveyance Case does not involve the Cubao property, but only the Diliman property. [18] The spouses Ladanga did not controvert Bernardo's contention that the appeal only involves the Diliman property.  Instead they opposed petitioners' motion on the ground that petitioners' right to a share in Clemencia's estate is dubitable and should be threshed out in the appropriate proceedings. [19]

    Without acting on petitioners' Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties, the CA affirmed in toto in its November 7, 2000 Decision the trial court's decision with respect to the Diliman property. The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads as follows:

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision, insofar as it relates to the property presently covered by TCT No. 197624, is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED. [20]

    On November 24, 2000, respondent spouses Ladanga appealed [21] the CA Decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 145874).  This Court affirmed the CA Decision over the Diliman property in its September 30, 2005 Decision, [22] which attained finality on November 11, 2005. [23]

    Meanwhile, the petitioners learned in 2001 of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51242, which affirmed the trial court's Decision with respect to the Diliman property. Petitioners filed before the CA a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [24] of the CA Decision. They prayed for the nullification of the compromise agreement executed by Bernardo and spouses Ladanga over the Cubao property on the basis that Bernardo had no authority from the probate court to enter into such agreement; [25] or, in the alternative, petitioners sought a declaration that no such compromise agreement actually existed between Bernardo and spouses Ladanga. [26]

    The appellate court, in its assailed June 1, 2004 Resolution, [27] refused to act on petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration because of the then pending appeal of CA-G.R. CV No. 51242 in the Supreme Court. To recall, the Resolution disposes as follows:

    ACCORDINGLY, on account of the pendency before the Supreme Court of a petition for review filed by defendant-appellant Agustin Ladanga from the decision of the Court, the Court will again refrain from acting on the aforesaid Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

    SO ORDERED.

    Petitioners filed before the CA a Motion  for  Reconsideration, [28] which was

    denied by the CA in its assailed December 29, 2004 Resolution. [29]  This assailed Resolution pertinently reads:

    The Estate of Soledad Maninang and the Quisumbing Torres Law Firm (movants for partial reconsideration) are back with a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 1, 2004 Resolution, contending that their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the November 7, 2000 Decision may yet be resolved notwithstanding the pendency of the Petition for Review in the Supreme Court.  Herein movants submit that `considering that the subject matter of movants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration is not the same as the subject matter of defendant-appellants' Supreme Court petition, there is absolutely no risk that the Honorable Court's Resolution of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration may conflict with the Supreme Court's future decision in G.R. No. 145 [8]74. The Court is not persuaded. Prudence, let alone proper judicial decorum, commends that action on the aforesaid incident by the Court should be deferred until such time that the High Court will have finally resolved G.R. No. 145 [8]74.

    WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. [30]

    Petitioners come to this Court seeking the annulment of the assailed Resolutions and a writ of mandamus to compel the CA to act on their various motions.

    Petitioners' Arguments

    Petitioners contest the ground which the CA relied upon in refraining from acting on their motions.  They argue that the pending appeal of CA-G.R. CV No. 51242 in the Supreme Court has nothing to do with their pending motions.  They point out that the spouses Ladanga's appeal to the Supreme Court only involved the Diliman property, while petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the CA sought a ruling on the compromise agreement over the Cubao property.  The difference in the subject matter of the two appeals prevents the possibility of issuing conflicting rulings on the case. [31]

    As authority for their  theory  that the  CA can  still rule  on  their  motions,

    petitioners cite Section 8 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court which states that the lower court "loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties."  Basing their theory on the said provision, petitioners maintain that the CA still has jurisdiction to act on their motions because petitioners were still well within their period to appeal when they filed their Motion for Partial Reconsideration. [32]

    As regards their Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties,which was not acted upon by the CA, petitioners are adamant that the CA had the ministerial duty to act on their motions, as allegedly enshrined in no less than the Constitution. [33]  Petitioners insist that, as pro indiviso co-owners of the Cubao property, they have a right to join Bernardo as party-plaintiff in the reconveyance case. [34]

    Respondents' Arguments

    Respondent Bernardo waived his right to file a comment and submitted the petition for resolution; [35] hence, the Court resolved in its Resolution dated December 12, 2007 to dispense with the filing of Bernardo's memorandum.

    On the other hand, respondent spouses Ladanga filed their Comment dated June 28, 2005. [36] They assert that the CA was correct in declining to act on petitioners' motions because the CA already lost jurisdiction over CA-G.R. CV No. 51242 after the spouses Ladangas' appeal to this Court was given due course.  As to the filing of a Memorandum, the same was waived [37] by the respondent spouses' lawyer, Atty. Gregorio T. Fabros, who manifested that the respondent spouses had already died.

    Issue

    Whether petitioners have a right to adjudicate their claims to the Cubao property in the appeal in the Reconveyance Case, such that the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in denying them the opportunity to participate therein.

    Our Ruling

    The petition lacks merit.

    Petitioners claim that they have an interest in the properties of Clemencia's estate by virtue of the decision in the Probate Case which gave them a certain share in those properties.  They thus seek to join the appeal in the Reconveyance Case so that the Cubao property would be adjudicated to Clemencia's estate.  But the said motion is moot because the Cubao property had already been adjudicated in favor of Clemencia's estate with finality by the trial court in the Reconveyance Case.  The trial court's February 24, 1995 Decision ordered the spouses Ladanga to reconvey the Cubao property to Clemencia's estate, and this was not appealed.  What was appealed to the CA (in CA-G.R. CV No. 51242) was the order to reconvey the Diliman property. That the appeal in the Reconveyance Case (CA-G.R. CV No. 51242) only involved the Diliman property was finally determined by this Court in G.R. No. 145874.

    In short, there is no need for petitioners to join the appeal in the Reconveyance Case because: first, such appeal covered the Diliman property and not the Cubao property; and second, as to the Cubao property, it has already been settled with finality that such property must be reconveyed by the spouses Ladanga to Clemencia's estate.

    Based on the foregoing, the respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it did not allow petitioners to join and participate in the appeal in the Reconveyance Case.  Grave abuse of discretion "implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting 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." [38]  In the case at bar, while the CA's actions may not have been ideal (it should have simply denied petitioners' motions instead of refraining from acting on them), the same did not amount to a grave abuse of discretion considering that the issues raised by petitioners were not related to the subject matter before the CA.  The petitioners' interest is in the Cubao property, while the subject of the appeal before the CA was the Diliman property.

    As to petitioners' ultimate objective of getting their alleged share in the Cubao property, this cannot be litigated in the appeal of the Reconveyance Case but must be the subject of a separate suit or proceeding. Petitioners' cause of action is independent of the cause of action in the Reconveyance Case and cannot possibly be litigated without causing undue delay and prejudice to the respondents, who have already endured more than two decades only to resolve the issues in the Reconveyance Case. Moreover, petitioners' cause of action presents contentious issues (i.e., scope of the Compromise Agreement in the Probate Case, authority of Bernardo to compromise an estate property in the Reconveyance Case, defenses of other interested parties, etc.) which may still need to be threshed out in a proper trial and may require impleading other interested parties.  To allow petitioners to litigate these matters for the first time in the appellate stage of the Reconveyance Case will not serve the ends of justice - not to respondents and not even to petitioners.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus is DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:


    * Died on August 2, 1996 (rollo, p. 55).

    ** Deceased per Manifestation of his counsel, Atty. Gregorio T. Fabros (rollo of G.R. No. 167284, p. 221).

    [1] Fajardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157707, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 156, 163.

    [2] Rollo of G.R. No. 167284, pp. 3-37.

    [3] Id. at 50; penned by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto and concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Aurora S. Lagman.

    [4] Id. at 51-52; penned by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Aurora S. Lagman.

    [5] Id. at 39-49; penned by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Alicia L. Santos.

    [6] Id. at 50.

    [7] Id. at 52.

    [8] CA Decision, pp. 1, 3; id. at 39-41.

    [9] Civil Case No. Q-20128 (id. at 56-62).

    [10] The property in Diliman, Quezon City was registered in Clemencia Aseneta's name and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5813. After the purported sale, title was transferred to Salvacion Ladanga, who obtained TCT No. 197624 in her name (CA Decision, p. 2; id. at 40).

    [11] The property located in Cubao, Quezon City was registered in Clemencia Aseneta's name and covered by TCT No. 177619.  Due to the purported sale, title was transferred to Salvacion Ladanga, who then obtained TCT No. 204090 in her name (Id.; id.).

    [12] Id. at 1; id. at 39.

    [13] Rollo of G.R. No. 167284, pp. 67-72; penned by Judge Job B. Madayag. Emphasis supplied.

    [14] CA rollo, pp. 91-92.

    [15] Bernardo's Clarification and Opposition, pp. 1-2 (rollo of G.R. No. 167284, pp. 76-77) and Spouses Ladanga's Petition in G.R. No. 145874, p. 5 (id. at 108).

    [16] RTC Decision, p. 7; id. at 62; decided by Judge Elpidio M. Catungal, Sr.

    [17] Id. at 63-66.

    [18] Id. at 76-78.

    [19] Id. at 74-75.

    [20] CA Decision, p. 11; id. at 49.

    [21] Id. at 104-117.

    [22] Spouses Ladanga v. Aseneta, 508 Phil. 376 (2005).

    [23] Rollo of G.R. No. 145874, (unpaged).

    [24] Rollo of G.R. No. 167284, pp. 88-101.

    [25] Id. at 92-93.

    [26] Id. at 90-92.

    [27] Id. at 50.

    [28] Id. at 118-130.

    [29] Id. at 51-52.

    [30] Id. at 52.

    [31] Petitioners' Memorandum, pp. 17-19; id. at 204-206.

    [32] Id. at 13-16; id. at 200-203.

    [33] Id. at 25-27; id. at 212-214.

    [34] Id. at 19-25; id. at 206-212.

    [35] Rollo of G.R. No. 167284, p. 156.

    [36] Id. at 154-155.

    [37] Id. at 221.

    [38] Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Samut, 491 Phil. 458, 474 (2005).

    [G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011]   THE ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, 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