Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > November 2011 Decisions > G.R. No. 192686 : November 23, 2011 FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, Respondent.:




 THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 192686 : November 23, 2011

FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1red under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the March 23, 2010 Decision2red and the June 8, 2010 Resolution3red of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 103256, which reversed the October 17, 2007 Resolution4red of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and ordered the reinstatement of the May 21, 2007 Decision5red of the Labor Arbiter (LA), awarding disability benefits to respondent Hanziel Rosete (respondent).

In 2005, petitioner Fil-Star Maritime Corporation (Fil-Star), the local manning agency of co-petitioner Grandslam Enterprise Corporation (Grandslam), hired respondent as third officer on board the ocean-going vessel “M/V Ansac Asia.”  He was in charge of the loading and unloading operations of the vessel’s cargo primarily consisting of soda ash in bulk. Respondent stated that the nature of his work exposed him to minute particles of soda ash during the loading and unloading operations. On November 22, 2005, respondent finished his contract and returned to the Philippines.

Thereafter, the petitioners re-hired respondent to work as second officer on their vessel for a period of nine (9) months. On January 5, 2006, respondent underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) with First Medical Team Health Care Specialist Group,6red the company accredited physician, and was pronounced “fit to work.”  On board the vessel, he was tasked to make an inventory of the vessel’s property for annual inspection. According to respondent, he worked diligently and oftentimes worked odd hours just to familiarize himself with his new job. He averred that overtime work and the violent motions of the vessel due to weather inclemency caused undue strain to his eyes and his physical well-being.

On February 14, 2006 or a little over a month from his embarkation, respondent experienced an abrupt blurring of his left eye. He reported it to his captain and was advised to do an eye wash to relieve his pain until they reached Chiba,Japan. After the vessel arrived in Chiba, respondent was not able to seek medical advice because he was tasked to man the ship’s navigation equipment. Five days later, respondent was able to receive medical attention in Kawasaki,Japan. Respondent was diagnosed with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion and immediately underwent three rounds of laser surgery on February 28, 2006, March 2, 2006 andMarch 4, 2006.

On March 9, 2006, respondent was declared fit for travel and was subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. Upon arrival in Manila, respondent went to the Metropolitan Hospital but could not get immediate treatment. On March 19, 2006, he experienced severe pain in his left eye so he insisted that he be admitted to the hospital. Respondent underwent another series of laser surgery on March 22 and 25, April 6, 18, and 25, 2006.

On August 11, 2006, Dr. Antonio Say declared respondent’s left eye to be legally blind with poor possibility of recovery. Relevant portions of the medical certificate read: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A. Left eye is legally blind

B. Partial permanent disability

· Partial because the visual activity of the right eye is 20/20.

· It is permanent because the poor visual activity of the left eye, hand movement, has poor prognosis for visual recovery.7red

The petitioners denied his claim for permanent total disability and only rated his incapacity as Grade 7. Respondent stressed that, under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), he should be considered legally blind meriting entitlement to permanent total disability benefits in the sum of US$105,000.00 for being unable to perform his job for more than 120 days from his repatriation.

Thus, on August 29, 2006, respondent filed a complaint against Fil-Star, Capt. Victorio S. Migallos and Grandslam for disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees.

The petitioners averred that after almost a month aboard the vessel, respondent complained of a sudden blurring of his left eye. They referred him to the Honmoku Hospital where a Dr. Yasuhiko Tomita diagnosed him with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion, left eye and Neo-Vascular Glaucoma, left eye, suspicion. After his repatriation, they immediately referred him to the Metropolitan Medical Center where he was treated and underwent a series of Panretinal Photocoagulation Session to prevent further neovascular formation. They shouldered the expenses for all these procedures. They, however, argued that respondent was not qualified for disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees because his illness was not an occupational disease or work-related.

On May 21, 2007, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. (the LA) ruled in favor of respondent.8red The decretal portion reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents Filstar Maritime Corporation and Grandslam Enterprise Corp. are jointly and severally liable to pay complainant full total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$105,000.00 or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the time of payment.

Respondents are further ordered to pay 10% attorney’s fees based on the total judgment award.

All monetary claims are hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.9red

The LA reasoned out that respondent left the Philippines in good condition, thus, it could be logically inferred that he contracted the illness while on board the vessel. As respondent was not able to perform his job for more than 120 days since his repatriation, he became entitled to permanent disability benefits. Based on their CBA, respondent should be awarded US$105,000.00.10red

Not in conformity with the ruling, the petitioners appealed to the NLRC which, in itsOctober 17, 2007 Resolution, modified the L.A. Decision by reducing respondent’s disability benefits from US$105,000.00 to US$20,900.00.11red As modified, the decretal portion reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated 21 May 2007 is hereby MODIFIED by ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally complainant Hanziel O. Rosete a disability benefit of US$20,900, the amount equivalent to Grade 7 under POEA Standard Employment Contract.

The payment of ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees based on the judgment award is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.12red

The NLRC ruled that the grant of US$105,000.00 based on the provisions of the CBA had no legal basis because disability benefits under Article 28 thereon would refer only to permanent disability resulting from accident while in employment.13red The NLRC held respondent was entitled to disability benefits but only up to Grade 7 as recommended by his own physician, Dr. George Pile.14red

Both parties moved for reconsideration of said decision, but their respective motions were denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated January 15, 2008.15red

Respondent elevated the case to the CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.16red On March 23, 2010, the CA reversed the NLRC’s decision. The fallo reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated October 17, 2007 and January 15, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Quezon City, in NLRC-LAC (OFW-M) No. 07-000018-07(3) NLRC-OFW Case No. 06-08-02629-00 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated May 21, 2007 is REINSTATED in full.

SO ORDERED.17red

The CA held that there was no doubt that respondent was unable to work for more than one hundred twenty days (120) the requisite period for a grant of total disability benefits. Although the petitioners claimed that their CBA provision should be controlling, the CA clarified that “the relevant provisions of the POEA-SEC pertaining to permanent total disability remain essential parts of the parties’ valid and binding contract.”18red The CA further stated that although respondent’s Central Retinal Vein Occlusion was not listed as an occupational disease, he successfully established a causal connection from his work as a seaman to his illness. It stressed that compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof and not direct proof of a causal connection between the work and the ailment is required.19red

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration20red was likewise denied by the CA in itsJune 8, 2010 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.21red

Petitioners submit the following issues for resolution: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HANZIEL O. ROSETE IS ENTITLED TO TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HANZIEL O. ROSETE IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PATENT AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HANZIEL O. ROSETE IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES.22red

The petitioners contend that the CA erred in ruling that respondent was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits and for applying the provision of their CBA to award respondent US$105,000.00. They aver that Article 28 of their CBA only pertains to permanent disability suffered as a result of an accident.23red

The petition is partly meritorious.

The first issue is whether respondent is entitled to claim disability benefits from the petitioners.

There is no quibble that respondent is entitled to disability benefits. The Standard Employment Contract (SEC) for seafarers was created by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 24724red dated July 21, 1987 to “secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith” and to “promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas.”25red

In this case, respondent was diagnosed with CentralRetinal Vein Occlusion of his left eye. Central retinal vein occlusion is medically defined as the blockage of the central retinal vein by a thrombus. It causes painless vision loss which is usually sudden, but it can also occur gradually over a period of days to weeks.26red This condition, despite numerous medical procedures undertaken, eventually led to a total loss of sight of respondent’s left eye. Loss of one bodily function falls within the definition of disability which is essentially "loss or impairment of a physical or mental function resulting from injury or sickness. "27red

Although Central Retinal Vein Occlusion is not listed as one of the occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the 2000 Amended Terms of POEA-SEC,28red the resulting disability which is loss of sight of one eye, is specifically mentioned in Section 32 thereof (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Diseases or Illness Contracted). More importantly, Section 20 (B), paragraph (4) states that “those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.”29red

The disputable presumption that a particular injury or illness that results in disability, or in some cases death, is work-related stands in the absence of contrary evidence. In the case at bench, the said presumption was not overturned by the petitioners. Although, the employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability.30red Consequently, the Court concurs with the finding of the courts below that respondent’s disability is compensable.

Now, the Court shall determine whether respondent is entitled to be awarded permanent total or permanent partial disability benefits.

It should be noted that the company-designated physician assessed the loss of respondent’s left eye as a permanent partial disability while respondent’s own physician indicated his disability as Grade 7.

The Court is more inclined to rule, however, that respondent is suffering from a permanent total disability as he was unable to return to his job that he was trained to do for more than one hundred twenty days already. The recent case of Valenzona v. Fair Shipping Corporation, et al.,31red citing Quitoriano v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc., 32red  elucidated the concept of permanent total disability, in this wise: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thus, Court has applied the Labor Code concept of permanent total disability to the case of seafarers. x x x

x x x

There are three kinds of disability benefits under the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626: (1) temporary total disability, (2) permanent total disability, and (3) permanent partial disability. Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code differentiates the disabilities as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sec. 2. Disability. - (a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

(b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.

(c) A disability is partial and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body.

In Vicente v. ECC(G.R. No. 85024, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 190, 195): chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x the test of whether or not an employee suffers from 'permanent total disability' is a showing of the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more detailed manner, describes what constitutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly suffers from 'permanent total disability' regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.

A total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom (Austria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, Aug. 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 216, 221). On the other hand, a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days. Thus, in the very recent case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad (G.R. No. 134028, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 268, 270-271), we held: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Permanent disability is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he lose[s] the use of any part of his body. x x x

Total disability, on the other hand, means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.33red [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

A total disability does not require that the employee be completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it.34red On the other hand,a total disability is considered permanent if it lasts continuously for more than 120 days.35red What is crucial is whether the employee who suffers from disability could still perform his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Evidently, respondent was not able to return to his job as a seafarer after his left eye was declared legally blind. Records show that the petitioners did not give him a new overseas assignment after his disability. This only shows that his disability effectively barred his chances to be deployed abroad as an officer of an ocean-going vessel.

Therefore, it is fitting that respondent be entitled to permanent total disability benefits considering that he would not able to resume his position as a maritime officer and the probability that he would be hired by other maritime employers would be close to impossible. Indeed, a sight-impaired maritime applicant cannot stand in the same footing as his healthy co-applicant.

The next issue to be resolved is whetherrespondent’s entitlement to permanent total disability benefits should be based on the CBA or his POEA-SEC which integrated the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels.

The Court holds that respondent is entitled to claim permanent total disability benefits based on hisPOEA-SEC and not based on their CBA as earlier ruled by the L.A. and later affirmed by the CA.

The CBA provisions on disability are not applicable to respondent’s case because Article 28 thereon specifically refers to disability sustained after an accident. Article 28 of the ITF-JSU/AMOSUP CBA specifically states that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 28: Disability

28.1 A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company regardless of fault, including accidents occurring while travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work as a seafarer as a result thereof, but excluding permanent disability due to wilful acts, shall be in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement. [Emphasis supplied]

Respondent failed to show that the blurring of his left eye was caused by an accident on board the ship. Thus, Article 28 of the CBA cannot be used to compute his disability benefits.

Accordingly, what should govern the computation of his disability benefits is thePOEA-SEC incorporating the2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions. UnderSection 20 (B), paragraph 6, of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

x x x

B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x

6. In case ofpermanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted. [Emphases and underscoring supplied]

Based on the schedule of disability under Section 32 of the 2000 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions, permanent total disability is classified as Grade 1. Thus, respondent’s disability benefit should be computed as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Grade 1: US$50,000.00 x 120% = US$60,000.00

As to the award of attorney’s fees, the Court likewise affirms the ruling that respondent is entitled to it as provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;

x x x

In the case at bench, respondent was compelled to litigate in order to claim disability benefits from the petitioners. Thus, the award of attorney’s fees is justified pursuant to Article 2208 (8) of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The March 23, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that petitioners Fil-star Maritime Corporation and Grandslam Enterprise Corp. are jointly and severally liable to pay respondent Hanziel O. Rosete full total and permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 or its equivalent amount in Philippine currency at the time of payment. All other aspects of the CA Decision stand.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, and PEREZ,* JJ.

 

Endnotes:


* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Special Order No. 1152 dated November  11, 2011.

1red Rollo, pp. 3-27.

2red Id. at 29-40. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, concurring.

3red Id. at 42.

4red Id. at 163-174.

5red Id. at 219-228.

6red Id. at 165.

7red Id.

8red Id. at 219-228.

9red Id. at 227-228.

10red Id. at 226-227.

11red Id. at 163-173.

12red Id. at 172.

13red Id. at 171.

14red Id. at 172.

15red Id. at 175-176.

16red Id. at 132-148.

17red Id. at 39.

18red Id. at 35.

19red Id. at 33-38.

20red Id. at 42-74.

21red Id. at 3-27.

22red Id. at 371-372.

23red Id. at 11.

24red Reorganizing the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and for Other Purposes.

25red E.O. No. 247, Sec. 3(i) and (j).

27red Labor Code, Article 167(n).

28red Also known as Memorandum Circular No. 09, Series of 2000.

29red Italics supplied.

30red Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v. NLRC, 388 Phil. 906, 914 [2000], citing More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 366 Phil. 646, 654-655 [1999].

31red G.R. No. 176884, October 19, 2011.

32red G.R. No. 179868, January 21, 2010, 610 SCRA 529.

33red Id. at 534-536.

34red Austria v. CA, 435 Phil. 926, 932 [2002], citing Gonzaga v. ECC, 212 Phil. 405, 414 [1984].

35red Rule XI, Section 1(b) of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 184808 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ASMAD BARA Y ASMAD, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183090 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BERNABE PANGILINAN Y CRISOSTOMO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169157 : November 14, 2011] SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND NORMA GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. ESTER GARCIA, AMADO GARCIA, ADELA GARCIA, ROSA GARCIA AND DAVID GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191017 : November 15, 2011] CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. SENEN C. FAMILARA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 6246 [Formerly CBD No. 00-730] : November 15, 2011] MARITES E. FREEMAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187409 : November 16, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FELIX FLORECE, JOSE FLORECE, AND JUSTINO FLORECE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SOCORRO FLORECE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185412 :November 16, 2011] GILBERT QUIZORA, PETITIONER, VS. DENHOLM CREW MANAGEMENT (PHILIPPINES), INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 180849 and 187143 : November 16, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. DAN PADAO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176377 : November 16, 2011] FUNCTIONAL, INC. PETITIONER, VS. SAMUEL C. GRANFIL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174179 : November 16, 2011] KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI SA MWC-EAST ZONE UNION AND EDUARDO BORELA, REPRESENTING ITS MEMBERS, PETITIONERS, VS. MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173628 : November 16, 2011] SEVERINO S. CAPIRAL, PETITIONER, VS. SIMEONA CAPIRAL ROBLES AND VICENTE CAPIRAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 6899 : November 16, 2011] ROGELIO F. ESTAVILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. GEMMO G. GUILLERMO AND ERME S. LABAYOG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 6174 : November 16, 2011] LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 159564 : November 16, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES LEON GUILALAS AND EULALIA SELLERA GUILALAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191080 : November 21, 2011] FREDRIK FELIX P. NOGALES, GIANCARLO P. NOGALES, ROGELIO P. NOGALES, MELINDA P. NOGALES, PRISCILA B. CABRERA, PHIL-PACIFIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES CORPORATION AND 3 X 8 INTERNET, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER A. NOGALES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESIDING JUDGE TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG, BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171101 : November 22, 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. 185844 : November 23, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL MANJARES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184807 : November 23, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184428 : November 23, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180219 : November 23, 2011] VIRGILIO TALAMPAS Y MATIC, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178901 : November 23, 2011] GOVERNTMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL P. BESITAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173485 : November 23, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172606 : November 23, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELANIO NUGAS Y MAPAIT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171644 : November 23, 2011] DELIA D. ROMERO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO PADLAN AND ARTURO SIAPNO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7269 : November 23, 2011] ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169757 : November 23, 2011] CESAR C. LIRIO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF CELKOR AD SONICMIX, PETITIONER, VS. WILMER D. GENOVIA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169440 : November 23, 2011] GEMMA ONG A.K.A. MARIA TERESA GEMMA CATACUTAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167140 : November 23, 2011] COL. FRANCISCO DELA MERCED, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS NAMELY, LUIS CESAR DELA MERCED, BLANQUITA DELA MERCED NEE MACATANGAY, AND MARIA OLIVIA M. PAREDES, PETITIONERS, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND SPOUSES VICTOR AND MILAGROS MANLONGAT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157367 : November 23, 2011] LUCIANO P. PAZ, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157330 : November 23, 2011] LINA CALILAP-ASMERON, PETITIONER, VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PABLO CRUZ,* TRINIDAD CABANTOG,** ENI S.P. ATIENZA AND EMERENCIANA CABANTOG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 141019 : November 23, 2011] JOSE TEOFILO MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. VALLEY MOUNTAIN MINES EXPLORATION, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 164281] HEIRS OF JUAN OLIMPIADA AND HEIRS OF SERGIO OLIMPIADA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALFONSO GARCIA, JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 18, TAGAYTAY CITY, VALLEY MOUNTAIN MINES EXPLORATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ, AND CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGAYTAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181204 : November 28, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR CONCILLADO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174143 : November 28, 2011] SPOUSES RICARDO HIPOLITO, JR. AND LIZA HIPOLITO, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA CINCO, CARLOTA BALDE CINCO AND ATTY. CARLOS CINCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170757 : November 28, 2011] PACIFICO M. VALIAO, FOR HIMSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HIS CO-HEIRS LODOVICO, RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, ALL SURNAMED VALIAO AND NEMESIO M. GRANDEA, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MACARIO ZAFRA, AND MANUEL YUSAY, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 165338 : November 28, 2011] MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. IRENEO LEE GAKO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, CEBU CITY AND JOCELYN B. SORENSEN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 179375] JOCELYN B. SORENSEN, PETITIONER, VS. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 4808 : November 22, 2011 TERESITA T. BAYONLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 164470 : November 28, 2011 VIOLA CAHILIG and ANTONIO G. SI�EL, JR., Petitioners, v. HON. EUSTAQUIO G. TERENCIO, Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 8; THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, Kalibo, Aklan; and MERCANTILE CREDIT RESOURCES CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 166847 : November 16, 2011 GUILLERMO E. CUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168317 : November 21, 2011 DUP SOUND PHILS. and/or MANUEL TAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and CIRILO A. PIAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175799 : November 28, 2011 NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, Petitioner, v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179323 : November 28, 2011 VICENTE MANZANO, JR., Petitioner, v. MARCELINO GARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182412 : November 28, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JOJO DELA PAZ y TABOCAN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188169 : November 28, 2011 NI�A JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS, INC. (otherwise known as NI�A MANUFACTURING AND METAL ARTS, INC.) and ELISEA B. ABELLA, Petitioners, v. MADELINE C. MONTECILLO and LIZA M. TRINIDAD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191053 : November 28, 2011 MARIO B. DIMAGAN, Petitioner, v. DACWORKS UNITED, INCORPORATED AND/OR DEAN A. CANCINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191448 : November 16, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioners, v. SPS. TAN SONG BOK AND JOSEFINA S. TAN, SPS. JUNIOR SY AND JOSEFINA TAN, EDGARDO TAN, NENITA TAN, RICARDO TAN, JR., AND ALBERT TAN, R.S. AGRI-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERIBERTO H. GOMEZ MARRIED TO WILHELMINA RODRIGUEZ, EDGARDO H. GOMEZ, ELOISA H. GOMEZ, ERLINDA GOMEZ MARRIED TO CAMILO MANALOTO, CLEOFE CONSUNJI-HIZON, MA. ASUNCION H. DIZON MARRIED TO BENJAMIN DIZON, RAMON L. HIZON, MARRIED TO CARIDAD GARCHITORENA, MA. LOURDES C. HIZON, MARRIED TO JOHN SACKETT, JOSE MARIA C. HIZON MARRIED TO MA. SARAH SARMIENTO, MA. FREIDESVINDA C. HIZON MARRIED TO MANUEL YOINGKO, ROBERTO C. HIZON, ARTHUR C. HIZON, MA. SALOME HIZON, FREDERICK C. HIZON, MA. ENGRACIA H. DAVID, ANTONIO H. DAVID MARRIED TO CONSUELO GOSECO, ELOISA P. HIZON MARRIED TO DOMINGO C. GOMEZ, MA. MILAGROS C. HIZON, AND PRESENTACION C. HIZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191805 : November 15, 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name �HARRY, � ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN �BONG� PASICOLAN and VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192261 : November 16, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192686 : November 23, 2011 FIL-STAR MARITIME CORPORATION, CAPTAIN VICTORIO S. MIGALLOS and GRANDSLAM ENTERPRISE CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HANZIEL O. ROSETE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192828 : November 28, 2011 RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v. HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192881 : November 16, 2011 TAMSON�S ENTERPRISES, INC., NELSON LEE, LILIBETH ONG and JOHNSON NG, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSEMARIE L. SY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192926 : November 15, 2011 ATTY. ELIAS OMAR A. SANA, Petitioner, v. CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193660 : November 16, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AVELINO SUBESA y MOSCARDON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 193833 : November 16, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, P/S INSP. LORIEMAN* L. MANRIQUE, and RODIE J. PINEDA @ � Buboy,� Accused. PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 195167 : November 16, 2011 FERNANDO CO (formerly doing business under the name �Nathaniel Mami House�*), Petitioner, v. LINA B. VARGAS, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-11-24-P (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-163-CA-P) : November 16, 2011 COURT OF APPEALS BY: COC TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, Complainant, v. ENRIQUE E. MANABAT, JR., Security Guard I, Court of Appeals, Manila, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2369 [Formerly�OCA IPI No. 06-2444-P] : November 16, 2011 CONCERNED CITIZEN, Complainant, v. MARIA CONCEPCION M. DIVINA, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan, Respondent

  • A.M. No. P-09-2660 : November 29, 2011 FRANCISCO C. TAGUINOD, Complainant, v. Deputy Sheriff ROLANDO TOMAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-3009 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3386-P] : November 16, 2011 BEATRIZ B. O�ATE, Complainant, v. SEVERINO G. IMATONG, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Piat, Cagayan, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-3010 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3356-P) : November 23, 2011 LEAVE DIVISION-OAS, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. LARAINE I. CALINGASAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, STA. ROSA, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2283 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3478-RTJ) : November 16, 2011] ATTY. LETICIA E. ALAL,COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SOLIVER C. PERAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, CEBU CITY; JUDGE SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY; JUDGE GENEROSA C LABRA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 23, CEBU CITY; JEOFFREY S. JOAQUINO, CLERK OF COURT VII, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, CEBU CITY; EL CID R. CABALLES, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, CEBU CITY, AND FORTUNATO T. VIOVICENTE, JR., SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3143-P) : November 29, 2011] EVELINA C. BANAAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA C. ESPELETA, INTERPRETER III, BRANCH 82, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3000 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3524-P) : November 29, 2011] ARTHUR M. GABON, COMPLAINANT, VS. REBECCA P. MERKA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LILOAN, SOUTHERN LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2300 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2231-P] : November 29, 2011] ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARLOS P. DIAZ, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, TACURONG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-2082 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 05-8-534-RTC) : November 29, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT HERMENEGILDO I. MARASIGAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KABACAN, NORTH COTABATO, RESPONDENT.