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-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-14-3222 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI NO. 11-3609-P), August 12, 2014 - PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE B. LAGADO AND CLERK OF COURT II JOSEFINA C. EMPUESTO, BOTH OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAHAPLAG, LEYTE, Complainants, v. CLERK II BRYAN ANTONIO C. LEONIDO,, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204729, August 06, 2014 - LOURDES SUITES (CROWN HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. NOEMI BINARAO,, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203775, August 05, 2014 - ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD VICTIMS AND JAIME AGUILAR HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC., AND WESLIE TING GATCHALIAN,, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196117, August 13, 2014 - KRYSTLE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WILLIAM C. CU, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: BEATRIZ A. TORZAR, VIRGINIA A. TARAYA, ROSARIO A. MARCO, JESUS A. ALIBIN, AND JAY ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN, NAMELY: JAYNES ALIBIN, JAY ALIBIN, AND JESUS ALIBIN, JR., Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 196129] - CARIDAD RODRIGUEZA, AS SUBSTITUTED BY RUFINO RODRIGUEZA, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: BEATRIZ A. TORZAR, VIRGINIA A. TARAYA, ROSARIO A. MARCO, JESUS A. ALIBIN, AND JAY ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN, NAMELY: JAYNES ALIBIN, JAY ALIBIN, AND JESUS ALIBIN, JR., Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7766, August 05, 2014 - JOSE ALLAN TAN, Complainant, v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8000, August 05, 2014 - CHAMELYN A. AGOT, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171212, August 20, 2014 - INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., Petitioner, v. ENGR. SALVADOR ADVIENTO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193681, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Private Complainants-Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD,, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189629, August 06, 2014 - DR. PHYLIS C. RIO, Petitioner, v. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA-MAKATI AND/OR SR. MARILYN B. GUSTILO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193652, August 05, 2014 - INFANT JULIAN YUSAY CARAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, MA. CHRISTINA YUSAY CARAM, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MARIJOY D. SEGUI, ATTY. SALLY D. ESCUTIN, VILMA B. CABRERA, CELIA C. YANGCO, AND OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3232 (Formerly: A.M. No. 14-4-46-MTCC), August 12, 2014 - Re: REPORT OF JUDGE RODOLFO D. VAPOR, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [MTCC], TANGUB CITY, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, ON THE HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF FILIGRIN E. VELEZ, JR., PROCESS SERVER, SAME COURT.

  • G.R. No. 200746, August 06, 2014 - BENSON INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP AND/OR VILMA GENON, EDISA HORTELANO, LOURDES ARANAS, TONY FORMENTERA, RENEBOY LEYSON, MA. ALONA ACALDO, MA. CONCEPCION ABAO, TERESITA CALINAWAN, NICIFORO CABANSAG, STELLA BARONGO, MARILYN POTOT, WELMER ABANID, LORENZO ALIA, LINO PARADERO, DIOSDADO ANDALES, LUCENA ABESIA, AND ARMANDO YBAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. BENSON INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204911, August 06, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN AND RASHID MANGTOMA Y NONI, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 201111, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200250, August 06, 2014 - UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182908, August 06, 2014 - HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA, SR., ANDHEIRS OF PETRA IMBORNAL AND PEDRO FERRER,REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. REMEDIOS B. NARVASA-REGACHO, Petitioners, v. EMILIANA, VICTORIANO, FELIPE, MATEO, RAYMUNDO, MARIA,AND EDUARDO, ALL SURNAMED IMBORNAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204651, August 06, 2014 - OUR HAUS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ALEXANDER PARIAN, JAY C. ERINCO, ALEXANDER CANLAS, BERNARD TENEDERO AND JERRY SABULAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207376, August 06, 2014 - AIDA PADILLA, Petitioner, v. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, FILMAL REALTY CORPORATION, DELFIN S. LEE AND DEXTER L. LEE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201483, August 04, 2014 - CONRADO A. LIM, Petitioner, v. HMR PHILIPPINES, INC., TERESA SANTOS-CASTRO, HENRY BUNAG AND NELSON CAMILLER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191015, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, AND FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210619, August 20, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES REYES Y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 184982, August 20, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE T. LAJOM, REPRESENTED BY PORFIRIO RODRIGUEZ, FLORENCIA LAJOM GARCIA-DIAZ, FRANCISCO LAJOM GARCIA, JR., FERNANDO LAJOM RODRIGUEZ, TOMAS ATAYDE, AUGUSTO MIRANDA, JOSEFINA ATAYDE FRANCISCO, RAMON L. ATAYDE, AND BLESILDA ATAYDE RIOS, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 185048] - JOSE T. LAJOM, REPRESENTED BY PORFIRIO RODRIGUEZ, FLORENCIA LAJOM GARCIA-DIAZ, FRANCISCO LAJOM GARCIA, JR., FERNANDO LAJOM RODRIGUEZ, TOMAS ATAYDE, AUGUSTO MIRANDA, JOSEFINA ATAYDE FRANCISCO, RAMON L. ATAYDE, AND BLESILDA ATAYDE RIOS, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOY C. CABILES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206368, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO BATTAD, Accused-Appellant, MARCELINO BACNIS, Accused.

  • G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARISSA MARCELO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL “TIW-TIW” SANICO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205870, August 13, 2014 - LEI SHERYLL FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. BOTICA CLAUDIO REPRESENTED BY GUADALUPE JOSE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194390, August 13, 2014 - VENANCIO M. SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198367, August 06, 2014 - OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA, INC., MERCEDES M. RAVANOPOLOUS, OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT (UK) LTD. & M/T DELPHINA, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO B. PELLAZAR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192304, August 13, 2014 - ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK (now EQUICOM SAVINGS BANK), Petitioner, v. PINZMAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARYLIN MAÑALAC AND RENATO GONZALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177845, August 20, 2014 - GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR. JAMES TAN, Petitioner, v. FILIPINAS A. LAVANDERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014 - LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. NORMA VILLEGAS AND ANY PERSON ACTING IN HER BEHALF INCLUDING HER FAMILY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206366, August 13, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO BALAQUIT Y BALDERAMA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192993, August 11, 2014 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., AND REGINALDO OBEN/WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, Petitioners, v. DONNABELLE PEDRAJAS AND SEAN JADE PEDRAJAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181723, August 11, 2014 - ELIZABETH DEL CARMEN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RESTITUTO SABORDO AND MIMA MAHILUM-SABORDO, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3923-RTJ), August 13, 2014 - JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, Petitioner, v. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, CATBALOGAN CITY, SAMAR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212689, August 11, 2014 - ECE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. HAYDYN HERNANDEZ,, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 208828-29, August 13, 2014 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR., Petitioner, v. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA P. OCAMPO AND ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171626, August 06, 2014 - OLONGAPO CITY, Petitioner, v. SUBIC WATER AND SEWERAGE CO., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014 - ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEÑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PEÑA, EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PEÑA, MARIA DELA PAZ B. CULALA, ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN, JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEÑA, RUFINA Q. CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, et al. in their capacity and as members of the “Malaya Lolas Organizations,” Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO-ALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, AND THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO,, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173082, August 06, 2014 - PALM AVENUE HOLDING CO., INC., AND PALM AVENUE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondent.; [G.R. No. 195795] - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PALM AVENUE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PALM AVENUE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 212536-37, August 27, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212953, August 05, 2014 - JOSE TAPALES VILLAROSA, Petitioner, v. ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211049, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO CLOSA Y LUALHATI, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177616, August 27, 2014 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES JOAQUIN MANGUARDIA and SUSANA MANALO, namely: DANILO MANGUARDIA, ALMA MANGUARDIA, GEMMA MANGUARDIA, RODERICK MANGUARDIA, MADELINE MANGUARDIA, joined by her husband, RODRIGO VILLARANTE, ALAN MANGUARDIA, ROSE MANGUARDIA, joined by her husband, LEOPOLDO ADRID, JR., RONALD MANGUARDIA, JOEBERT MANGUARDIA, and RANDY MANGUARDIA; HEIRS OF SPOUSES LEONARDO ARAZA and REBECCA ARROYO, namely: MARY MAGDALENA ARAZA,* joined by her husband CARLITO VILLANUEVA, NENITA ARAZA, joined by her husband, LEONARDO BADE, ANTONIO ARAZA, and the children of ENECITA ARAZA- VARGAS, namely: GADFRY VARGAS, GINA VARGAS, JOEL VARGAS, MARY GRACE VARGAS, ANA MAE VARGAS, and the minor JUNAR VARGAS, represented by his guardian ad litem MAGDALENA ARAZA-VILLANUEVA, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAPIZ, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO VALLES and MARTA VALLES, represented by GRACIANO VALLES, SULPICIO VALLES, TERESITA VALLES, joined by her husband, LEOPOLDO ALAIR, and PRESENTACION CAPAPAS-VALLES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014 - PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO S. MADRID, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198342, August 13, 2014 - REMEDIOS O. YAP, Petitioner, v. ROVER MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION, MR. RUEL BENISANO AND/OR UCO MARINE CONTRACTING W.L.L., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PETRUS YAU A.K.A. “JOHN” AND “RICKY” AND SUSANA YAU Y SUMOGBA A.K.A. “SUSAN”, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 171836, August 11, 2014 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY HON. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DAR-OIC SECRETARY, Petitioner, v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE, RESPONDENT., G.R. NO. 195213 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY HANS PETER, CARL OTTO, FRITZ WALTER, AND GEORGE ALAN, ALL SURNAMED REITH, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196040, August 26, 2014 - FE H. OKABE, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO A. SATURNINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203048, August 13, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUSTY BALA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014 - FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, Petitioner, v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200987, August 20, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALDO BAYAN Y NERI, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207348, August 20, 2014 - ROWENA R. SOLANTE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, AND FORTUNATA M. RUBICO, DIRECTOR IV, COA COMMISSION SECRETARIAT, in their official capacities, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014 - JUANITO MAGSINO, Petitioner, v. ELENA DE OCAMPO AND RAMON GUICO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175689, August 13, 2014 - GEORGE A. ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. PILIPINO STAR NGAYON, INC. AND/OR MIGUEL G. BELMONTE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189061, August 06, 2014 - MIDWAY MARITIME AND TECHNOLOGICAL FOUNDATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT PHD IN EDUCATION DR. SABINO M. MANGLICMOT, Petitioner, v. MARISSA E. CASTRO, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199420, August 27, 2014 - PHILNICO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199432 - PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioner, v. PHILNICO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195432, August 27, 2014 - EDELINA T. ANDO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200645, August 20, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WENDEL OCDOL Y MENDOVA, EDISON TABIANAN, AND DANTE BORINAGA, ACCUSED. WENDEL OCDOL Y MENDOVA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 172404, August 13, 2014 - PEOPLE’S TRANS-EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, A.K.A. PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DOCTORS OF NEW MILLENNIUM HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2227 [Formerly A.M. No. 06-6-364-RTC], August 19, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIO N. MELCHOR, JR., FORMER CLERK OF COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, BILIRAN (NOW PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CALUBIAN-SAN ISIDRO, LEYTE), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014 - CRISPIN B. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. IRVINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND TOMAS SY SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200538, August 13, 2014 - CITY OF DAVAO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014 - DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, v. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203655, August 13, 2014 - SM LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BCDA, Respondents.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014 - PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO S. MADRID, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

      G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014 - PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO S. MADRID, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014

    PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO S. MADRID, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    REYES, J.:

    This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Primanila Plans, Inc. (Primanila) to assail the Decision2 dated March 9, 2010 and Resolution3 dated September 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 104083.  The CA affirmed in CA-G.R. SP No. 104083 the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) issuance of an Order4 dated April 9, 2008, which was a cease and desist order upon Primanila with the following dispositive portion:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, pursuant to the authority vested in the Commission, PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., its respective officers, directors, agents, representatives, and any and all persons, conduit entities and subsidiaries claiming and acting under their authority, are hereby ordered to immediately CEASE AND DESIST from further engaging in activities of selling, offering for sale Primasa plans and to refrain from further collecting payments and amortizations for Primasa plans to protect the interest of investors and the public in general.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 64.3 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code, the parties subject of this Cease and Desist Order may file a formal request or motion for the lifting of this Order within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt hereof.

    SO ORDERED.5chanrobleslaw

    The Facts

    Primanila was registered with the SEC on October 17, 1988 and was issued Certificate of Registration No. 156350.  Based on its amended articles of incorporation, the company’s primary purpose was “to organize, establish, develop, conduct, provide, maintain, operate, offer, issue, market and sell pension plans under which the savings of professionals, officers, directors and other personnel of corporations, firms, or entities, and self employed individuals can be pooled together, accumulated and invested in profitable placements and productive enterprises so as to build an Accumulated Fund for each individual participant or planholder for his retirement, monthly pension or for other [foreseeable] needs in the future.” Primanila then operated as a pre-need company and maintained a business office in Makati City.6cralawred

    On April 9, 2008, the SEC was prompted to issue the subject cease and desist order after an investigation conducted by the SEC’s Compliance and Enforcement Department (CED) on Primanila yielded the following factual findings duly explained in the cease and desist order:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    1. The office of [Primanila] located at 20th Floor, Philippine AXA Life Centre, Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City was closed.  No notices were posted outside said office to inform the public of the reason for such closure. x x x

    2. [Primanila]’s website (www.primanila.com) was offering a pension plan product called Primasa Plan.  The website contains detailed instructions as to how interested persons can apply for the said plan and where initial contributions and succeeding installment payments can be made by applicants and planholders.  According to the website, applicants and planholders can pay directly at the head office, any of its field offices or may deposit the payments in PRIMANILA’s METROBANK Account No. 066-3-06631031-1.  This was discovered by [CED] when a member of CED visited [Primanila’s] website on February 12, 2008.

    3. [PRIMANILA] failed to renew its Dealer’s License for 2008. In  view  of  the  expiration  of  the  said  license,  the  [SEC’s Non-Traditional Securities and Instruments Department (NTD)], through its Acting Director Jose P. Aquino, issued a letter dated January 3, 2008 addressed to [Primanila’s] Chairman and CEO Mr. Eduardo S. Madrid, enjoining [Primanila] from selling and/or offering for sale pre-need plans to the public.

    4. [Primanila] has not been issued a secondary license to act as dealer or general agent for pre-need pension plans for 2008.  Also, no registration statement has been filed by [Primanila] for the approval of a pension plan product called Primasa Plan. This is shown in the certification dated February 15, 2008 issued by NTD upon the request of Atty. Hubert B. Guevara of CED.

    5. [Primanila’s] Bank Account is still active.  This was discovered by CED when it deposited on March 6, 2008 the sum of Php 50.00 which was duly received by METROBANK Robinson’s Branch as shown by the deposit slip.

    6. Among the many planholders of [PRIMANILA] are enlisted personnel of the Philippine National Police (PNP).  Premium collections for Primaplans via salary deductions were religiously remitted to [Primanila] on a monthly basis.  x x x

    7. PNP remitted the total amount of Php 2,072,149.38 to respondent PRIMANILA representing the aforementioned premium collections via salary deductions of the 410 enlisted personnel of PNP who are planholders.  This is shown in the table prepared by the remittance clerk of the PNP, Ms. Mercedita A. Almeda.

    8. [PRIMANILA] failed to deposit the required monthly contributions to the trust fund in violation of Pre-need Rule 19.1.  This is shown in the Trust Fund Reports for the months of November and December 2007 prepared by ASIATRUST BANK, the trustee of [Primanila].

    9. [PRIMANILA] under-declared the total amount of its collections as shown  in  its  SEC  Monthly  Collection  Reports  which  it  submitted to NTD. Its reports show that it only collected the total  amount  of  Php 302,081.00  from  January  to  September  2007.  However,  the  remittance  report  of  the  PNP  shows  that  [Primanila]  received  the  amount  of  Php 1,688,965.22  from  the  PNP planholders alone for the said period. Therefore, it under-declared its report by Php 1,386,884.22.7

    From these findings, the SEC declared that Primanila committed a flagrant violation of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as The Securities Regulation Code (SRC), particularly Section 16 thereof which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    Section 16.  Pre-Need Plans. – No person shall sell or offer for sale to the public any pre-need plan except in accordance with rules and regulations which the Commission shall prescribe.  Such rules shall regulate the sale of pre-need plans by, among other things, requiring the registration of pre-need plans, licensing persons involved in the sale of pre-need plans, requiring disclosures to prospective plan holders, prescribing advertising guidelines, providing for uniform accounting system, reports and record keeping with respect to such plans, imposing capital, bonding and other financial responsibility and establishing trust funds for the payment of benefits under such plans.

    It  also  breached  the  New  Rules  on  the  Registration  and  Sale  of Pre-Need Plans, specifically Rule Nos. 3 and 15 thereof, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    Rule 3.  Registration of Pre-Need Plans. – No corporation shall issue, offer for sale, or sell Pre-Need Plans unless such plans shall have been registered under Rule 4.

    Rule 15. Registration  of  Dealers,  General  Agents  and  Salesmen  of Pre-Need Plans.

    15.1.  Any issuer selling its own Pre-Need Plans shall be deemed a dealer in securities and shall be required to be registered as such and comply with all the provisions hereof; provided that the issuer selling different types of Pre-Need Plans shall be required to be registered as dealer only once for the different types of plans.

    The SEC then issued the subject cease and desist order “in order to prevent further violations and in order to protect the interest of its plan holders and the public.”8cralawred

    Feeling aggrieved, Primanila filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Lift Cease and Desist Order,9 arguing that it was denied due process as the order was released without any prior issuance by the SEC of a notice or formal charge that could have allowed the company to defend itself.10  Primanila further argued that it was neither selling nor collecting premium payments for the product Primasa plans.  The product was previously developed but was never launched and sold to the public following the resignation from the company in 2006 by Benjamin Munda, the one who crafted it.  The Primanila company website that included details on the Primasa product was not updated; the advertisement of the product on the website was the result of mere inadvertence.11  Thus, the cease and desist order against Primanila would allegedly not accomplish anything, but only prejudice the interest and claims of its other planholders.12cralawred

    On June 5, 2008, the SEC issued its Order13 denying Primanila’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.  The cease and desist order issued on April 9, 2008 was then made permanent.

    Unyielding, Primanila appealed to the CA via a petition for review.  On March 9, 2010, the CA rendered its decision dismissing the petition and affirming in toto the issuances of the SEC.

    The Present Petition

    Following the CA’s denial of its motion to reconsider, Primanila filed the present petition which cites the following grounds:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    THE [CA] GROSSLY ERRED WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF RESPONDENT SEC CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD [STATE] OTHERWISE;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    THE [CA] GROSSLY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT [PRIMANILA] WAS GIVEN DUE PROCESS BY RESPONDENT SEC AS [PRIMANILA] WAS ABLE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND

    THE [CA] GROSSLY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT SUFFER GREATLY AND IRREPARABLY BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF RESPONDENT SEC.14

    The Ruling of the Court


    The petition lacks merit.

    Due Process of Law

    Contrary to its stance, Primanila was accorded due process notwithstanding the SEC’s immediate issuance of the cease and desist order on April 9, 2008.  The authority of the SEC and the manner by which it can issue cease and desist orders are provided in Section 64 of the SRC, and we quote:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    Section 64.  Cease and Desist Order.  –

    64.1. The Commission, after proper investigation or verification, motu proprio, or upon verified complaint by any aggrieved party, may issue a cease and desist order without the necessity of a prior hearing if in its judgment the act or practice, unless restrained, will operate as a fraud on investors or is otherwise likely to cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public.

    64.2. Until the Commission issues a cease and desist order, the fact that an investigation has been initiated or that a complaint has been filed, including the contents of the complaint, shall be confidential.  Upon issuance of a cease and desist order, the Commission shall make public such order and a copy thereof shall be immediately furnished to each person subject to the order.

    64.3. Any person against whom a cease and desist order was issued may, within five (5) days from receipt of the order, file a formal request for lifting thereof.  Said request shall be set for hearing by the Commission not later than fifteen (15) days from its filing and the resolution thereof shall be made not later than ten (10) days from the termination of the hearing.  If the Commission fails to resolve the request within the time herein prescribed, the cease and desist order shall automatically be lifted. (Emphasis ours)

    The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist order may be issued by the SEC motu proprio, it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party.  A prior hearing is also not required whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a cease and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors.  There is good reason for this provision, as any delay in the restraint of acts that yield such results can only generate further injury to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect.

    To equally protect individuals and corporations from baseless and improvident issuances, the authority of the SEC under this rule is nonetheless with defined limits.  A cease and desist order may only be issued by the Commission after proper investigation or verification, and upon showing that the acts sought to be restrained could result in injury or fraud to the investing public.  Without doubt, these requisites were duly satisfied by the SEC prior to its issuance of the subject cease and desist order.

    Records indicate the prior conduct of a proper investigation on Primanila’s activities by the Commission’s CED.  Investigators of the CED personally conducted an ocular inspection of Primanila’s declared office, only to confirm reports that it had closed even without the prior approval of the SEC.  Members of CED also visited the company website of Primanila, and discovered the company’s offer for sale thereon of the pension plan product called Primasa Plan, with instructions on how interested applicants and planholders could pay their premium payments for the plan.  One of the payment options was through bank deposit to Primanila’s given Metrobank account which, following an actual deposit made by the CED was confirmed to be active.

    As part of their investigation, the SEC also looked into records relevant to Primanila’s business.  Records with the SEC’s Non-Traditional Securities and Instruments Department (NTD) disclosed Primanila’s failure to renew its dealer’s license for 2008, or to apply for a secondary license as dealer or general agent for pre-need pension plans for the same year.  SEC records also confirmed Primanila’s failure to file a registration statement for Primasa Plan, to fully remit premium collections from planholders, and to declare truthfully its premium collections from January to September 2007.

    The SEC was not mandated to allow Primanila to participate in the investigation conducted by the Commission prior to the cease and desist order’s issuance.  Given the circumstances, it was sufficient for the satisfaction of the demands of due process that the company was amply apprised of the results of the SEC investigation, and then given the reasonable opportunity to present its defense.  Primanila was able to do this via its motion to reconsider and lift the cease and desist order.  After the CED filed its comment on the motion, Primanila was further given the chance to explain its side to the SEC through the filing of its reply.  “Trite to state, a formal trial or hearing is not necessary to comply with the requirements of due process. Its essence is simply the opportunity to explain one’s position.”15  As the Court held in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals:16cralawred

    Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding.  Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.  In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.  The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.17chanrobleslaw

    Validity of the Cease and
    Desist Order


    The validity of the SEC’s cease and desist order is further sustained for having sufficient factual and legal bases.

    The acts specifically restrained by the subject cease and desist order were Primanila’s sale, offer for sale and collection of payments specifically for its Primasa plans.  Notwithstanding the findings of both the SEC and the CA on Primanila’s activities, the company still argued in its petition that it neither sold nor collected premiums for the Primasa product.  Primanila argued that the offer for sale of Primasa through the Primanila website was the result of mere inadvertence, after the website developer whom it hired got hold of a copy of an old Primasa brochure and then included its contents in the company website even without the knowledge and prior approval of Primanila.

    It bears emphasis that the arguments of Primanila on the matter present factual issues, which as a rule, are beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari.  We underscore the basic rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.  The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.  It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented, for a question of fact would arise in such event.18  Thus, it is equally settled that the factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the SEC, are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.  Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter’s findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.19cralawred

    In ruling on the petition’s denial, we rely on the substantial evidence that supports the SEC’s and CA’s findings.  Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines “substantial evidence” as such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.20  In the instant case, this substantial evidence is derived from the results of the SEC investigation on Primanila’s activities.  Specifically on the product Primasa plans, the SEC ascertained that there were detailed instructions on Primanila’s website as to how interested persons could apply for a plan, together with the manner by which premium payments therefor could be effected.  A money deposit by CED to Primanila’s Metrobank account indicated in the advertisement confirmed that the bank account was active.

    There could be no better conclusion from the foregoing circumstances that Primanila was engaged in the sale or, at the very least, an offer for sale to the public of the Primasa plans.  The offer for Primasa was direct and its reach was even expansive, especially as it utilized its website as a medium and visits to it were, as could be expected, from prospective clients.

    The Court finds weak and implausible the argument of Primanila that the inclusion of the Primasa advertisement on its website was due to mere inadvertence.  It was very unlikely that Primanila’s website developer would include in the Primanila website sections or items that were not sanctioned by the company.  As a hiree of the company, the website developer could have only acted upon the orders and specific instructions of the company.  As prudence requires, there also normally are employees of a company who are specifically tasked to monitor contents and activities in its company website.  It was therefore inconceivable that Primanila only knew of the Primasa post on its website after it received the subject cease and desist order.  In any case, Primanila should be held responsible for the truthfulness of all data or information that appeared on its website, especially as these were supplied by persons who were working under its authority.

    It is beyond dispute that Primasa plans were not registered with the SEC.  Primanila was then barred from selling and offering for sale the said plan product.  A continued sale by the company would operate as fraud to its investors, and would cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public, grounds which could justify the issuance of a cease and desist order under Section 64 of the SRC.  Furthermore, even prior to the issuance of the subject cease and desist order, Primanila was already enjoined by the SEC from selling and/or offering for sale pre-need products to the public.  The SEC Order dated April 9, 2008 declared that Primanila failed to renew its dealer’s license for 2008, prompting the SEC’s NTD to issue a letter dated January 3, 2008 addressed to Primanila’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Eduardo S. Madrid, enjoining the company from selling and/or offering for sale pre-need plans to the public.  It also had not obtained a secondary license to act as dealer or general agent for pre-need pension plans for 2008.21cralawred

    In view of the foregoing, Primanila clearly violated Section 16 of the SRC and pertinent rules which barred the sale or offer for sale to the public of a pre-need product except in accordance with SEC rules and regulations.  Under Section 16 of the SRC:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    Sec. 16. Pre-Need Plans. –  No person shall sell or offer for sale to the public any pre-need plan except in accordance with rules and regulations which the Commission shall prescribe.  Such rules shall regulate the sale of pre-need plans by, among other things, requiring the registration of pre-need plans, licensing persons involved in the sale of pre-need plans, requiring disclosures to prospective plan holders, prescribing advertising guidelines, providing for uniform plans, imposing capital, bonding and other financial responsibility, and establishing trust funds for the payment of benefits under such plans.

    As the foregoing provisions are necessary for the protection of investors and the public in general, even the Pre-Need Code,22 which now governs pre-need companies and their activities, contains similar conditions for the regulation of pre-need plans.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The  Decision dated March 9, 2010 and Resolution dated September 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 104083 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin,* Villarama, Jr., and Mendoza,** JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Acting Working Chairperson per Special Order No. 1741 dated July 31, 2014 vice Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro.

    ** Acting Member per Special Order No. 1738 dated July 31, 2014 vice Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro.

    1Rollo, pp. 9-24.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring; id. at 69-79.

    3 Id. at 88-89.

    4 Id. at 26-29.

    5 Id. at 29.

    6 Id. at 26.

    7 Id. at 26-28.

    8 Id. at 29.

    9 Id. at 30-32.

    10 Id. at 30-30a.

    11 Id. at 30.

    12 Id. at 31.

    13 Id. at 49-53.

    14 Id. at 13.

    15Power Homes Unlimited Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 570 Phil. 161, 168 (2008).

    16 565 Phil. 731 (2007).

    17 Id. at 740.

    18 Magdiwang Realty Corporation v. The Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 195592, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 251, 264.

    19Cuenca v. Hon. Atas, 561 Phil. 186, 220 (2007).

    20 Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

    21Rollo, p. 27.

    22 Republic Act No. 9829 (2009).

    G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014 - PRIMANILA PLANS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO S. MADRID, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 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