Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > July 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 195466, July 02, 2014 - ARIEL L. DAVID, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE “YIELS HOG DEALER,” PETITIONER, VS. JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 195466, July 02, 2014 - ARIEL L. DAVID, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE “YIELS HOG DEALER,” PETITIONER, VS. JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 195466, July 02, 2014

ARIEL L. DAVID, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE “YIELS HOG DEALER,” PETITIONER, VS. JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We resolve in this petition for review on certiorari1 the challenge to the November 22, 2010 decision2 and the January 31, 2011 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116003.  The CA decision annulled and set aside the May 26, 2010 decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)5 which, in turn, affirmed the April 30, 2009 decision6 of the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA’s decision dismissed respondent John G. Macasio’s monetary claims.

The Factual Antecedents

In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a complaint7 against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing business under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer,” for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay.  He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Macasio also claimed payment for service incentive leave (SIL).8

Macasio alleged9 before the LA that he had been working as a butcher for David since January 6, 1995.  Macasio claimed that David exercised effective control and supervision over his work, pointing out that David: (1) set the work day, reporting time and hogs to be chopped, as well as the manner by which he was to perform his work; (2) daily paid his salary of P700.00, which was increased from P600.00 in 2007, P500.00 in 2006 and P400.00 in 2005; and (3) approved and disapproved his leaves.  Macasio added that David owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work tools and implements; the latter also rented the workplace.  Macasio further claimed that David employs about twenty-five (25) butchers and delivery drivers.

In his defense,10 David claimed that he started his hog dealer business in 2005 and that he only has ten employees. He alleged that he hired Macasio as a butcher or chopper on “pakyaw” or task basis who is, therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay pursuant to the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Labor Code.  David pointed out that Macasio: (1) usually starts his work at 10:00 p.m. and ends at 2:00 a.m. of the following day or earlier, depending on the volume of the delivered hogs; (2) received the fixed amount of P700.00 per engagement, regardless of the actual number of hours that he spent chopping the delivered hogs; and (3) was not engaged to report for work and, accordingly, did not receive any fee when no hogs were delivered.

Macasio disputed David’s allegations.11  He argued that, first, David did not start his business only in 2005.  He pointed to the Certificate of Employment12 that David issued in his favor which placed the date of his employment, albeit erroneously, in January 2000. Second, he reported for work every day which the payroll or time record could have easily proved had David submitted them in evidence.

Refuting Macasio’s submissions,13 David claims that Macasio was not his employee as he hired the latter on “pakyaw” or task basis.  He also claimed that he issued the Certificate of Employment, upon Macasio’s request, only for overseas employment purposes.  He pointed to the “Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay,”14 executed by Presbitero Solano and Christopher (Antonio Macasio’s co-butchers), to corroborate his claims.

In the April 30, 2009 decision,15 the LA dismissed Macasio’s complaint for lack of merit.  The LA gave credence to David’s claim that he engaged Macasio on “pakyaw” or task basis. The LA noted the following facts to support this finding: (1) Macasio received the fixed amount of P700.00 for every work done, regardless of the number of hours that he spent in completing the task and of the volume or number of hogs that he had to chop per engagement; (2) Macasio usually worked for only four hours, beginning from 10:00 p.m. up to 2:00 a.m. of the following day; and (3) the P700.00 fixed wage far exceeds the then prevailing daily minimum wage of P382.00.  The LA added that the nature of David’s business as hog dealer supports this “pakyaw” or task basis arrangement.

The LA concluded that as Macasio was engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis, he is not entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

The NLRC’s Ruling

In its May 26, 2010 decision,16 the NLRC affirmed the LA ruling.17 The NLRC observed that David did not require Macasio to observe an eight-hour work schedule to earn the fixed P700.00 wage; and that Macasio had been performing a non-time work, pointing out that Macasio was paid a fixed amount for the completion of the assigned task, irrespective of the time consumed in its performance. Since Macasio was paid by result and not in terms of the time that he spent in the workplace, Macasio is not covered by the Labor Standards laws on overtime, SIL and holiday pay, and 13th month pay under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the 13th month pay law.18

Macasio moved for reconsideration19 but the NLRC denied his motion in its August 11, 2010 resolution,20 prompting Macasio to elevate his case to the CA via a petition for certiorari.21

The CA’s Ruling

In its November 22, 2010 decision,22 the CA partly granted Macasio’s certiorari petition and reversed the NLRC’s ruling for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.

While the CA agreed with the LA and the NLRC that Macasio was a task basis employee, it nevertheless found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims following the doctrine laid down in Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit.23 The CA explained that as a task basis employee, Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay only if he is likewise a “field personnel.” As defined by the Labor Code, a “field personnel” is one who performs the work away from the office or place of work and whose regular work hours cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. In Macasio’s case, the elements that characterize a “field personnel” are evidently lacking as he had been working as a butcher at David’s “Yiels Hog Dealer” business in Sta. Mesa, Manila under David’s supervision and control, and for a fixed working schedule that starts at 10:00 p.m.

Accordingly, the CA awarded Macasio’s claim for holiday, SIL and 13th month pay for three years, with 10% attorney’s fees on the total monetary award.  The CA, however, denied Macasio’s claim for moral and exemplary damages for lack of basis.

David filed the present petition after the CA denied his motion for reconsideration24 in the CA’s January 31, 2011 resolution.25

The Petition

In this petition,26 David maintains that Macasio’s engagement was on a “pakyaw” or task basis.  Hence, the latter is excluded from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

David reiterates his submissions before the lower tribunals27 and adds that he never had any control over the manner by which Macasio performed his work and he simply looked on to the “end-result.”  He also contends that he never compelled Macasio to report for work and that under their arrangement, Macasio was at liberty to choose whether to report for work or not as other butchers could carry out his tasks. He points out that Solano and Antonio had, in fact, attested to their (David and Macasio’s) established “pakyawan” arrangement that rendered a written contract unnecessary. In as much as Macasio is a task basis employee – who is paid the fixed amount of P700.00 per engagement regardless of the time consumed in the performance – David argues that Macasio is not entitled to the benefits he claims. Also, he posits that because he engaged Macasio on “pakyaw” or task basis then no employer-employee relationship exists between them.

Finally, David argues that factual findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC, attain finality especially when, as in this case, they are supported by substantial evidence.  Hence, David posits that the CA erred in reversing the labor tribunals’ findings and granting the prayed monetary claims.

The Case for the Respondent

Macasio counters that he was not a task basis employee or a “field personnel” as David would have this Court believe.28 He reiterates his arguments before the lower tribunals and adds that, contrary to David’s position, the P700.00 fee that he was paid for each day that he reported for work does not indicate a “pakyaw” or task basis employment as this amount was paid daily, regardless of the number or pieces of hogs that he had to chop.  Rather, it indicates a daily-wage method of payment and affirms his regular employment status.  He points out that David did not allege or present any evidence as regards the quota or number of hogs that he had to chop as basis for the “pakyaw” or task basis payment; neither did David present the time record or payroll to prove that he worked for less than eight hours each day. Moreover, David did not present any contract to prove that his employment was on task basis.  As David failed to prove the alleged task basis or “pakyawan” agreement, Macasio concludes that he was David’s employee.

Procedurally, Macasio points out that David’s submissions in the present petition raise purely factual issues that are not proper for a petition for review on certiorari.  These issues – whether he (Macasio) was paid by result or on “pakyaw” basis; whether he was a “field personnel”; whether an employer-employee relationship existed between him and David; and whether David exercised control and supervision over his work – are all factual in nature and are, therefore, proscribed in a Rule 45 petition.  He argues that the CA’s factual findings bind this Court, absent a showing that such findings are not supported by the evidence or the CA’s judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts.  He adds that the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship existed between him and David had already been settled by the LA29 and the NLRC30 (as well as by the CA per Macasio’s manifestation before this Court dated November 15, 2012),31 in his favor, in the separate illegal case that he filed against David.

The Issue

The issue revolves around the proper application and interpretation of the labor law provisions on holiday, SIL and 13th month pay to a worker engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis.  In the context of the Rule 65 petition before the CA, the issue is whether the CA correctly found the NLRC in grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Macasio is entitled to these labor standards benefits.

The Court’s Ruling

We partially grant the petition.

Preliminary considerations: the
Montoya ruling and the factual-
issue-bar rule


In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA’s decision rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding, this Court’s power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. This is in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors, which we undertake in an original certiorari action.  In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.32  In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.33

Moreover, the Court’s power in a Rule 45 petition limits us to a review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision.34

In this petition, David essentially asks the question – whether Macasio is entitled to holiday, SIL and 13th month pay. This one is a question of law. The determination of this question of law however is intertwined with the largely factual issue of whether Macasio falls within the rule on entitlement to these claims or within the exception. In either case, the resolution of this factual issue presupposes another factual matter, that is, the presence of an employer-employee relationship between David and Macasio.

In insisting before this Court that Macasio was not his employee, David argues that he engaged the latter on “pakyaw” or task basis.  Very noticeably, David confuses engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis with the lack of employment relationship. Impliedly, David asserts that their “pakyawan” or task basis arrangement negates the existence of employment relationship.

At the outset, we reject this assertion of the petitioner. Engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis does not characterize the relationship that may exist between the parties, i.e., whether one of employment or independent contractorship.  Article 97(6) of the Labor Code defines wages as “xxx the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered[.]”35  In relation to Article 97(6), Article 10136 of the Labor Code speaks of workers paid by results or those whose pay is calculated in terms of the quantity or quality of their work output which includes “pakyaw” work and other non-time work.

More importantly, by implicitly arguing that his engagement of Macasio on “pakyaw” or task basis negates employer-employee relationship, David would want the Court to engage on a factual appellate review of the entire case to determine the presence or existence of that relationship. This approach however is not authorized under a Rule 45 petition for review of the CA decision rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding.

First, the LA and the NLRC denied Macasio’s claim not because of the absence of an employer-employee but because of its finding that since Macasio is paid on pakyaw or task basis, then he is not entitled to SIL, holiday and 13th month pay. Second, we consider it crucial, that in the separate illegal dismissal case Macasio filed with the LA, the LA, the NLRC and the CA uniformly found the existence of an employer-employee relationship.37

In other words, aside from being factual in nature, the existence of an employer-employee relationship is in fact a non-issue in this case. To reiterate, in deciding a Rule 45 petition for review of a labor decision rendered by the CA under 65, the narrow scope of inquiry is whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. In concrete question form, “did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in denying Macasio’s claims simply because he is paid on a non-time basis?”

At any rate, even if we indulge the petitioner, we find his claim that no employer-employee relationship exists baseless. Employing the control test,38 we find that such a relationship exist in the present case.

Even a factual review shows that
Macasio is David’s employee


To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, four elements generally need to be considered, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. These elements or indicators comprise the so-called “four-fold” test of employment relationship. Macasio’s relationship with David satisfies this test.

First, David engaged the services of Macasio, thus satisfying the element of “selection and engagement of the employee.”  David categorically confirmed this fact when, in his “Sinumpaang Salaysay,” he stated that “nag apply po siya sa akin at kinuha ko siya na chopper[.]”39  Also, Solano and Antonio stated in their “Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay40 that “[k]ami po ay nagtratrabaho sa Yiels xxx na pag-aari ni Ariel David bilang butcher” and “kilala namin si xxx Macasio na isa ring butcher xxx ni xxx David at kasama namin siya sa aming trabaho.”

Second, David paid Macasio’s wages.  Both David and Macasio categorically stated in their respective pleadings before the lower tribunals and even before this Court that the former had been paying the latter P700.00 each day after the latter had finished the day’s task.  Solano and Antonio also confirmed this fact of wage payment in their “Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay.41 This satisfies the element of “payment of wages.”

Third, David had been setting the day and time when Macasio should report for work. This power to determine the work schedule obviously implies power of control.  By having the power to control Macasio’s work schedule, David could regulate Macasio’s work and could even refuse to give him any assignment, thereby effectively dismissing him.

And fourth, David had the right and power to control and supervise Macasio’s work as to the means and methods of performing it. In addition to setting the day and time when Macasio should report for work, the established facts show that David rents the place where Macasio had been performing his tasks. Moreover, Macasio would leave the workplace only after he had finished chopping all of the hog meats given to him for the day’s task. Also, David would still engage Macasio’s services and have him report for work even during the days when only few hogs were delivered for butchering.

Under this overall setup, all those working for David, including Macasio, could naturally be expected to observe certain rules and requirements and David would necessarily exercise some degree of control as the chopping of the hog meats would be subject to his specifications.  Also, since Macasio performed his tasks at David’s workplace, David could easily exercise control and supervision over the former.  Accordingly, whether or not David actually exercised this right or power to control is beside the point as the law simply requires the existence of this power to control 4243 or, as in this case, the existence of the right and opportunity to control and supervise Macasio.44

In sum, the totality of the surrounding circumstances of the present case sufficiently points to an employer-employee relationship existing between David and Macasio.

Macasio is engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis

At this point, we note that all three tribunals – the LA, the NLRC and the CA – found that Macasio was engaged or paid on “pakyaw” or task basis.  This factual finding binds the Court under the rule that factual findings of labor tribunals when supported by the established facts and in accord with the laws, especially when affirmed by the CA, is binding on this Court.

A distinguishing characteristic of “pakyaw” or task basis engagement, as opposed to straight-hour wage payment, is the non-consideration of the time spent in working. In a task-basis work, the emphasis is on the task itself, in the sense that payment is reckoned in terms of completion of the work, not in terms of the number of time spent in the completion of work.45 Once the work or task is completed, the worker receives a fixed amount as wage, without regard to the standard measurements of time generally used in pay computation.

In Macasio’s case, the established facts show that he would usually start his work at 10:00 p.m.  Thereafter, regardless of the total hours that he spent at the workplace or of the total number of the hogs assigned to him for chopping, Macasio would receive the fixed amount of P700.00 once he had completed his task.  Clearly, these circumstances show a “pakyaw” or task basis engagement that all three tribunals uniformly found.

In sum, the existence of employment relationship between the parties is determined by applying the “four-fold” test; engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis does not determine the parties’ relationship as it is simply a method of pay computation.  Accordingly, Macasio is David’s employee, albeit engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis.

As an employee of David paid on pakyaw or task basis, we now go to the core issue of whether Macasio is entitled to holiday, 13th month, and SIL pay.

On the issue of Macasio’s
entitlement to holiday, SIL
and 13th month pay


The LA dismissed Macasio’s claims pursuant to Article 94 of the Labor Code in relation to Section 1, Rule IV of the IRR of the Labor Code, and Article 95 of the Labor Code, as well as Presidential Decree (PD) No. 851.  The NLRC, on the other hand, relied on Article 82 of the Labor Code and the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851.  Uniformly, these provisions exempt workers paid on “pakyaw” or task basis from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

In reversing the labor tribunals’ rulings, the CA similarly relied on these provisions, as well as on Section 1, Rule V of the IRR of the Labor Code and the Court’s ruling in Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit.46  These labor law provisions, when read together with the Serrano ruling, exempt those engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis only if they qualify as “field personnel.”

In other words, what we have before us is largely a question of law regarding the correct interpretation of these labor code provisions and the implementing rules; although, to conclude that the worker is exempted or covered depends on the facts and in this sense, is a question of fact: first, whether Macasio is a “field personnel”; and second, whether those engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis, but who are not “field personnel,” are exempted from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

To put our discussion within the perspective of a Rule 45 petition for review of a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 and framed in question form, the legal question is whether the CA correctly ruled that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC to deny Macasio’s monetary claims simply because he is paid on a non-time basis without determining whether he is a field personnel or not.

To resolve these issues, we need to re-visit the provisions involved.

Provisions governing SIL and holiday pay

Article 82 of the Labor Code provides the exclusions from the coverage of Title I, Book III of the Labor Code - provisions governing working conditions and rest periods.

Art. 82. Coverage. — The provisions of [Title I] shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.

xxxx

Field personnel” shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. [emphases and underscores ours]

Among the Title I provisions are the provisions on holiday pay (under Article 94 of the Labor Code) and SIL pay (under Article 95 of the Labor Code). Under Article 82, “field personnel” on one hand and “workers who are paid by results” on the other hand, are not covered by the Title I provisions.  The wordings of Article 82 of the Labor Code additionally categorize workers “paid by results” and “field personnel” as separate and distinct types of employees who are exempted from the Title I provisions of the Labor Code.

The pertinent portion of Article 94 of the Labor Code and its corresponding provision in the IRR47 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than (10) workers[.] [emphasis ours]

xxxx

SECTION 1.  Coverage. – This Rule shall apply to all employees except:

xxxx

(e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof.  [emphases ours]

On the other hand, Article 95 of the Labor Code and its corresponding provision in the IRR48 pertinently provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Art. 95. Right to service incentive. (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.

(b) This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five days and those employed in establishments regularly employing less than ten employees or in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor and Employment after considering the viability or financial condition of such establishment.  [emphases ours]

xxxx

Section 1. Coverage. – This rule shall apply to all employees except:

xxxx

(e) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof.  [emphasis ours]

Under these provisions, the general rule is that holiday and SIL pay provisions cover all employees. To be excluded from their coverage, an employee must be one of those that these provisions expressly exempt, strictly in accordance with the exemption.

Under the IRR, exemption from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay refer to “field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis[.]” Note that unlike Article 82 of the Labor Code, the IRR on holiday and SIL pay do not exclude employees “engaged on task basis” as a separate and distinct category from employees classified as “field personnel.” Rather, these employees are altogether merged into one classification of exempted employees.

Because of this difference, it may be argued that the Labor Code may be interpreted to mean that those who are engaged on task basis, per se, are excluded from the SIL and holiday payment since this is what the Labor Code provisions, in contrast with the IRR, strongly suggest. The arguable interpretation of this rule may be conceded to be within the discretion granted to the LA and NLRC as the quasi-judicial bodies with expertise on labor matters.

However, as early as 1987 in the case of Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople49 the phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis” in the rule has already been interpreted to mean as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[the phrase] should however, be related with "field personnel" applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow xxx Clearly, petitioner's teaching personnel cannot be deemed field personnel which refers "to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. [Par. 3, Article 82, Labor Code of the Philippines]. Petitioner's claim that private respondents are not entitled to the service incentive leave benefit cannot therefore be sustained.

In short, the payment of an employee on task or pakyaw basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the coverage of SIL and holiday pay. They are exempted from the coverage of Title I (including the holiday and SIL pay) only if they qualify as “field personnel.”  The IRR therefore validly qualifies and limits the general exclusion of “workers paid by results” found in Article 82 from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay.  This is the only reasonable interpretation since the determination of excluded workers who are paid by results from the coverage of Title I is “determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.”

The Cebu Institute Technology ruling was reiterated in 2005 in Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc., v. Bautista:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V.  According to the Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as “field personnel.”  The phrase “other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer” must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be granted.  Rather, it serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.”

The same is true with respect to the phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis.”  Said phrase should be related with “field personnel,” applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow.

The Autobus ruling was in turn the basis of Serrano v. Santos Transit which the CA cited in support of granting Macasio’s petition.

In Serrano, the Court, applying the rule on ejusdem generis50 declared that “employees engaged on task or contract basis xxx are not automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave, unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel.”51  The Court explained that the phrase “including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis” found in Section 1(d), Rule V of Book III of the IRR should not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which SIL shall not be granted.  Rather, as with its preceding phrase - “other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer” - the phrase “including those who are engaged on task or contract basis” serves to amplify the interpretation of the Labor Code definition of “field personnel” as those “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.”

In contrast and in clear departure from settled case law, the LA and the NLRC still interpreted the Labor Code provisions and the IRR as exempting an employee from the coverage of Title I of the Labor Code based simply and solely on the mode of payment of an employee. The NLRC’s utter disregard of this consistent jurisprudential ruling is a clear act of grave abuse of discretion.52 In other words, by dismissing Macasio’s complaint without considering whether Macasio was a “field personnel” or not, the NLRC proceeded based on a significantly incomplete consideration of the case. This action clearly smacks of grave abuse of discretion.

Entitlement to holiday pay

Evidently, the Serrano ruling speaks only of SIL pay. However, if the LA and the NLRC had only taken counsel from Serrano and earlier cases, they would have correctly reached a similar conclusion regarding the payment of holiday pay since the rule exempting “field personnel” from the grant of holiday pay is identically worded with the rule exempting “field personnel” from the grant of SIL pay. To be clear, the phrase “employees engaged on task or contract basis” found in the IRR on both SIL pay and holiday pay should be read together with the exemption of “field personnel.”

In short, in determining whether workers engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker’s time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of “field personnel” under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary benefits.

Macasio does not fall under the
classification of “field personnel” 


Based on the definition of field personnel under Article 82, we agree with the CA that Macasio does not fall under the definition of “field personnel.” The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the established facts of this case: first, Macasio regularly performed his duties at David’s principal place of business; second, his actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty; and, third, David supervised his time and performance of duties. Since Macasio cannot be considered a “field personnel,” then he is not exempted from the grant of holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis.

Not being a “field personnel,” we find the CA to be legally correct when it reversed the NLRC’s ruling dismissing Macasio’s complaint for holiday and SIL pay for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.

Entitlement to 13th month pay

With respect to the payment of 13th month pay however, we find that the CA legally erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in denying this benefit to Macasio.

The governing law on 13th month pay is PD No. 851.53 As with holiday and SIL pay, 13th month pay benefits generally cover all employees; an employee must be one of those expressly enumerated to be exempted.  Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 85154 enumerates the exemptions from the coverage of 13th month pay benefits.  Under Section 3(e), “employers of those who are paid on xxx task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof”55 are exempted.

Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 exempts employees “paid on task basis” without any reference to “field personnel.” This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is concerned, the law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its coverage with the requirement that the task worker be a “field personnel” at the same time.

WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby PARTIALLY GRANT the petition insofar as the payment of 13th month pay to respondent is concerned. In all other aspects, we AFFIRM the decision dated November 22, 2010 and the resolution dated January 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116003.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.


Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 8-30.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias; id. at 32-46.

3 Id. at 47-48.

4 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo; id. at 150-156.

5 In NLRC LAC No. 07-002073-09 (NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00298-09).

6 Penned by Labor Arbiter Daniel J. Cajilig; id. at 119-122.

7 Id. at 61-63.

8 Filed on February 18, 2009; id. at 64-75.

9 Ibid.

10 Position Paper filed on February 18, 2009; id. at 80-86.

11 Reply by the Complainant; id. at 87-91.

12 Id. at 76.

13 Respondent’s Reply; id. at 92-96.

14 Id. at 99-100.

15 Supra note 5.

16 Supra note 4.

17Rollo, pp. 123-139.

18 Presidential Decree No. 851 - “Requiring All Employers to Pay Their Employees a 13th Month Pay.”  Enacted on December 16, 1975.

19Rollo, pp. 160-176.

20 Id. at 157-159.

21 Id. at 180-204.

22 Supra note 2.

23 G.R. No. 187698, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 483.

24Rollo, pp. 49-56.

25 Supra note 3.

26 Supra note 1.

27 Although he now claims that he engaged Macasio’s services in 2000 instead of 2005.

28Rollo, pp. 223-243.

29 Docketed as NLRC OFW Case No. 06-09181-09.  Decision dated January 27, 2010; id. at 260-266.

30 Docketed as LAC No. 03-000566-10(3)(8)(T-7-10).  Resolution dated November 12, 2010; id. at 267-272.

31 Id. at 334-338.  The CA decision dated November 6, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 118736 affirmed the LA and NLRC rulings in the illegal dismissal case (rollo, pp. 340-346).  On May 6, 2013, David assailed the CA’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 118736 before this Court via a petition for certiorari.  The case was docketed as G.R. No. 206735.  In a Resolution dated July 15, 2013, the Court dismissed David’s petition for being a wrong remedy and for failure to show any grave abuse of discretion in the assailed CA decision.

32Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 334, 342-343.

33 Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, G.R. No. 172086, December 3, 2012, 686 SCRA 676, 683-684, citing Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation, supra note 30.

34 See Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422, 434. “A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts xxx. In contrast, a question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence[.]” (Cosmos Bottling Corp. v. Nagrama, Jr., 571 Phil. 281, 296 (2008), citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135789, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 425).

35 Emphases ours.

36 Article 101 of the Labor Code reads in full -
“Art. 101.  Payment by results.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall regulate the payment of wages by results, including pakyaw, piecework, and other non-time work, in order to ensure the payment of fair and reasonable wage rates, preferably through time and motion studies or in consultation with representatives of workers’ and employer’s organizations.”
37 This decision lapsed to finality upon the denial of David’s petition for review filed with the Court.

38 Of these elements, the power to control is the most important criterion. Under the “control test,” the important question to ask is whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished.  We should, however, emphasize that the control test simply calls for the existence of the right to control and not necessarily the actual exercise of this right. To be clear, the test does not require that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. (Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, supra, at 397-398; Chavez v. NLRC, 489 Phil. 444, 456 (2005); See Basay v. Hacienda Consolacion, G.R. No. 175532, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 422, 434).

39Rollo, pp. 97-98.  In paragraph 1 of David’s “Sinumpaang Salaysay,” he stated:
“1. xxx Ang katotohanan po ay nag apply po siya sa akin at kinuha ko siya na chopper sa kasunduan na pakyawan.  P700.00 ang binabayad ko sa kanya sa bawat apat (4) na oras na trabaho bilang chopper na mag-uumpisa ng 10:00 P.M. ng gabi at matatapos sa 2:00 A.M. sa medaling araw o mas maaga pa dito kung kaunti lang ang delivery ng baboy.”  (emphasis ours)
40Supra note 13; underscores ours.

41 Ibid.

42 Jaime N. Gapayao v. Rosario Fulo, et al., G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013.

43 Ibid.

44 But, in addition to the above circumstances that clearly meet the “four-fold test,” three other circumstances satisfying the “economic dependence test” strengthen the conclusion of the parties’ relationship as one of employer and employee (Dr. Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, 243 Phil. 340, 348-349 [1988]). For one, Macasio had been performing work that is usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade and business of David.  The facts show that David is a hog dealer who sells hog meats to his customers in the wet market.  He engages butchers, such as Macasio, to butcher and chop his hogs for distribution to his customers.  Clearly, Macasio’s work as a butcher qualifies as necessary and desirable to David’s hog dealer business.

Another, David had been repeatedly and continuously engaging Macasio’s services to perform precisely the same task of butchering hogs or hog meats since 2000.  David categorically confirmed, in his various pleadings, his continuous and repeated hiring or engagement of Macasio, albeit, insisting that the engagement is on “pakyaw” or task basis.

Lastly, Macasio regularly reported for work to earn the P700.00 fee.  He would likewise ask for cash advances from David for his and his family’s needs.  David’s “Sinumpaang Salaysay[44 confirms this observation when he stated that he refused to give Macasio another cash advance as the latter already had several unpaid cash advances.  These facts clearly show that Macasio looked on to David for the former’s daily financial needs in the form of wages.

45 I C.A. Azucena, Jr., The Labor Code, 186 (Ed. 8, 2013).

46Supra note 23.

47 Section 1, Rule IV of Book 3.

48 Section 1, Rule V of Book 3.

49 G.R. No. L- 58870, 18 December 1987.

50 The general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow.

51Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit, supra note 22, at 492-493; emphasis supplied, underscore ours.

52 In case the LA and the NLRC cites a contrary jurisprudential ruling that creates a real conflict in our existing case law, this is the only time that the Court may exercise its discretion to have a wider scope of review of a Rule 65 CA decision. In this case, the wider scope of review is necessitated by the need to create a body of harmonious and workable jurisprudence.

53 Enacted on December 16, 1975.

54 Issued on December 22, 1975.

55 Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851 reads in full:

SEC. 3.  Employers covered.––The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:
xxxx

e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this issuance insofar as such workers are concerned.  [emphases ours]



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






July-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • DECISION - BERSAMIN, J. : G.R. No. 209287, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209135 - AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., PH.D., Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SENATE PRESIDENT OF TH PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209136 - MANUELITO R. LUNA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALTER EGO OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209155 - ATTY. JOSE MALVAR VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; AND THE SECRETARY O BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209164 - PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY DEAN FROILAN BACUNGAN, BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO AND LEONOR M. BRIONES, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209260 - INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioner, v. SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM), Respondent.; G.R. NO. 209442 - GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA; BISHOP REUBEN M ABANTE AND REV. JOSE L. GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON; THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.; THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, J THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD; THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA; AND THE BUREAU OF TREASURY, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA V. DE LEON, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209517- CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST VICE PRESIDENT, SANTIAGO DASMARINAS, JR.; ROSALINDA NARTATES, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED UNION OF EMPLOYEES NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (CUE-NHA); MANUEL BACLAGON, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL OFFICE (SWEAP-DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); ALBERT MAGALANG, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU EMPLOYEES UNION (EMBEU); AND MARCIAL ARABA, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAWANI NG MMDA (KKK-MMDA), Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209569 - VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC), REPRESENTED BY DANTE L. JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

  • SEPARATE OPINION - CARPIO, J. : G.R. No. 209287 - G.R. NO. 209135 - G.R. NO. 209136 - G.R. NO. 209155 - G.R. NO. 209164 - G.R. NO. 209260 - G.R. NO. 209442 - G.R. NO. 209517 - G.R. NO. 209569, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • SEPARATE OPINION - BRION, J. : G.R. No. 209287 - G.R. NO. 209135 - G.R. NO. 209136 - G.R. NO. 209155 - G.R. NO. 209164 - G.R. NO. 209260 - G.R. NO. 209442 - G.R. NO. 209517 - G.R. NO. 209569, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • CONCURRING AND DISSENTING - DEL CASTILLO, J. : G.R. No. 209287 - G.R. NO. 209135 - G.R. NO. 209136 - G.R. NO. 209155 - G.R. NO. 209164 - G.R. NO. 209260 - G.R. NO. 209442 - G.R. NO. 209517 - G.R. NO. 209569, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION - PERLAS-BERNABE, J. : G.R. No. 209287 - G.R. NO. 209135 - G.R. NO. 209136 - G.R. NO. 209155 - G.R. NO. 209164 - G.R. NO. 209260 - G.R. NO. 209442 - G.R. NO. 209517 - G.R. NO. 209569, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • CONCURRING OPINION - LEONEN, J. : G.R. No. 209287 - G.R. NO. 209135 - G.R. NO. 209136 - G.R. NO. 209155 - G.R. NO. 209164 - G.R. NO. 209260 - G.R. NO. 209442 - G.R. NO. 209517 - G.R. NO. 209569, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioner, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 178055, July 02, 2014 - AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC. AND ANTONIO F. MATEO, Petitioners, v. ELIZA R. LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177374, July 02, 2014 - MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO JOSE, TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, AND VICTORIA JOSE, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO PALAYLAY, JR., ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED, LEONARDO L. LIBED, BERNARDO B. BELARMINO, BENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA, WARLITO B. MEJIA, MAMERTO B. BELARMINO, MARCELO O. DELFIN AND HEIRS OF LUCINO A. ESTEBAN, REPRESENTED BY CRESENCIA M. VDA. DE ESTEBAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202809, July 02, 2014 - DENNIS L. GO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181045, July 02, 2014 - SPOUSES EDUARDO AND LYDIA SILOS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3147 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-4-78-RTC), July 02, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. PAZ P. CAPISTRANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 224, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188035, July 02, 2014 - IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY/DR. JOSE PAULO E. CAMPOS, Petitioners, v. EVELYN E. CAMILON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194638, July 02, 2014 - PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. CATALINA L. SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LUZ B. PROTACIO, AND DAVID R. RAYMUNDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193796, July 02, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173861, July 14, 2014 - JAY CANDELARIA AND ERIC BASIT, Petitioners, v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 42, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, (PAMPANGA) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING JUDGE HON. MARIA AMIFAITH S. FIDER-REYES, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA AND ALLIED DOMECQ PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198226, July 18, 2014 - ABOITIZ TRANSPORT SYSTEM CORPORATION AND ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC. AND VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 198228 - ABOITIZ TRANSPORT SYSTEM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC. AND VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190303, July 09, 2014 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA, Petitioner, v. ENGR. DEBORAH P. TARDEO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183901, July 09, 2014 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Petitioner, v. SALUD GACIAS BERIÑA,1 CESAR GACIAS, NORMA GACIAS TANDOC,2 LYDIA LEANDER GACIAS, AND GREGORIO MEDEN GACIAS, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 183931 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SALUD GACIAS BERIÑA, CESAR GACIAS, NORMA GACIAS TANDOC, LYDIA LEANDER GACIAS, AND GREGORIO MEDEN GACIAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179571, July 02, 2014 - ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioner, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION AND ANTHONY R. DE LEON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207392, July 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIE ORTEGA Y KALBI, A.K.A AY-AY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 197515, July 02, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. UNITED SALVAGE AND TOWAGE (PHILS.), INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6470, July 08, 2014 - MERCEDITA DE JESUS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JUVY MELL SANCHEZ-MALIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177235, July 07, 2014 - SERCONSISION R. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. AURORA MENDOZA FERMIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176598, July 09, 2014 - PETRONIO CLIDORO, DIONISIO CLIDORO, LOLITA CLIDORO, CALIXTO CARDANO, JR., LOURDES CLIDORO-LARIN, MATEO CLIDORO AND MARLIZA CLIDORO-DE UNA, Petitioners, v. AUGUSTO JALMANZAR, GREGORIO CLIDORO, JR., SENECA CLIDORO-CIOCSON, MONSERAT CLIDORO-QUIDAY, CELESTIAL CLIDORO-BINASA, APOLLO CLIDORO, ROSALIE CLIDORO-CATOLICO, SOPHIE CLIDORO, AND JOSE CLIDORO, JR., Respondents.

  • Adm. Case No. 8108, July 15, 2014 - DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE, Complainants, v. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR., Respondent.; Adm. Case No. 10299 - ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181836, July 09, 2014 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176341, July 07, 2014 - PRO-GUARD SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TORMIL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178145, July 07, 2014 - REYNALDO S. MARIANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203288, July 18, 2014 - REMEDIOS M. MAULEON, Petitioner, v. LOLINA MORAN PORTER, REPRESENTED BY ERVIN C. MORAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190277, July 23, 2014 - ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189644, July 02, 2014 - NEIL E. SUYAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CHIEF PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICER, DAGUPAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182438, July 02, 2014 - RENE RONULO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194833, July 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PORFERIO BALINO ALIAS “TOTO,” Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196936, July 02, 2014 - MONCHITO R. AMPELOQUIO, Petitioner, v. JAKA DISTRIBUTION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195466, July 02, 2014 - ARIEL L. DAVID, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE “YIELS HOG DEALER,” PETITIONER, VS. JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204101, July 02, 2014 - THE LATE ALBERTO B. JAVIER, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SURVIVING WIFE, MA. THERESA M. JAVIER, AND CHILDREN, KLADINE M. JAVIER, CHRISTIE M. JAVIER, JALYN M. JAVIER, CANDY GRACE M. JAVIER AND GLIZELDA M. JAVIER, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND/OR NORTHERN MARINE MANAGEMENT, LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184785, July 09, 2014 - RUBY P. LAGOC, Petitioner, v. MARIA ELENA MALAGA, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), Respondents.; G.R. NO. 184890 - LIMUEL P. SALES, Petitioner, v. MARIA ELENA MALAGA, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163999, July 09, 2014 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MILLARD R. OCAMPO, CIPRIANO REY R. HIPOLITO, ERIC F. MERJILLA AND JOSE R. CARANDANG, Respondents,

  • G.R. No. 188944, July 09, 2014 - SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT, Peitioners, v. FELIPE C. SIAPNO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205179, July 18, 2014 - GERVE MAGALLANES, Petitioner, v. PALMER ASIA, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209302, July 09, 2014 - ALONE AMAR P. TAGLE, Petitioner, v. ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT, PHILS., INC., ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT (ASIA) AND CAPT. GREGORIO B. SIALSA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203834, July 09, 2014 - HEIRS OF DIOSDADO M. MENDOZA, NAMELY: LICINIA V. MENDOZA, PETER VAL V. MENDOZA, CONSTANCIA V. MENDOZA YOUNG, CRISTINA V. MENDOZA FIGUEROA, DIOSDADO V. MENDOZA, JR., JOSEPHINE V. MENDOZA JASA, AND RIZALINA V. MENDOZA PUSO, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND THE DPWH SECRETARY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207851, July 08, 2014 - ANGEL G. NAVAL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NELSON B. JULIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 160143, July 02, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BENECIO EUSEBIO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185100, July 09, 2014 - GIRLY G. ICO, Petitioner, v. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, INC., MONICO V. JACOB AND PETER K. FERNANDEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 166680, July 07, 2014 - ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183290, July 09, 2014 - DEPARTMENT REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REPRESENTED BY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA AND RESURRECCION 0. RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY AURORA STA. ROMANA, PURIFICACION C. DAEZ, REPRESENTED BY EFREN D. VILLALUZ AND ROSAURO D. VILLALUZ, AND SPOUSES LEANDRO C. SEVILLA AND MILAGROS C. DAEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190445, July 23, 2014 - BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ENRIQUE GABRIEL LOCSIN AND MA. GERALDINE R. LOCSIN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205055, July 18, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201286, July 18, 2014 - INOCENCIA TAGALOG, Petitioner, v. MARIA LIM VDA. DE GONZALEZ, GAUDENCIA L. BUAGAS, RANULFO Y. LIM, DON L. CALVO, SUSAN C. SANTIAGO, DINA C. ARANAS, AND RUFINA C. RAMIREZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199208, July 30, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. TRINIDAD A. CAHILIG, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 169745, July 18, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), Petitioner, v. NAMBOKU PEAK, INC., Respondent.; G.R. NO. 170091 - PHIL-JAPAN WORKERS UNION­ SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PIDLIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (PJWU-SUPER), MED­ ARBITER CLARISSA G. BELTRAN­ LERIOS AND SECRETARY PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Petitioners, v. PIDL-JAPAN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177484, July 18, 2014 - SPOUSES ALEJANDRO MANZANILLA AND REMEDIOS VELASCO, Petitioners, v. WATERFIELDS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALIZA MA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No.178115, July 28, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOJO SUMILIDG, RICARDO SUMILIDG ALIAS CARDING SUMILIDG, PASOT SALOLI, ERIC ENOC, WARLITOMONTEBON, AND CIO LIMAMA, Accused, JOJO SUMILIDG, RICARDO SUMILIDG ALIAS CARDING SUMILIDG, AND PASOT SALOLI, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 192352, July 23, 2014 - ROSEMARIE ESMARIALINO, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND JIMENEZ PROTECTIVE AND SECURITY AGENCY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194157, July 30, 2014 - ROMEO R. ARAULLO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, HON. GERARDO C. NOGRALES, HON. ROMEO L. GO, HON. PERLITA B. VELASCO, HON. ARDEN S. ANNI, ATTY. FILOMEMO B. BALBIN, ATTY. ERNESTO P. TABAO AND ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014 - RAUL M. FRANCIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABDON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178343, July 14, 2014 - THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. ALEX M. VALENCERINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187701, July 23, 2014 - PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (NOW CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.*), Petitioner, v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION AND WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 187812 - HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION AND WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., Petitioners, v. PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (NOW CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186589, July 18, 2014 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. AND LORNA CILLAN-SILVERIO, Petitioners, v. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014 - JOEL YONGCO AND JULIETO LAÑOJAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 209414 - ANECITO TANGIAN, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014 - VICENTE JOSEFA, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198388, July 28, 2014 - JORAINA DRAGON TALOSIG, Petitioner, v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., FERNANDO LISING [President], HOLLAND AMERICAN LINE WASTOURS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188931, July 28, 2014 - JUANITO M. GOPIAO, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196786, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY BUNAGAN Y JUAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201572, July 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RAEL DELFIN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 176694, July 18, 2014 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. CENTRAL CATV, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178451, July 30, 2014 - RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN, INC., Petitioner, v. JORGITA A. MELECIO-YAP, LILIA MELECIO PACIFICO (DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HER ONLY CHILD ERLL ISAAC M. PACIFICO, JR.), REYNALDO A. MELECIO, ROSIE MELECIO DELOSO, AND SARAH MELECIO PALMA-GIL, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10450, July 30, 2014 - EMERITA B. MAHILUM, Complainant, v. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197046, July 21, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE ZAPATA Y VIANA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183664, July 28, 2014 - AIRLIFT ASIA CUSTOMS BROKERAGE, INC. AND ALLAN G. BENEDICTO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189574, July 18, 2014 - ESTRELLA D. S. BAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208623, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIRGILIO ANTONIO Y RIVERA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX DE LOS SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014 - JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175293, July 23, 2014 - CRISANTO F. CASTRO, JR., Petitioner, v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL TABORA, AND MR. EDWIN BERNAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200903, July 22, 2014 - KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, CARLITO BADION, CORAZON DE JESUS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ARNOLD REPIQUE, FERNANDO SEVILLA AS PRESIDENT OF SAMAHANG PAMATA SA KAPATIRANG KRISTIYANO, ESTRELIETA BAGASBAS, JOCY LOPEZ, ELVIRA VIDOL, AND DELIA FRAYRES, Petitioners, v. JESSIE ROBREDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HON. GUIA GOMEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN, HON. HERBERT BAUTISTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE MAYOR OF QUEZON CITY, HON. JOHN REY TIANGCO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF NAVOTAS CITY, AND THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194068, July 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199100, July 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSENDO AMARO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177524, July 23, 2014 - NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF), PHILIPPINE PLAZA CHAPTER, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199874, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA A.K.A. “FRITZ” AND JEFFERSON FANG Y PERALTA, ACCUSED, PETER FANG Y GAMBOA A.K.A. “FRITZ,” Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 198093, July 28, 2014 - FLP ENTERPRISES INC. – FRANCESCO SHOES/EMILIO FRANCISCO B. PAJARO, Petitioners, v. MA. JOERALYN D. DELA CRUZ AND VILMA MALUNES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180086, July 02, 2014 - AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM [AFP-RSBS], Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193324, July 23, 2014 - ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, v. DANIEL QUEBRAL AND ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION - ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (SLMCEA-AFW), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014 - EMILIANO S. SAMSON, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE AND GUILLERMINA GABOR, TANAY RURAL BANK, INC., AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MORONG, RIZAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172204, July 10, 2014 - CATHAY METAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190706, July 21, 2014 - SHANG PROPERTIES REALTY CORPORATION (FORMERLY THE SHANG GRAND TOWER CORPORATION) AND SHANG PROPERTIES, INC. (FORMERLY EDSA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), Petitioners, v. ST. FRANCIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188133, July 07, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. OLIVER RENATO EDAÑO Y EBDANE, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT AND RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 202809, July 02, 2014 - DENNIS L. GO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181045, July 02, 2014 - SPOUSES EDUARDO AND LYDIA SILOS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178055, July 02, 2014 - AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC. AND ANTONIO F. MATEO, Petitioners, v. ELIZA R. LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177374, July 02, 2014 - MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO JOSE, TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, AND VICTORIA JOSE, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO PALAYLAY, JR., ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED, LEONARDO L. LIBED, BERNARDO B. BELARMINO, BENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA, WARLITO B. MEJIA, MAMERTO B. BELARMINO, MARCELO O. DELFIN AND HEIRS OF LUCINO A. ESTEBAN, REPRESENTED BY CRESENCIA M. VDA. DE ESTEBAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196249, July 21, 2014 - ROSE HANA ANGELES, doing business under the name and style [of] LAS MARIAS GRILL AND RESTAURANT[,] and ZENAIDA ANGELES[,] doing business under the name and style [of] CAFÉ TERIA BAR AND RESTAURANT, Petitioners, v. FERDINAND M. BUCAD, CHARLESTON A. REYNANTE, BERNADINE B. ROAQUIN, MARLON A. OMPOY, RUBEN N. LAROZA, EVANGELINE B. BUMACOD, WILMA CAINGLES, BRIAN OGARIO, EVELYN A. BASTAN, ANACLITO A. BASTAN, MA. GINA BENITEZ, HERMINIO AGSAOAY, NORBERTO BALLASTEROS, DEMETRIO L. BERDIN, JR., JOEL DUCUSIN, JOVY R. BALATA, and MARIBEL ROAQUIN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207443, July 23, 2014 - GENATO INVESTMENTS, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE OSCAR P. BARRIENTOS, In His Capacity As The Presiding Judge Of The Regional Trial Court, Of Caloocan City, Branch 123, EMILY P. DIZON, In Her Capacity As The Branch Clerk Of Court Of The Regional Trial Court Of Caloocan City, Branch 123, JIMMY T. SORO, Court Process Server Of The Regional Trial Court Of Caloocan, Branch 123, EVELINA M. GARMA, CITY TREASURER OF CALOOCAN CITY, PHILLIP L. YAM, Officer-In-Charge, Real Property Tax Division Of The Caloocan City Treasurer’S Office, ANTHONY B. PULMANO, Officer-In-Charge, City Assessor Of Caloocan City, And LAVERNE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. D E C I S I O N

  • G.R. No. 198097, July 30, 2014 - STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION, MS. LOMA B. AGUIMAN, FAIRDEAL GROUP MANAGEMENT S.A., AND MT FAIR JOLLY, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MARGARITO B. DELALAMON AND PRISCILA A. DELALAMON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014 - ROYALE HOMES MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FIDEL P. ALCANTARA [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3218 [Formerly: OCA IPI No. 13-4037-P], July 08, 2014 - SELECTION AND PROMOTION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. RONALDO D. TACA, CASHIER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196118, July 30, 2014 - LEONARDO C. CASTILLO, REPRESENTED BY LENNARD V. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, JRC POULTRY FARMS OR SPOUSES LEON C. CASTILLO, JR., AND TERESITA FLORES-CASTILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196219, July 30, 2014 - SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TABINO AND LEONILA DELA CRUZ-TABINO, Petitioners, v. LAZARO M. TABINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA AND ALLAN ARMENTA Y CABILES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 205741, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 184295, July 30, 2014 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ALPHAOMEGA INTEGRATED CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203957, July 30, 2014 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY UNION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014 - MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197530, July 09, 2014 - ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN, BENJAMIN D. GOTHONG, AND CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC. (CAGLI), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 161759, July 02, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192866, July 09, 2014 - PEDRO G. RESURRECCION, JOSEPH COMETA AND CRISEFORO LITERATO, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191240, July 30, 2014 - CRISTINA B. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174411, July 02, 2014 - CITY OF DAGUPAN, REPRESENTED BY THE CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. LIM, Petitioner, v. ESTER F. MARAMBA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JOHNNY FERRER, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203472, July 09, 2014 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, EDUARDO U. MANESE AND NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, Petitioners, v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196251, July 09, 2014 - OLIVAREZ REALTY CORPORATION AND DR. PABLO R. OLIVAREZ, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208321, July 30, 2014 - WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NOWELLA REYES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210636, July 28, 2014 - MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE IN BEHALF OF THE MINOR CRISELDA M. CADA, Petitioner, v. RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191723, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS, JIMMY DELIZO AND MERWIN LAS PIÑAS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014 - SOLEDAD L. LAVADIA, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA, REPRESENTED BY GREGORIO Z. LUNA AND EUGENIA ZABALLERO-LUNA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3198 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3158-P), July 23, 2014 - FLORA P. HOLASCA, Petitioner, v. ANSELMO P. PAGUNSAN, JR., SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.; [A.M. NO. P-14-3199 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 10-3415-P)] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO J. CALIBUSO, JR., CLERK OF COURT III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, CAVITE CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee, v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 163879, July 30, 2014 - DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RODOLFO M. PALMA AND ROSARIO F. PALMA, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 165805] - DR. CLENIO YNZON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RODOLFO M. PALMA AND ROSARIO F. PALMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209287, July 01, 2014 - MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. TERRY L. RIDON, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR, YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioners, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209135] - AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., PH.D., Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SENATE PRESIDENT OF TH PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209136] - MANUELITO R. LUNA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALTER EGO OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209155] - ATTY. JOSE MALVAR VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; AND THE SECRETARY O BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209164] - PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY DEAN FROILAN BACUNGAN, BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO AND LEONOR M. BRIONES, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209260] - INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioner, v. SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM), Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209442] - GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA; BISHOP REUBEN M ABANTE AND REV. JOSE L. GONZALEZ, Petitioners, v. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON; THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.; THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, J THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD; THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA; AND THE BUREAU OF TREASURY, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA V. DE LEON, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209517] - CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST VICE PRESIDENT, SANTIAGO DASMARINAS, JR.; ROSALINDA NARTATES, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED UNION OF EMPLOYEES NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (CUE-NHA); MANUEL BACLAGON, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL OFFICE (SWEAP-DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); ALBERT MAGALANG, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU EMPLOYEES UNION (EMBEU); AND MARCIAL ARABA, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAWANI NG MMDA (KKK-MMDA), Petitioners, v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 209569] - VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC), REPRESENTED BY DANTE L. JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188707, July 30, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELITA AMPATUAN Y GONZALES, ET AL., Accused, MASTOR SARIP Y MARUHOM AND WARREN TUMOG Y SAMPARADO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 180651, July 30, 2014 - NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B, INC.; SUPPLIES STATION, INC.; AND HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC., Petitioners, v. ANTHONY ACEVEDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF MANILA; AND THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180343, July 09, 2014 - BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. AND FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINES LIMITED, Petitioners, v. CRISANTE C. CONSTANTINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014 - MANOLITO GIL Z. ZAFRA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMANDO DIONALDO Y EBRON, RENATO DIONALDO Y EBRON, MARIANO GARIGUEZ, JR.Y RAMOS, AND RODOLFO LARIDO Y EBRON, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 179205, July 30, 2014 - HEIRS OR REYNALDO DELA ROSA, NAMELY: TEOFISTA DELA ROSA, JOSEPHINE SANTIAGO AND JOSEPH DELA ROSA, Petitioners, v. MARIO A. BATONGBACAL, IRENEO BATONGBACAL, JOCELYN BATONGBACAL, NESTOR BATONGBACAL AND LOURDES BATONGBACAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014 - THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; MED-ARBITER TOMAS F. FALCONITIN; AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES–HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondents.