Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > November 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014 - EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL AND CRISPIN I. OBEN, Petitioners, v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.:




G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014 - EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL AND CRISPIN I. OBEN, Petitioners, v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL AND CRISPIN I. OBEN, Petitioners, v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

LEONEN, J.:

For resolution is respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.�s motion for reconsideration1 of our April 10, 2013 decision,2 which reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals� resolutions3 and ordered respondent to produce the Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) dated April 7, 2006, including its annexes and/or attachments, if any, in order that petitioners may inspect or photocopy the same.

Petitioners Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben filed on June 7, 2013 their motion to admit attached opposition.4� Subsequently, respondent filed its reply5 and petitioners their motion to admit attached rejoinder.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The motion for reconsideration raises the following points:

(1)
The motion for production was filed out of time;7
(2)
The production of the LSPA would violate the parol evidence rule; and8
(3)
The LSPA is a privileged and confidential document.9

Respondent asserts that there was no �insistent refusal� on its part to present the LSPA, but that petitioners filed their motion for production way out of time, even beyond the protracted pre-trial period from September 2005 to 2011.10� Hence, petitioners had no one to blame but themselves when the trial court denied their motion as it was filed only during the trial proper.11chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Respondent further submits that �Article 1634 [of the] Civil Code had been inappropriately cited by [p]etitioners�12 inasmuch as it is Republic Act No. 9182 (Special Purpose Vehicle Act) that is applicable.13� Nonetheless, even assuming that Article 1634 is applicable, respondent argued that petitioners are: 1) still liable to pay the whole of petitioner Eagleridge Development Corporation�s (EDC) loan obligation, i.e., P10,232,998.00 exclusive of interests and/or damages;14 and 2) seven (7) years late in extinguishing petitioner EDC�s loan obligation because pursuant to Article 1634, they should have exercised their right of extinguishment within 30 days from the substitution of Export and Industry Bank or EIB (the original creditor) by respondent in December 2006.15� According to respondent, the trial court order �granting the substitution constituted sufficient judicial demand as contemplated under Article 1634.�16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Also, maintaining that the LSPA is immaterial or irrelevant to the case, respondent contends that the �[o]rder of substitution settled the issue of [respondent�s] standing before the [c]ourt and its right to fill in the shoes of [EIB].�17� It argues that the production of the LSPA will neither prevent respondent from pursuing its claim of P10,232,998.00, exclusive of interests and penalties, from petitioner EDC, nor write off petitioner EDC�s liability to respondent.18� The primordial issue of whether petitioners owe respondent a sum of money via the deed of assignment can allegedly �be readily resolved by application of Civil Code provisions and/or applicable jurisprudence and not by the production/inspection of the LSPA[.]�19� Respondent also argues that �a consideration is not always a requisite [in assignment of credits, and] an assignee may maintain an action based on his title and it is immaterial whether or not he paid any consideration [therefor][.]�20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Respondent also contends that: (1) the production of the LSPA will violate the parol evidence rule21 under Rule 130, Section 9 of the Rules of Court; (2) the LSPA is a privileged/confidential bank document;22 and (3) under the Special Purpose Vehicle Act, �the only obligation of both the assignor (bank) and the assignee (the SPV; respondent Cameron) is to give notice to the debtor (Eagleridge, Naval, and Oben) that its account has been assigned/transferred to a special purpose vehicle (Sec. 12, R.A. 9182) [and] [i]t does not require of the special purpose vehicle or the bank to disclose all financial documents included in the assignment/sale/transfer[.]�23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Finally, respondent points out that the deed of assignment is a contested document.� �Fair play would be violated if the LSPA is produced without [p]etitioners acknowledging that respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. is the real party-in-interest because petitioners . . . would [thereafter] use . . . the contents of a document (LSPA) to its benefit while at the same time�24 refuting the integrity of the deed and the legal personality of respondent to sue petitioners.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

For their part, petitioners counter that their motion for production was not filed out of time, and �[t]here is no proscription, under Rule 27 or any provision of the Rules of Court, from filing motions for production, beyond the pre-trial.�26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Further, assuming that there was a valid transfer of the loan obligation of petitioner EDC, Article 1634 is applicable and, therefore, petitioners must be informed of the actual transfer price, which information may only be supplied by the LSPA.27� Petitioners argue that the substitution of respondent in the case a quo was �not sufficient �demand� as contemplated under Article 1634 of the Civil Code inasmuch as respondent Cameron failed . . . to inform petitioner EDC of the price it paid for the [transfer of the] loan obligation,�28 which made it �impossible for petitioners to reimburse what was paid for the acquisition of the . . . loan obligation [of EDC].�29� Additionally, petitioners contend that respondent was not a party to the deed of assignment, but Cameron Granville Asset Management (SPV-AMC), Inc., hence, �as [to] the actual parties to the Deed of Assignment are concerned, no such demand has yet been made.�30chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Petitioners add that the amount of their liability to respondent is one of the factual issues to be resolved as stated in the November 21, 2011 pre-trial order of the Regional Trial Court, which makes the LSPA clearly relevant and material to the disposition of the case.31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Petitioners next argue that the parol evidence rule is not applicable to them because they were not parties to the deed of assignment, and �they cannot be prevented from seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the Deed of Assignment.�32� Besides, the deed of assignment made express reference to the LSPA, hence, the latter cannot be considered as extrinsic to it.33chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As to respondent�s invocation that the LSPA is privileged/confidential, petitioners counter that �it has not been shown that the parties fall under . . . or, at the very least . . . analogous to [any of the relationships enumerated in Rule 130, Section 124] that would exempt [respondent] from disclosing information as to their transaction.�34chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In reply, respondent argues that �[petitioners] cannot accept and reject the same instrument at the same time.�35� According to respondent, by allegedly �uphold[ing] the truth of the contents as well as the validity of [the] Deed of Assignment [in] seeking the production of the [LSPA],�36 petitioners could no longer be allowed to impugn the validity of the same deed.37chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In their rejoinder, petitioners clarified that their consistent position was always to assail the validity of the deed of assignment; that alternatively, they invoked the application of Article 1634 should the court uphold the validity of the transfer of their alleged loan obligation; and that Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of Court �permits parties to set forth alternative causes of action or defenses.�38chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

We deny the motion for reconsideration.

Discovery mode of production/inspection of document may be availed of even beyond pre-trial upon a showing of good cause

The availment of a motion for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to the pre-trial stage.� Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of documents can be utilized.� The rule only requires leave of court �upon due application and a showing of due cause.�39� Rule 27, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court, states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order � Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control[.] (Emphasis supplied)

In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,40 this court held that since the rules are silent as to the period within which modes of discovery (in that case, written interrogatories) may still be requested, it is necessary to determine: (1) the purpose of discovery; (2) whether, based on the stage of the proceedings and evidence presented thus far, allowing it is proper and would facilitate the disposition of the case; and (3) whether substantial rights of parties would be unduly prejudiced.41� This court further held that �[t]he use of discovery is encouraged, for it operates with desirable flexibility under the discretionary control of the trial court.�42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In Dasmari�as Garments, Inc. v. Reyes,43 this court declared that depositions, as a mode of discovery, �may be taken at any time after the institution of any action [as there is] no prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial.�44� Thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Dasmari�as also contends that the �taking of deposition is a mode of pretrial discovery to be availed of before the action comes to trial.� Not so. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of depositions of witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court �to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court� (Rule 134, Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of a final and executory judgment (East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544).45

�The modes of discovery are accorded a broad and liberal treatment.�46� The evident purpose of discovery procedures is �to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials�47 and, thus, facilitating an amicable settlement or expediting the trial of the case.48chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Technicalities in pleading should be avoided in order to obtain substantial justice.� In Mutuc v. Judge Agloro,49 this court directed the bank to give Mutuc a complete statement as to how his debt was computed, and should he be dissatisfied with that statement, pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, to allow him to inspect and copy bank records supporting the items in that statement.50� This was held to be �in consonance with the rules on discovery and the avowed policy of the Rules of Court . . . to require the parties to lay their cards on the table to facilitate a settlement of the case before the trial.�51chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

We have determined that the LSPA is relevant and material to the issue on the validity of the deed of assignment raised by petitioners in the court a quo, and allowing its production and inspection by petitioners would be more in keeping with the objectives of the discovery rules.� We find no great practical difficulty, and respondent continuously fails to allege any, in presenting the document for inspection and copying of petitioners.� On the other hand, to deny petitioners the opportunity to inquire into the LSPA would bar their access to relevant evidence and impair their fundamental right to due process.52chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Article 1634 of the New Civil
Code is applicable


Contrary to respondent�s stance, Article 1634 of the Civil Code on assignment of credit in litigation is applicable.

Section 13 of the Special Purpose Vehicle Act clearly provides that in the transfer of the non-performing loans to a special purpose vehicle, �the provisions on subrogation and assignment of credits under the New Civil Code shall apply.�� Thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sec. 13. Nature of Transfer. � All sales or transfers of NPAs to an SPV shall be in the nature of a true sale after proper notice in accordance with the procedures as provided for in Section 12: Provided, That GFIs and GOCCs shall be subject to existing law on the disposition of assets: Provided, further, That in the transfer of the NPLs, the provisions on subrogation and assignment of credits under the New Civil Code shall apply.

Furthermore, Section 19 of the Special Purpose Vehicle Act expressly states that redemption periods allowed to borrowers under the banking law, the Rules of Court, and/or other laws are applicable.� Hence, the right of redemption allowed to a debtor under Article 1634 of the Civil Code is applicable to the case a quo.

Accordingly, petitioners may extinguish their debt by paying the assignee-special purpose vehicle the transfer price plus the cost of money up to the time of redemption and the judicial costs.

Petitioners� right to extinguish
their debt has not yet lapsed


Petitioners� right to extinguish their debt under Article 1634 on assignment of credits has not yet lapsed.� The pertinent provision is reproduced here:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Art. 1634. When a credit or other incorporeal right in litigation is sold, the debtor shall have a right to extinguish it by reimbursing the assignee for the price the latter paid therefor, the judicial costs incurred by him, and the interest on the price from the day on which the same was paid.

A credit or other incorporeal right shall be considered in litigation from the time the complaint concerning the same is answered.

The debtor may exercise his right within thirty days from the date the assignee demands payment from him. (Emphasis supplied)

Under the last paragraph of Article 1634, the debtor may extinguish his or her debt within 30 days from the date the assignee demands payment.� In this case, insofar as the actual parties to the deed of assignment are concerned, no demand has yet been made, and the 30-day period did not begin to run.� Indeed, petitioners assailed before the trial court the validity of the deed of assignment on the grounds that it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Special Purpose Vehicle Act,53 and it referred to Cameron Granville Asset Management (SPV-AMC), Inc., as the assignee, and not respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.54chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The law requires that payment should be made only �to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his [or her] successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.�55� It was held that payment made to a person who is not the creditor, his or her successor-in-interest, or a person who is authorized to receive payment, even through error or good faith, is not effective payment which will bind the creditor or release the debtor from the obligation to pay.56� Therefore, it was important for petitioners to determine for sure the proper assignee of the EIB credit or who to pay, in order to effectively extinguish their debt.

Moreover, even assuming that respondent is the proper assignee of the EIB credit, petitioners could not exercise their right of extinguishment because they were not informed of the consideration paid for the assignment.57chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Respondent must, pursuant to Article 1634 of the Civil Code, disclose how much it paid to acquire the EIB credit, so that petitioners could make the corresponding offer to pay, by way of redemption, the same amount in final settlement of their obligation.

Respondent insists that the transfer price of the EIB credit is P10,232,998.00 (the actual amount and value of the credit), and that petitioners should have paid the said amount within 30 days from the December 8, 2006 order of the Regional Trial Court approving its substitution of EIB.58� Petitioners believe otherwise, and as the deed of assignment was silent on the matter, it becomes necessary to verify the amount of the consideration from the LSPA.

Assuming indeed that respondent acquired the EIB credit for a lesser consideration, it cannot compel petitioners to pay or answer for the entire original EIB credit, or more than what it paid for the assignment.

Under the circumstances of this case, the 30-day period under Article 1634 within which petitioners could exercise their right to extinguish their debt should begin to run only from the time they were informed of the actual price paid by the assignee for the transfer of their debt.

Parol evidence rule is not
applicable


Claiming further the impropriety of allowing the production of the LSPA, respondent contends that the presentation of the document and its annexes would violate the parol evidence rule in Rule 130, Section 9:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.� When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term �agreement� includes wills.

We disagree.

The parol evidence rule does not apply to petitioners who are not parties to the deed of assignment and do not base a claim on it.59� Hence, they cannot be prevented from seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the deed of assignment.

Even assuming that Rule 130, Section 9 is applicable, an exception to the rule under the second paragraph is when the party puts in issue the validity of the written agreement, as in the case a quo.

Besides, what is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is the presentation of oral or extrinsic evidence, not those expressly referred to in the written agreement.� �[D]ocuments can be read together when one refers to the other.�60� By the express terms of the deed of assignment, it is clear that the deed of assignment was meant to be read in conjunction with the LSPA.

As we have stated in our decision, Rule 132, Section 1761 of the Rules of Court allows a party to inquire into the whole of the writing or record when a part of it is given in evidence by the other party.� Since the deed of assignment was produced in court by respondent and marked as one of its documentary exhibits, the LSPA which was made a part thereof by explicit reference and which is necessary for its understanding may also be inquired into by petitioners.

The LSPA is not privileged and
confidential in nature

Respondent�s contention that the LSPA is privileged and confidential is likewise untenable.

Indeed, Rule 27 contains the proviso that the documents sought to be produced and inspected must not be privileged against disclosure.� Rule 130, Section 24 describes the types of privileged communication.� These are communication between or involving the following: (a) between husband and wife; (b) between attorney and client; (c) between physician and patient; (d) between priest and penitent; and (e) public officers and public interest.

Privileged communications under the rules of evidence is premised on an accepted need to protect a trust relationship.� It has not been shown that the parties to the deed of assignment fall under any of the foregoing categories.

This court has previously cited other privileged matters such as the following: �(a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; . . . (d) bank deposits�62 (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act); (e) national security matters and intelligence information;63 and (f) criminal matters.64� Nonetheless, the LSPA does not fall within any of these classes of information.� Moreover, the privilege is not absolute, and the court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice.

At any rate, respondent failed to discharge the burden of showing that the LSPA is a privileged document.� Respondent did not present any law or regulation that considers bank documents such as the LSPA as classified information.� Its contention that the Special Purpose Vehicle Act65 only requires the creditor-bank to give notice to the debtor of the transfer of his or her account to a special purpose vehicle, and that the assignee-special purpose vehicle has no obligation to disclose other financial documents related to the sale, is untenable.� The Special Purpose Vehicle Act does not explicitly declare these financial documents as privileged matters.� Further, as discussed, petitioners are not precluded from inquiring as to the true consideration of the assignment, precisely because the same law in relation to Article 1634 allows the debtor to extinguish its debt by reimbursing the assignee-special purpose vehicle of the actual price the latter paid for the assignment.

An assignment of a credit �produce[s] no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument[.]�66� It strains reason why the LSPA, which by law must be a public instrument to be binding against third persons such as petitioners-debtors, is privileged and confidential.

Alternative defenses are
allowed under the Rules


Finally, respondent�s contention that petitioners cannot claim the validity and invalidity of the deed of assignment at the same time is untenable.

The invocation by petitioners of Article 1634, which presupposes the validity of the deed of assignment or the transfer of the EIB credit to respondent, even if it would run counter to their defense on the invalidity of the deed of assignment, is proper and sanctioned by Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SEC. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. � A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses.� When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (Emphasis supplied)

All told, respondent failed to allege sufficient reasons for us to reconsider our decision.� Verily, the production and inspection of the LSPA and its annexes fulfill the discovery-procedures objective of making the trial �less a game of blind man�s buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.�67chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 366�382. The motion for reconsideration was filed on May 16, 2013.

2 Id. at 315�320.

3 Id. at 59 and 61�65.

4 Id. at 405�430.

5 Id. at 385�390.

6 Id. at 393�403. The court received the motion on July 9, 2013.

7 Id. at 369.

8 Id. at 376.

9 Id. at 378.

10 Id. at 368.

11 Id. at 369.

12 Id. at 371.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 372�373.

16 Id. at 372.

17 Id. at 375.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 376.

22 Id. at 378.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 379.

25 Id.

26 Id. at 416.

27 Id. at 417�418.

28 Id. at 419.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id. at 422.

32 Id. at 424.

33 Id.

34 Id. at 426.

35 Id. at 385.

36 Id. at 386.

37 Id. at 388.

38 Id. at 399.

39Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 225 [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc].

40 349 Phil. 310 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

41 Id. at 316.

42 Id. at 317.

43 G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 622 [Per C.J. Narvasa, Second Division].

44 Id. at 634.

45 Id.

46Solidbank Corporation v. Gateway Electronics Corporation, 576 Phil. 250, 260 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; Security Bank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 299, 303 and 309 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 226 Phil. 428, 434 (1986) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].

47Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 223 [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc].

48Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994, 229 SCRA 355, 367 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division]; Koh v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, 228 Phil. 258, 263 (1986) [Per J. Feria, Second Division]; Ong v. Mazo, G.R. No. 145542, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 56, 64 [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].

49 193 Phil. 60 (1981) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division].

50 Id. at 64.

51 Id. at 63.

52Alberto v. Commission on Elections, 370 Phil. 230, 238 (1999) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

53Rollo, p. 399.

54 Id. at 145. The December 8, 2006 order of the trial court allowed the substitution of Export and Industry Bank by Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. �subject to the presentation of the original copy of the Deed of Assignment on February 20, 2007[.] [T]his court shall be constrained to dispose this case accordingly in accordance with the provision of Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court.�

55 CIVIL CODE, art. 1240.

56Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 46, 52�53 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division]; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104612, May 10, 1994, 232 SCRA 302, 310�311 [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; Panganiban v. Cuevas, 7 Phil. 477, 485 (1907) [Per C.J. Arellano, En Banc].

57Rollo, p. 128.

58 Id. at 372.

59 See Lechugas v. Court of Appeals, 227 Phil. 310, 319 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Second Division], which held that �the parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.�

60Berg v. Magdalena Estate, Inc., 92 Phil. 110, 114 (1952) [Per J. Bautista Angelo, En Banc], citing U.S. jurisprudence on the paper connected rule.

61 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, sec. 17, provides:

SEC. 11. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible. � When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.

62Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc., 564 Phil. 774, 790 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

63 Id. at 794.

64Chavez v. PCGG, 360 Phil. 133, 161 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, Special First Division].

65 Sec. 12. Notice and Manner of Transfer of Assets. �(a) No transfer of NPLs to an SPV shall take effect unless the FI concerned shall give prior notice, pursuant to the Rules of Court, thereof to the borrowers of the NPLs and all persons holding prior encumbrances upon the assets mortgaged or pledged. Such notice shall be in writing to the borrower by registered mail at their last known address on file with the FI. The borrower and the FI shall be given a period of at most ninety (90) days upon receipt of notice, pursuant to the Rules of Court, to restructure or renegotiate the loan under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the borrower and the FIs concerned.

. . . .

(c) After the sale or transfer of the NPLs, the transferring FI shall inform the borrower in writing at the last known address of the fact of the sale or transfer of the NPLs.

66 CIVIL CODE, art. 1625.

67Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994, 229 SCRA 355, 363 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






November-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 9395, November 12, 2014 - DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant, v. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190175, November 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN CABRERA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203080, November 12, 2014 - DR. IDOL L. BONDOC, Petitioner, v. MARILOU R. MANTALA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3272 [Formerly: OCA IPI NO. 14-4264-P], November 11, 2014 - FELICIANO O. FRANCIA, Complainant, v. ROBERTO C. ESGUERRA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014 - GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. AND REMEGIO M. RAMOS, Petitioners, v. MARINA L. ANGUS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198620, November 12, 2014 - P.J. LHUILLIER, INC. AND MARIO RAMON LUDE�A, Petitioners, v. FLORDELIZ VELAYO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211228, November 12, 2014 - UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN, INC., CESAR DUQUE/JUAN LLAMAS AMOR/DOMINADOR REYES, Petitioners, v. FLORENTINO FERNANDEZ AND HEIRS OF NILDA FERNANDEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014 - METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., STAR APPLIANCES CENTER, SUPER VALUE, INC., ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES, INC., HEALTH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILS. CORP., AND SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, AND THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190120, November 11, 2014 - CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES� UNION (CAAP-EU) FORMERLY AIR TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES� UNION (ATEU), Petitioner, v. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (CAAP); HON. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EX-OFFICIO CAAP CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD; RUBEN F. CIRON, PHD, ACTING DIRECTOR GENERAL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CAAP EX-OFFICIO VICE CHAIRMAN; HON. AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HON. MARIANITO D. ROQUE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND HON. JOSEPH ACE H. DURANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS CAAP BOARD OF DIRECTORS; DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM); HON. ROLANDO C. ANDAYA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC); HON. CESAR D. BUENAFLOR AND HON. MARY Z. FERNANDEZ-MENDOZA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; EDUARDO E. KAPUNAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CAAP AND AS CHAIRMAN, CAAP SELECTION COMMITTEE; AND ROLANDO P. MANLAPIG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, CAAP SPECIAL SELECTION COMMITTEE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014 - MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., Petitioner, v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2336 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 11-3695-RTJ), November 12, 2014 - ESTHER P. MAGLEO, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN AND BRANCH CLERK OE COURT ATTY. ADONIS LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203560, November 10, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. APOSTOLITA SAN MATEO, BRIGIDA TAPANG, ROSITA ACCION, AND CELSO MERCADO, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3160 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3639-P], November 10, 2014 - LOLITA RAYALA VELASCO, Complainant, v. GERALDO C. OBISPO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 113, PASAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014 - BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014 - EDMUND SYDECO Y SIONZON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206357, November 25, 2014 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISISON ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, GREGORIO S. LICAROS, GAUDENCIO BEDUYA, JOSE R. TENGCO, JR., JOSE S. ESTEVES, PLACIDO T. MAPA, JR., JULIO V. MACUJA, VICENTE PATERNO, RAFAEL A. SISON, ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, ALICIA LL. REYES, FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), RODOLFO M. CUENCA, EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, JOSE Y. VILLONGCO, RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, AURELIO Y. BAUTISTA, GENOVEVA L. BUENO, BIENVENIDO D. CRUZ, ROMEO R. ECHAUZ, JORGE W. JOSE, LEONILO M. OCAMPO, ANTONIO P. SAN JUAN, JR., CLARENCIO S. YUJIOCO, ALL OFFICERS OF RESORTS HOTELS CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199448, November 12, 2014 - ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P. OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199852, November 12, 2014 - SPS. FELIPE SOLITARIOS AND JULIA TORDA, Petitioners, v. SPS. GASTON JAQUE AND LILIA JAQUE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3156 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-3012-P), November 11, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ISABEL A. SIWA, STENOGRAPHER, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 156205, November 12, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION IV, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Petitioner, v. MARJENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND PATROCINIO P. VILLANUEVA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192446, November 19, 2014 - SNOW MOUNTAIN DAIRY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GMA VETERANS FORCE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195792, November 24, 2014 - ABOSTA SHIP MANAGEMENT AND/OR ARTEMIO CORBILLA, Petitioners, v. WILHILM M. HILARIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188494, November 26, 2014 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182472, November 24, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JAIME K. IBARRA, ANTONIO K. IBARRA, JR., LUZ IBARRA VDA. DE JIMENEZ, LEANDRO K IBARRA, AND CYNTHIA IBARRA-GUERRERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198677, November 26, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BASF COATING + INKS PHILS., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AQUILINO ANDRADE, ROMAN LACAP, YONG FUNG YUEN, RICKY YU, VICENTE SY, ALVIN SO, ROMUALDO MIRANDA, SINDAO MELIBAS, SATURNINO LIWANAG, ROBERTO MEDINA AND RAMON NAVARRO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014 - VILMA M. SULIMAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014 - APO CEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204699, November 12, 2014 - BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINE, AND MS. CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. JOEL P. HIPE, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199028, November 19, 2014 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION EN BANC OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND JUSTINA F. CALLANGAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE SEC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200408, November 12, 2014 - S.V. MORE PHARMA CORPORATION AND ALBERTO A. SANTILLANA, Petitioners, v. DRUGMAKERS LABORATORIES, INC. AND ELIEZER DEL MUNDO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 200416 - S.V. MORE PHARMA CORPORATION AND ALBERTO A. SANTILLANA, Petitioners, v. DRUGMAKERS LABORATORIES, INC. AND ELIEZER DEL MUNDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184618, November 19, 2014 - PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION AND/OR EL TIGRE SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF NESTOR B. VILLAREAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190863, November 19, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL SATO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 198408, November 12, 2014 - CONCHITA J. RACELIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. AND/OR HOLLAND AMERICA LINES, INC.,* AND FERNANDO T. LISING, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMMEL ARAZA Y SAGUN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 185969, November 19, 2014 - AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199042, November 17, 2014 - DANILO VILLANUEVA Y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ATTY. VIRGINIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190322, November 26, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIRGILIO AMORA Y VISCARRA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ENGR. RODOLFO YECYEC, ROGELIO BINAS, ISIDRO VICTA, IRENEO VI�A, RUDY GO, JUANITO TUQUIB, ROMEO BUSTILLO, FELIX OBALLAS, CASTEO ESCLAMADO, RICARDO LUMACTUD, LEOPOLDO PELIGRO, PATERNO NANOLAN, CARLITO SOLATORIO, MEDARDO ABATON, FEDIL RABANES, FELIX HINGKING, BENJAMIN TOTO, EUFROCINO YBA�EZ, FELOMINO OBSIOMA, LORETO PEROCHO, MARANIE UNGON, NOYNOY ANGCORAN, ROLANDO YUZON, NESTOR CHAVEZ, LEONARDO PREJAN, PRIMO LIBOT, NEMESIO ABELLA, IRENEO LICUT, PROCESO GOLDE, EPIFANIO LABRADOR, AND BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (MANOLO FORTICH, BUKIDNON), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014 - ARIEL T. LIM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201284, November 19, 2014 - LUVIMIN CEBU MINING CORP. AND LUVIMIN PORT SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, v. CEBU PORT AUTHORITY AND PORT MANAGER ANGELO C. VERDAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189861, November 19, 2014 - MICHELIN ASIA APPLICATION CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIO J. ORTIZ, PACIFIC SUPPORT PETITIONER, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209590, November 19, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABRIEL DUCAY Y BALAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196102, November 26, 2014 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. AURELIA Y. CALUMPIANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014 - CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION* AND REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183795, November 12, 2014 - PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS) AS THE DULY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL, Petitioner, v. AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT, JR., ON HIS BEHALF AND AS SUBSTITUTED HEIR (SON) OF AMADOR MAGDAMIT, SR., AND AMELIA F. MAGDAMIT, AS SUBSTITUTED HEIR (WIDOW) OF AMADOR MAGDAMIT, SR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 154291, November 12, 2014 - LOPEZ REALTY, INC. AND ASUNCION LOPEZ-GONZALES, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES REYNALDO TANJANGCO AND MARIA LUISA ARGUELLES-TANJANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189405, November 19, 2014 - SHERWIN DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CARLOS ALBERTO L. GONZALES, IN BEHALF OF HIS DECEASED BROTHER, JEFFREY WERNHER L. GONZALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194068, November 26, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. SB-12-19-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-26-SB-P], November 18, 2014 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, v. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL, SECURITY GUARD II, SANDIGANBAYAN, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-12-3076 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3612-P), November 18, 2014 - NOVO A. LUCAS, Complainant, v. ROLANDO A. DIZON, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014 - CONRADO N. QUE, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191260, November 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MELCHOR D. BRITA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014 - ROSAL HUBILLA Y CARILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014 - RETIRED SPO4 BIENVENIDO LAUD, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200877, November 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208567, November 26, 2014 - JEANETTE V. MANALO, VILMA P. BARRIOS, LOURDES LYNN MICHELLE FERNANDEZ AND LEILA B. TAI�O, Petitioners, v. TNS PHILIPPINES INC., AND GARY OCAMPO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198076, November 19, 2014 - TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2399 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 13-4013-RTJ], November 19, 2014 - GASPAR BANDOY, Complainant, v. JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 45, AND ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 46, BOTH AT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197567, November 19, 2014 - GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, LEONARDO B. ROMAN, ROMEO L. MENDIOLA, PASTOR P. VICHUACO, AURORA J. TIAMBENG, AND NUMERIANO G. MEDINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207175, November 26, 2014 - EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201195, November 26, 2014 - TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183872, November 17, 2014 - OWEN PROSPER A. MACKAY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANA CASWELL AND CERELINA CASWELL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014 - MARGIE BALERTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166923, November 26, 2014 - PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH, INC., ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER-OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS, JESUS REYES AND RODOLFO MACOROL, Petitioners, v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES COMPOSED OF HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, VIRGILIO R. ANGELO, MANUEL G. IMSON, THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY UNDERSECRETARY JOSE S. BRILLANTES, ROSALINDA BALDOZ, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY EDUARDO P. OPIDA, MINA C. FIGUEROA, VICTORINO F. BALAIS, CAROLINE R. ROGGE, GREGORIO S. OCA, CORAZON P. CARSOLA AND VIRGINIA J. PASALO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192300, November 24, 2014 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF NAVOTAS, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF NAVOTAS AND MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF NAVOTAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014 - EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE AND GENEROSO MARFIL ALIAS �TAPOL�, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185565, November 26, 2014 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING COMPANY, INCORPORATED AND LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193117, November 26, 2014 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANGEL LIWAGON AND FRANCISCA DUMALAGAN, NAMELY: NARCISA LIWAGON-LAGANG, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIR VICTOR LIWAGON LAGANG, LEONCIO LIWAGON, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR GERONIMA VDA. LIWAGON, AND JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND FOR HERSELF, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES DEMETRIO LIWAGON AND REGINA LIWAGON, NAMELY: RODRIGO LIWAGON, MINENCIA LIWAGON-OMITTER, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-NUEVO, TERESITO LIWAGON AND DANILO LIWAGON, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2800 [Formerly A.M. No. 10-5-66-MTC], November 18, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MRS. AURORA T. ZU�IGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MRS. MINDA H. CERVANTES, STENOGRAPHER 1, BOTH OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC) VIRAC, CATANDUANES, AND MR. PEPITO F. LUCERO, INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 43, VIRAC, CATANDUANES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014 - EMILIO RAMON �E.R.� P. EJERCITO, Petitioner, v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EDGAR �EGAY� S. SAN LUIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014 - ALROBEN J. GOH, Petitioner, v. HON. LUCILO R. BAYRON AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210831, November 26, 2014 - SPOUSES TAGUMPAY N. ALBOS AND AIDA C. ALBOS, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NESTOR M. EMBISAN AND ILUMINADA A. EMBISAN, DEPUTY SHERIFF MARINO V. CACHERO, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 125346, November 11, 2014 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 136328-29 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. No. 144942 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, Respondent.; G.R. No. 148605 - STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. No. 158197 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. No. 165499 -LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209651, November 26, 2014 - MARCELO INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, AND THE HEIRS OF EDWARD T. MARCELO, NAMELY, KATHERINE J. MARCELO, ANNA MELINDA J. MARCELO REVILLA, AND JOHN STEVEN J. MARCELO, Petitioners, v. JOSE T. MARCELO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187836, November 25, 2014 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,[1] DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.

  • LEONEN, J. - CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 187836, November 25, 2014 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,[1] DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.

  • G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014 - MARIA LINA S. VELAYO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187987, November 26, 2014 - VICENTE TORRES, JR., CARLOS VELEZ, AND THE HEIRS OF MARIANO VELEZ, NAMELY: ANITA CHIONG VELEZ, ROBERT OSCAR CHIONG VELEZ, SARAH JEAN CHIONG VELEZ AND TED CHIONG VELEZ, Petitioners, v. LORENZO LAPINID AND JESUS VELEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191672, November 25, 2014 - DENNIS A. B. FUNA, Petitioner, v. THE CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 178512, November 26, 2014 - ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10240 [Formerly CBD No. 11-3241], November 25, 2014 - ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES, M.D., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197590, November 24, 2014 - BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ANTONIO VILLAN MANLY, AND RUBY ONG MANLY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167290, November 26, 2014 - HERMANO OIL MANUFACTURING & SUGAR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, ENGR. JAIME S. DUMLAO, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC) AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 161589, November 24, 2014 - PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209202, November 19, 2014 - CATALINO B. BELMONTE, JR., Petitioner, v. C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC.,/JUAN JOSE P. ROCHA AND JAMES FISHER (GUERNSEY) LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209201, November 19, 2014 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES INC., ST. PAUL MARITIME CORP., AND ANGELINA T. RIVERA, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL D. DESPABELADERAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208740, November 19, 2014 - CORPORATE STRATEGIES DEVELOPMENT CORP., AND RAFAEL R. PRIETO, Petitioners, v. NORMAN A. AGOJO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205015, November 19, 2014 - MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014 - RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186455, November 19, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ROSALINDA CASABUENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192924, November 26, 2014 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. REYNALDO V. PAZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3270 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3579-P], November 18, 2014 - ANGELITO P. MIRANDA, Complainant, v. MA. THERESA M. FERNANDEZ, CLERK III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2979 [formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3352-P], November 18, 2014 - ELLA M. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ROSALIE B. MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 4697, November 25, 2014 - FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, Respondent.; A.C. NO. 4728 - FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211424, November 26, 2014 - DAVAO HOLIDAY TRANSPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EULOGIO AND CARMELITA EMPHASIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200894, November 10, 2014 - LUZVIMINDA APRAN CANLAS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175410, November 12, 2014 - SMI-ED PHILIPPINES TECHNOLOGY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190901, November 12, 2014 - AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ALFREDO REVILLA AND THE HEIRS OF PAZ REVILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014 - NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM AND THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., Petitioners, v. GLOW LAKS ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 142983, November 26, 2014 - SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GOYU & SONS, INC., GO SONG HIAP, BETTY CHIU SUK YING, NG CHING KWOK, YEUNG SHUK HING, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SPOUSES, AND MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondents; RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent (Intervenor).

  • A.M. No. RTJ-13-2360 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-3010-RTJ), November 19, 2014 - DOROTHY FE MAH-AREVALO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CELSO L. MANTUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALOMPON, LEYTE, BRANCH 17, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190486, November 26, 2014 - STANLEY FINE FURNITURE, ELENA AND CARLOS WANG, Petitioners, v. VICTOR T. GALLANO AND ENRIQUITO SIAREZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179518, November 11, 2014 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE VICTOR C. SANCHEZ, HEIRS OF KENNETH NEREO SANCHEZ, REPRESENTED BY FELISA GARCIA YAP, AND HEIRS OF IMELDA C. VDA. DE SANCHEZ, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE VICTOR C. SANCHEZ, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179835 - GENEROSO TULAGAN, HEIRS OF ARTURO MARQUEZ, REPRESENTED BY ROMMEL MARQUEZ, AND VARIED TRADERS CONCEPT, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, ANTHONY QUINA, Petitioners, v. VICENTE VICTOR C. SANCHEZ, HEIRS OF KENNETH NEREO SANCHEZ, REPRESENTED BY FELISA GARCIA YAP, AND HEIRS OF IMELDA C. VDA. DE SANCHEZ, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE VICTOR C. SANCHEZ, JESUS V. GARCIA, AND TRANSAMERICAN SALES & EXPOSITION, INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179954 - REYNALDO V. MANIWANG, Petitioner, v. VICENTE VICTOR C. SANCHEZ AND FELISA GARCIA YAP, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172652, November 26, 2014 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 175302 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 175394 - GLOBAL BUSINESS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175707, November 19, 2014 - FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE DISTRICT NO. 44, TAGUIG AND PATEROS, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 18003 - FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE DISTRICT NO. 44, TAGUIG AND PATEROS, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 181092 - 5 FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE DISTRICT NO. 44, TAGUIG AND PATEROS, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196122, November 12, 2014 - JOEL B. MONANA, Petitioner, v. MEC GLOBAL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND MANNING CORPORATION AND HD HERM DAVELSBERG GMBH, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210987, November 24, 2014 - THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 5440, November 26, 2014 - SPOUSES NICASIO AND DONELITA SAN PEDRO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ISAGANI A. MENDOZA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2290 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2954-RTJ], November 18, 2014 - MARILOU T. RIVERA, Complainant, v. JUDGE JAIME C. BLANCAFLOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014 - AURORA N. DE PEDRO, Petitioner, v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205487, November 12, 2014 - ORION SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. SHIGEKANE SUZUKI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014 - CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 187583 - PROVINCE OF BATAAN, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., AND EMERLINDA S. TALENTO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATAAN, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014 - JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MIGUEL GACES, JERRY FERNANDEZ AND RONALD MUNOZ, Petitioners, v. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187836, November 25, 2014 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R. No. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.

  • G.R. No. 204142, November 19, 2014 - HONDA CARS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. HONDA CARS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST AND SUPERVISORS UNION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172218, November 26, 2014 - FELICIANO B. DUYON, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN: MAXIMA R. DUYON-ORSAME, EFREN R. DUYON, NOVILYN R. DUYON, ELIZABETH R. DUYON-SIBUMA, MODESTO R. DUYON, ERROL R. DUYON, AND DIVINA R. DUYON-VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, RESPONDENTS.FELICIANO B. DUYON, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN: MAXIMA R. DUYON-ORSAME, EFREN R. DUYON, NOVILYN R. DUYON, ELIZABETH R. DUYON-SIBUMA, MODESTO R. DUYON, ERROL R. DUYON, AND DIVINA R. DUYON-VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No.199008, November 19, 2014 - DANILO ALMERO, TERESITA ALAGON, CELIA BULASO, LUDY RAMADA, REGINA GEGREMOSA, ISIDRO LAZARTE, THELMA EMBARQUE, FELIPE LAZARTE, GUILERMA LAZARTE, DULCESIMA BENIMELE, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF MIGUEL PACQUING, AS REPRESENTED BY LINDA PACQUING�FADRILAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014 - EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL AND CRISPIN I. OBEN, Petitioners, v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166790, November 19, 2014 - JUAN P. CABRERA, Petitioner, v. HENRY YSAAC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193551, November 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF GREGORIO LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY ROGELIA LOPEZ, ET AL., Petitioners, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES [NOW SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT TWO (SPV-AMC), INC.], Respondents.