ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 212058, December 07, 2015 - STAR ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. R & G CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210445, December 07, 2015 - NILO B. ROSIT, Petitioner, v. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND DR. ROLANDO G. GESTUVO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195547, December 02, 2015 - MA. CORAZON M. OLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209418, December 07, 2015 - W.M. MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD R. DALAG AND GOLDEN ROCK MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197763, December 07, 2015 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Respondent.; G.R. No. 197836 - JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207633, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNLIE LAGANGGA Y DUMPA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203115, December 07, 2015 - ISLAND OVERSEAS TRANSPORT CORPORATION/PINE CREST SHIPPING CORPORATION/CAPT. EMMANUEL L. REGIO, Petitioners, v. ARMANDO M. BEJA, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUZVIMINDA S. VALDEZ AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204275, December 09, 2015 - LILIOSA C. LISONDRA, Petitioner, v. MEGACRAFT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SPOUSES MELECIO AND ROSEMARIE OAMIL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201652, December 02, 2015 - HEIRS OF SIMEON LATAYAN, NAMELY: LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN, ARIEL Q. LATAYAN, AND ETHEL Q. LATAYAN-AMPIL, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LEONIDES Q. LATAYAN, Petitioners, v. PEING TAN, JOHNNY TAN, HERMTNIGILDO CASALAN, WEBINO VILLAREAL, DIOSCOROMOLO, DAMACINO BAYAWA, EDGAR NARITA, YOLANDA NARITA, POLICRONIA CAPIONES, ANDRES LOZANO, GREGORIO YAGAO, EMILIANO GUMATAY, JESUS ALCONTIN, ADAM DULAUON, MARIO PEREZ, LARRY CEMAFRANCA, FELIXBERTO BULADACO, CIPRIANOAHIT, BUENAVENTURA B ACALSO AND SALDE ESPIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196415, December 02, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. No. 196451 - TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015 - KABATAAN PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MARK TERRY L. RIDON AND MARJOHARA S. TUCAY; SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES; VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON OF THE ANAKBAYAN; MARC LINO J. ABILA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES; EINSTEIN Z. RECEDES, DEPUTY SECRETARY- GENERAL OF ANAKBAYAN; CHARISSE BERNADINE I. BAÑEZ, CHAIRPERSON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS; ARLENE CLARISSE Y. JULVE, MEMBER OF ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN (AGHAM); AND SINING MARIA ROSA L. MARFORI, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ELECTIONS, ON, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 197096-97, December 07, 2015 - ANTONIO Z. KING, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDGARDO SANTOS, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO A. ROBLES, ANTONIO T. DATU, RENE A. MASILUNGAN, RESTITUTO S. SOLOMON, RODRIGO MENDOZA, ROMEO MENDOZA REYNALDO DATU, JOSEPH TIU, TERESITA TIU, ROGELIO GEBILAGUIN AND PRESCILLA GEBILAGUIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015 - PILIPINAS TOTAL GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210855, December 09, 2015 - ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P. OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, AND JUDITH OBRERO-TIMBRESA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199314 [Formerly UDK No. 14553], December 07, 2015 - TAMBLOT SECURITY & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORENCIO ITEM, LEONARDO PALM A, RTCARDO UCANG, FLORENCRO AMORA, REYNALDO DANO, APOLLO JOTOJOT, TEODORO BARONG, JUAN T. CUSI, TEODORO DE LOS REYES, EFREN ESCOL, JOVANNE COSE, DARIO S. GEALON, JULIO ESPADA AND DARIO PAJE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192659, December 02, 2015 - PHILIPPINE RACE HORSE TRAINER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. PIEDRAS NEGRAS CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218787, December 08, 2015 - LEO Y. QUERUBIN, MARIA CORAZON M. AKOL, AND AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON J. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, AND JOINT VENTURE OF SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. AND JARLTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER WITH BIGGEST EQUITY SHARE, SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, ITS GENERAL MANAGER ALASTAIR JOSEPH JAMES WELLS, SMARTMATIC CHAIRMAN LORD MALLOCH-BROWN, SMARTMATIC-ASIA PACIFIC PRESIDENT CESAR FLORES, AND ANY OR ALL PERSONS ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT VENTURE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179814, December 07, 2015 - WILFRED N.CHIOK, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RUFINA CHUA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 180021 - RUFINA CHUA, Petitioner, v. WILFRED N. CHIOK, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (AS AN UNWILLING CO-PARTY PETITIONER), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213832, December 07, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT MERCADO A.K.A. "BONG", Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 - ARMILYN MORILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RICHARD NATIVIDAD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215201, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203918, December 02, 2015 - SPOUSES AMADOR C. CAYAGO, JR. AND ERMALINDA B. CAYAGO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES EVELITO CANTARA AND SOLEDAD CANTARA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203397, December 09, 2015 - AUGUSTO ONG TRINIDAD II, AUGUSTO ONG TRINIDAD III FOR HIMSELF AND REPRESENTING LEVY ONG TRINIDAD AND ROHMEL ONG TRINIDAD, MARY ANN NEPOMUCENO TRINIDAD FOR HERSELF AND ASSISTING HER MINOR CHILDREN JOAQUIN GERARD N. TRINIDAD IV, JACOB GABRIEL N. TRINIDAD, AND JERED GYAN N. TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES BONIFACIO PALAD AND FELICIDAD KAUSAPIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202215, December 09, 2015 - VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR ROBERT KUA, OWNER, AND ENGR. JUANITO C. PAGCALIWAGAN, MANAGER, Petitioners, v. CAMILO ELARCOSA, MARLON BANDA, DANTE L. BALAMAD, RODRIGO COLANSE, CHIQUITO PACALDO, ROBINSON PANAGA, JUNIE ABUGHO, SBLVERIO NARISMA, ARMANDO GONZALES, TEOFILO ELBINA, FRANCISCO BAGUIO, GELVEN RHYAN RAMOS, JULITO SIMAN, RECARIDO PANES, JESUS TINSAY, AGAPITO CANAS, JR., OLIVER LOBAYNON, SIMEON BAGUIO, JOSEPH SALCEDO, DONIL INDINO, WILFREDO GULBEN, JESRILE TANIO, RENANTE PAMON, RICHIE GULBEN, DANIEL ELLO, REXY DOFELIZ, RONALD NOVAL, NORBERTO BELARGA, ALLAN BAGUIO, ROBERTO PAGUICAN, ROMEO PATOY, ROLANDO TACBOBO, WILFREDO LADRA, RUBEN PANES, RUEL CABANDAY, AND JUNARD ABUGHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188638, December 09, 2015 - PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. AND NORTHERN MARINE MANAGEMENT, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO A. CRISTINO, DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE SUSAN B. BERDOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015 - DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209039, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIRAFLOR UGANIEL LERIO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209559, December 09, 2015 - ENCHANTED KINGDOM, INC., Petitioner, v. MIGUEL J. VERZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160399, December 09, 2015 - THE CITY OF ILOILO, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JERRY P. TREÑAS, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE RENE B. HONRADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, ILOILO CITY, AND JPV MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING & CAR CARE CENTER, CO., REPRESENTED BY JIM P. VELEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 159979, December 09, 2015 - CAPITAL INSURANCE AND SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner, v. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213696, December 09, 2015 - QUANTUM FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. MARCELINO ESLOYO AND GLEN MAGSILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209040, December 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO PATEÑO DAYAPDAPAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 166581, December 07, 2015 - SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND DANILO H. LAZARO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 167187 - DANILO H. LAZARO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200901, December 07, 2015 - SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ESTELA MARFORI POSADAS, MARIA ELENA POSADAS AND AIDA MACARAIG POSADAS. Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208113, December 02, 2015 - DOLORES DIAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LETICIA S. ARCILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182375, December 02, 2015 - HADJA RAWIYA SUIB, Petitioner, v. EMONG EBBAH AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 22ND DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211210, December 02, 2015 - RADAR SECURITY & WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE D. CASTRO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213814, December 02, 2015 - RAFAEL B. QUILLOPA, Petitioner, v. QUALITY GUARDS SERVICES AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ISMAEL BASABICA, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193964, December 02, 2015 - ENGINEER BEN Y. LIM, RBL FISHING CORPORATION, PALAWAN AQUACULTURE CORPORATION, AND PENINSULA SHIPYARD CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. SULPICIO G. GAMOSA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, NCIP REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE, REGION IV AND TAGBANUA INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY OF BARANGAY BUENAVISTA, CORON, PALAWAN, AS REPRESENTED BY FERNANDO P. AGUIDO, ERNESTO CINCO, BOBENCIO MOSQUERA, JURRY CARPIANO, VICTOR BALBUTAN, NORDITO ALBERTO, EDENG PESRO, CLAUDINA BAQUID, NONITA SALVA, AND NANCHITA ALBERTO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197792, December 09, 2015 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 - MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204172, December 09, 2015 - HON. HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), ATTY. JOEL L. JACOB, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, LEGAL SERVICE (DPWH), ATTY. OLIVER T. RODULFO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD, INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, (DPWH), AND HON. JAIME A. PACANAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, (DPWH), REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, Petitioners, v. ALVARO Y. APURILLO, ERDA P. GABRIANA, JOCELYN S. JO, IRAIDA R. LASTIMADO, AND FRANCISCO B. VINEGAS, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215424, December 09, 2015 - ADINA B. MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179741, December 09, 2015 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N. MARINAS, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA, RODRIGO FRIANEZA, ALEJANDRA FRIANEZA, HILARIO VILLENA, SATURNINO VILLENA, FEDERICO FLORES, PEDRO FLORES AND MARCELINA RAMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190482, December 09, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY MS. FRITZI C. PANTOJA IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, Petitioner, v. IGMIDIO D. ROBLES, RANDY V. ROBLES, MARY KRIST B. MALIMBAN, ANNE JAMAICA G. ROBLES, JOHN CARLO S. ROBLES AND CHRISTINE ANN V. ROBLES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NEXT MOBILE, INC. (FORMERLY NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174387, December 09, 2015 - BF CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WERDENBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209689, December 02, 2015 - MARISSA B. QUIRANTE, Petitioner, v. OROPORT CARGO HANDLING SERVICES, INC., ET AL. Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202877, December 09, 2015 - NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202947, December 09, 2015 - ASB REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213229, December 09, 2015 - FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. CENTURY IRON WORKS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210215, December 09, 2015 - ROGELIO S. NOLASCO, NICANORA N. GUEVARA, LEONARDA N. ELPEDES, HEIRS OF ARNULFO S. NOLASCO, AND REMEDIOS M. NOLASCO, REPRESENTED BY ELENITA M. NOLASCO Petitioners, v. CELERINO S. CUERPO, JOSELITO ENCABO, JOSEPH ASCUTIA, AND DOMILO LUCENARIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206942, December 09, 2015 - VICENTE C. TATEL, Petitioner, v. JLFP INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN, AND/OR PAOLO C. TURNO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015 - INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASIÑO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-in-Intervention.; G.R. No. 209276 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC. Petitioner-in-Intervention.; G.R. No. 209301 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; G.R. No. 209430 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, ATTY. HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169694, December 09, 2015 - MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC., EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS, INC., AND ANDREW L. TAN, Petitioners, v. MAJESTIC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO., INC., RHODORA LOPEZ-LIM, AND PAULINA CRUZ, Respondents.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 - MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.

      G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 - MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015

    MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    LEONEN, J.:

    Unlike an appeal, a pending petition for certiorari shall not stay the judgment or order that it assails. Unless a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the assailed decision lapses into finality. Thereafter, it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified, and execution may ensue.

    This Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, prays that the assailed March 5, 2010 Decision1 and July 8, 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108457 be reversed and set aside. The Petition further prays that the recomputation that petitioner Melanie De Ocampo (De Ocampo) sought in the monetary award she had already received be permitted in order that she may receive additional backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay, as well as 12% interest per annum.3

    In its assailed March 5, 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed De Ocampo's Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the September 30, 2008 Decision4 and December 15, 2008 Resolution5 of the National Labor Relations Commission. In its assailed July 8, 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied De Ocampo's Motion for Reconsideration.6

    For its part, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the December 13, 20077 Order of Executive Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala (Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala), which denied De Ocampo's Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution.8

    De Ocampo was the complainant in a case for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries, damages, and attorney's fees against respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN-9) and several RPN-9 officers, namely: President Cerge Remonde; News and Current Affairs Manager Rodolfo Lacuna; and Human Resources Manager Lourdes Angeles. This case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-05 857-2003.9

    On May 12, 2004, Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala rendered the Decision10 finding De Ocampo to have been illegally dismissed. RPN-9 was ordered to pay her separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and full backwages. The impleaded officers of RPN-9 were absolved from liability. The dispositive portion of this Decision reads:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    1. Declaring respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPNI) also known as RPN-9 guilty of illegal dismissal for the reasons above-discussed. Consequently, the aforenamed respondent is hereby directed to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo the sum of P206,433.50 and P109,200.00 representing her full-backwages and separation pay, respectively, for the reasons above-discussed, and as computed by the Examination and Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch (See Annex "A", of this Decision).

    2. Directing respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPNI) also known as RPN-9 to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo the sum of P54,600.00 representing her 13th Month Pay as compjted [sic] by the Examination and Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch (See Annex "A", of this Arbitration Branch [sic]).

    3. Directing the aforenamed respondent to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo ten (10%) percent attorney's fees based on the total monetary award for having been forced to prosecute and/or litigate the instant case/complaint by hiring the services of legal counsel [sic].

    4. Dismissing the claims for Holiday Pay and Service Incentive Leave Pay for lack of merit for the reasons above-cited.

    5. Dismissing the other money claims and/or charges of complainant Melanie De Ocampo for lack of factual and legal basis.

    6. Dismissing the charges against individual respondents Cerge Remonde, Rodolfo Lacuna, and Lourdes Angeles, as President, Manager of News and Current Affairs, and Manager of Human Resources, respectively, of respondent RPN-9 for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    In its Decision12 dated February 28, 2006, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the May 12, 2004 Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala. In the Resolution dated April 28, 2006, RPN-9's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.13

    RPN-9 then filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. The Petition was docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP. No. 95229.14

    In the Resolution dated December 11, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order preventing the National Labor Relations Commission from enforcing its ruling for a period of 60 days. The sixty-day period lapsed without a writ of preliminary injunction being subsequently issued by the Court of Appeals.15 Accordingly, the ruling of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala, as affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, became final and executory on May 27, 2006.16 Entry of Judgment was issued on July 19, 2006.17

    De Ocampo then filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution.18 In the Order19 dated October 30, 2006, the National Labor Relations Commission granted De Ocampo's Motion. Conformably, a Writ of Execution20 was issued on May 7, 2007. This Writ directed the Deputy Sheriff to collect from RPN-9 the total amount of P410,826.85.21

    This amount was fully satisfied through Banco de Oro Check No. 0087385, which was deposited at the National Labor Relations Commission Cashier's Office on August 22, 2007.22 On the following day, or on August 23, 2007, De Ocampo filed a Motion to Release the amount of P410,826.85.23

    The full satisfaction of the original award notwithstanding, De Ocampo filed a Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution24 on September 11, 2007. In the Motion, De Ocampo sought the increase of the monetary award given her. Specifically, she sought the payment of an additional amount of P518,700.00 representing additional backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay. She also prayed for an additional amount of P53,188.83, representing 12% interest per annum on the original monetary award.25cralawred

    In the Order26 dated December 13, 2007, Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala denied De Ocampo's Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution on the ground that the May 12, 2004 Decision fixing the amounts of the monetary award due to De Ocampo had become final and executory.

    In its September 30, 2008 Decision,27 the National Labor Relations Commission sustained Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's December 13, 2007 Decision.28 In its December 15, 2008 Resolution,29 the National Labor Relations Commission denied De Ocampo's Motion for Reconsideration.

    In its assailed March 5, 2010 Decision,30 the Court of Appeals dismissed De Ocampo's Petition for Certiorari and sustained the September 30, 2008 Decision and December 15, 2008 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. In its assailed July 8, 2010 Resolution,31 the Court of Appeals denied De Ocampo's Motion for Reconsideration.

    Aggrieved, De Ocampo filed the present Petition32 insisting that she remains entitled to additional monetary awards, thereby warranting a recomputation of the amount due to her.

    For resolution is the sole issue of whether petitioner Melanie De Ocampo may still seek a recomputation of and an increase in the monetary award given her.

    She cannot.

    I

    It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory;33 "[n]othing is more settled in law."34 Once a case is decided with finality, "the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest."35 Accordingly, a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect "even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land."36 Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void.37

    This elementary rule finds basis in "public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law."38 Basic rationality dictates that there must be an end to litigation. Any contrary posturing renders justice inutile and reduces to futility the winning party's capacity to benefit from a resolution of the case.39

    This rule, however, does admit of exceptions. As this court explained in Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals:40
    The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.41 (Citations omitted)
    Consistent with the principle of finality of judgments, it follows that no appeal may be taken from orders of execution of judgments.42

    II

    As basic as the principle of finality of judgments is the rule that filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure "shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case."43 Unlike an appeal, a pending petition for certiorari shall not stay the judgment or order that it assails.

    The 2005 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, which were in effect when the material incidents of this case occurred, explicitly and specifically makes this principle applicable to decisions of labor arbiters and of the National Labor Relations Commission. Rule XI, Section 10 of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission states:
    SECTION 10. Effect of Petition for Certiorari on Execution. — A petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by said courts.
    In contrast, Rule XI, Section 9 states the following with respect to appeals:
    SECTION 9. Effect of Perfection of Appeal on Execution. — The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on appeal, except execution for reinstatement pending appeal.
    Accordingly, where no restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the assailed decision lapses into finality. Thereafter, execution may ensue. As Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission states:
    SECTION 1. Execution Upon Finality of Decision or Order. — a) A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that finally disposes of the action or proceedings after the parties and their counsels or authorized representatives are furnished with copies of the decision or order in accordance with these Rules, but only after the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been filed, as shown by the certificate of finality. If an appeal has been filed, a writ of execution may be issued when there is an entry of judgment as provided for in Section 14 of Rule VII.

    b) No motion for execution shall be entertained nor a writ of execution be issued unless the Labor Arbiter or the Commission is in possession of the records of the case which shall include an entry of judgment if the case was appealed; except that, as provided for in Section 14 of Rule V and Section 6 of this Rule, and in those cases where partial execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter shall retain duplicate original copies of the decision to be implemented and proof of service thereof for the purpose of immediate enforcement.
    The pivotal facts of this case are also settled. After the filing before the Court of Appeals of RPN-9's Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order preventing, for a period of 60 days, the National Labor Relations Commission from enforcing its ruling. However, the sixty-day period lapsed without a writ of preliminary injunction being subsequently issued by the Court of Appeals.44 Thus, on May 27, 2006, the ruling of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala, as affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, became final and executory on May 27, 2006.45 Conformably, Entry of Judgment was made on July 19, 2006.46

    None of the four exceptions mentioned in Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals47 that warrant a modification of judgments that have attained finality is availing in this case.

    What petitioner seeks is not a mere clerical correction. Rather, she seeks an overhaul of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision in order that it may award her a total additional sum of P571,888.83 representing backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and accrued interest. Petitioner does not merely seek an entry into the records of acts done but not entered (i.e., nunc pro tunc entries). Petitioner does not claim that Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision is void, only that its computation of monetary awards is inadequate. Neither does petitioner allege that certain events transpired after May 27, 2006 rendering Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision unjust or inequitable.

    The Decision having attained finality, and as this case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptional circumstances, there remains no opening for revisiting, amending, or modifying Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's judgment.

    III

    Not only is Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision binding and conclusive as a matter of procedural law; it is as binding and conclusive on petitioner because of both her inaction and her own actions. She is estopped from seeking a modification of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision.

    Following the rendition of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision on May 12, 2004, petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration, pursue an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission, file a petition for certiorari before any court, or otherwise assail the whole or any part of the Decision. This judgment, as well as its execution, was stayed not by petitioner's actions but by those of respondent RPN-9. RPN-9 filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission and, following the denial of this appeal, filed a Rule 65 Petition before the Court of Appeals, where it sought preliminary injunctive relief.

    By her inaction, petitioner made it appear that as far as she was concerned, Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision should have stood as it did. Her inaction revealed that she saw no reason for the same Decision to be revisited or reconsidered by Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala himself, by the National Labor Relations Commission, or by any court. She failed to act in a timely manner—that is, by pursuing the appropriate remedy within the duration permitted by the rules. She failed "to assert a right within a reasonable time, [and this] warrant[ed] a presumption that the party entitled to assert it [i.e., petitioner] either has abandoned it or declined to assert it."48 Stated otherwise, to petitioner may be imputed estoppel by laches.

    Moreover, as soon as Entry of Judgment was made, petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution.49 After the Writ of Execution was satisfied and the check representing payment of the monetary award was deposited with the Cashier's Office of the National Labor Relations Commission, petitioner lost no time in seeking to have the monetary award in her hands: just a day after deposit was made, petitioner was quick to file a Motion to Release the amount of P410,826.85.50

    Accordingly, petitioner's willful acceptance of the judgment rendered by Executive Labor Manansala is not only something that may be implied from her omission or inaction. Rather, it is something explicitly affirmed by her own motions and submissions. Whatever doubt there was, if any, as to her concession to the monetary award given her was dispelled by the positive assertions and pleas for relief that petitioner herself made.

    No recourse, whether in law or equity, leaves room for petitioner to avail herself of the modifications she seeks. The most basic legal principles dictate that Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's Decision—in all its aspects—has long attained finality and may no longer be revisited. Principles of equity require that petitioner be bound by her own omissions and declarations.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed March 5, 2010 Decision and July 8, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals Former Sixth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 108457 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez,* and Mendoza, JJ., concur.chanrobleslaw

    Endnotes:


    * Designated acting member per S.O. No. 2301 dated December 1, 2015.

    1Rollo, pp. 33-39. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Associate Justice of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Michael P. Elbinias of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

    2 Id. at 40. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Associate Justice of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Michael P. Elbinias of the Former Sixth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

    3 Id. at 29, Petition for Review on Certiorari.

    4 Id. at 207-215. The Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.

    5 Id. at 217-218. The Resolution was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.

    6 Id. at 40.

    7 Id. at 95-101.

    8 Id. at 79-89.

    9 Id. at 33-34, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010.

    10 Id. at 41-54.

    11 Id. at 53-54.

    12 Id. at 56-70. The Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo of the Third Division. Commissioner Romeo C. Lagman took no part.

    13 Id. at 35, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010.

    14 Id.

    15 Id.

    16 Id. at 71.

    17 Id.

    18 Id. at 72, National Labor Relations Commission Order dated October 30, 2006.

    19 Id. at 72-73.

    20 Id. at 74-77.

    21 Id. at 77.

    22 Id. at 35, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010, and 78, Motion to Release.

    23 Id. at 78.

    24 Id. at 79-89.

    25 Id. at 87, Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution.

    26 Id. at 95-101.

    27 Id. at 207-215.

    28 Id. at 214, National Labor Relations Commission Decision dated September 30, 2008.

    29 Id. at 217-218.

    30 Id. at 33-39.

    31 Id. at 40.

    32 Id. at 11-29.

    33Industrial Timber Corp. v. Ababon, 515 Phil. 805, 816 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

    34Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

    35Siy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 505 Phil. 265, 273 (2005) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].

    36Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

    37Equatorial Realty Development v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 387 Phil. 885, 896 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].

    38Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

    39 Id.

    40Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128967, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586 [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

    41 Id. at 599.

    42 1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 41, sec. 1(f) states:
    Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

    No appeal may be taken from:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    . . . .

    (f) An order of execution;
    43 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 7.

    44Rollo, p. 35.

    45 Id. at 71.

    46 Id.

    47Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128967, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586 [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

    48Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 366 Phil. 678, 686 (1999) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

    49Rollo, p. 72

    50 Id. at 78.

    G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015 - MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED