Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > January 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015 - HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015 - HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015

HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

Hiring legal counsel does not relieve litigants of their duty to �monitor the status of [their] case[s],�1 especially if their cases are taking an �unreasonably long time�2 to be resolved.

This is a Petition3 for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for preliminary and/or mandatory injunction to set aside the Court of Appeals� Entry of Judgment4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 24368, and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City�s Order5 dated March 25, 2004 and Order of Detention6 dated February 15, 2010 in Criminal Case No. CBU-48773.7cralawred

In the Decision8 dated February 8, 2000, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City, convicted petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin (Ong) and Leo Obsioma, Jr. (Obsioma, Jr.) of estafa punished under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.9� The trial court found that Ong and Obsioma, Jr. failed to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company a total of ?344,752.20, in violation of their trust receipt agreement with the bank.10� They were sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.11cralawred

Ong filed a Motion for Reconsideration,12 which the trial court denied in its Order13 dated March 31, 2000.

Ong filed a Notice of Appeal,14 which the trial court gave due course.15� The trial court then transmitted the case records to the Court of Appeals.16cralawred

In the Decision17 dated November 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court�s Decision.18� The Court of Appeals likewise denied Ong�s Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution19 dated April 14, 2003 for raising mere rehashed arguments.20cralawred

The Court of Appeals then issued an Entry of Judgment,21 declaring that the case became final and executory on May 15, 2003.� The Court of Appeals based the date of finality on the date of receipt indicated in the registry return card22 corresponding to the mail sent to Ong�s former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices.� Based on the registry return card, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices received on April 29, 2003 a copy of the Court of Appeals� Resolution denying Ong�s Motion for Reconsideration.23cralawred

On March 22, 2004, the trial court received the original records of the case, the Decision, and the Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals.� In view thereof, the trial court, then presided by Judge Gabriel T. Ingles, ordered the arrest of Ong.24cralawred

Almost six (6) years after, or on February 12, 2010 at about 10:30 p.m., Ong was arrested at Ralphs Wines Museum located at No. 2253 Aurora Boulevard, Tramo, Pasay City.25� He was initially ordered committed to the Cebu City Jail26 but is currently serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison.27cralawred

On May 6, 2010, Ong filed before this court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with application for issuance of preliminary and/or mandatory injunction.28cralawred

In the Resolution29 dated June 16, 2010, this court ordered respondents to comment on Ong�s Petition.30cralawred

In the meantime, Ong filed the Urgent Motion for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail,31 which this court noted in the Resolution32 dated July 28, 2010.

The People of the Philippines then filed a Comment33 on the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus.� It also commented on Ong�s Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail.34cralawred

Ong replied to the Comment on the Petition35 and to the Comment on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail.36� He then filed a supplemental pleading to his Reply.37cralawred

In his Petition for Certiorari, Ong alleges that his counsel never received a copy of the Court of Appeals� Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration.� Consequently, the Decision of the Court of Appeals never became final and executory, and the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment.� Judge Gabriel T. Ingles likewise gravely abused his discretion in issuing a warrant for his arrest and ordering his commitment to the Cebu City Jail.38cralawred

Assuming that his former counsel received a copy of the Court of Appeals� Resolution, Ong argues that his counsel was grossly negligent in failing to appeal the Court of Appeals� Resolution.� This gross negligence allegedly deprived him of due process and, therefore, should not bind him.39cralawred

Considering the alleged grave abuse of discretion of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, Ong prays that this court issue a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for him to be �liberated from his . . . illegal imprisonment.�40� In the alternative, he prays that this court allow him to post bail for his provisional liberty while this court decides his Petition for Certiorari.41cralawred

In its Comment, the People of the Philippines argues that the registry return card �carries the presumption that �it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed [and must be] presumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise.��42� In this case, the registry return card corresponding to the copy of the Court of Appeals� Resolution sent to Ong�s former counsel indicates that his counsel received the Resolution on April 29, 2003.� This date, therefore, must be presumed to be the date of receipt of the Resolution.� Since Ong failed to appeal within the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals� Decision became final and executory and the Court of Appeals correctly issued the Entry of Judgment.43cralawred

Even assuming that his former counsel did not receive a copy of the Resolution, the People argues that this negligence bound Ong under the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client.44cralawred

With respect to Ong�s prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, the People contends that he �failed to point out [the] specific instances where the [Court of Appeals and the trial court] had committed grave abuse of discretion[.]�45� Consequently, Ong is not entitled to the Writ prayed for.46cralawred

On Ong�s prayer to be allowed to post bail, the People argues that the grant of bail is premised on the uncertainty of whether an accused is guilty or innocent.47� Considering that Ong�s conviction had already removed this uncertainty, �it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit [Ong] to bail.�48cralawred

The issues for this court�s resolution are:

(1)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment;
(2)
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin; and
(3)
Whether petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin�s former counsel was grossly negligent.

This petition should be denied.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I
There is no grave abuse of discretion in this case

Grave abuse of discretion is the �arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or a capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.�49cralawred

In the present case, petitioner failed to prove the Court of Appeals� and trial court�s grave abuse of discretion.

The registry return card is the �official . . . record evidencing service by mail.�50� It �carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed [and, therefore,] it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise[.]�51cralawred

Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption.

The affidavits of petitioner�s wife and mother-in-law, Mary Ann Ong and Nila Mapilit, stating that petitioner�s former counsel told them that the law office never received a copy of the Resolution,52 are inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay.53� Moreover, contrary to petitioner�s false claim, his former counsel had notice that the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration as early as April 21, 2004 when his counsel received a copy of the trial court�s Order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner.54cralawred

With petitioner failing to rebut this presumption, it must be presumed that his former counsel received a copy of the Resolution on April 29, 2003 as indicated in the registry return card.� The 15-day period to appeal commenced from this date.55� Since petitioner did not file an Appeal within 15 days from April 29, 2003, the Decision became final and executory on May 15, 2003.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment, which declared petitioner�s conviction final and executory as of May 15, 2003. Under Rule 51, Section 10 of the Rules of Court on �Judgment,� �if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments.� The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its entry.�

As for the trial court, it likewise did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the arrest warrant against petitioner and ordering his commitment to the Cebu City Jail.� Since the Court of Appeals had already issued the Entry of Judgment and had remanded to the trial court the original records of the case, it became the trial court�s duty to execute the judgment.

II
The negligence of petitioner�s former counsel bound him

The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural rules.56� The exception to the rule is �when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.�57cralawred

The agency created between a counsel and a client is a highly fiduciary relationship.� A counsel becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution or defense of his or her client�s case.� This is inevitable because a competent counsel is expected to understand the law that frames the strategies he or she employs in a chosen legal remedy.� Counsel carefully lays down the procedure that will effectively and efficiently achieve his or her client�s interests.� Counsel should also have a grasp of the facts, and among the plethora of details, he or she chooses which are relevant for the legal cause of action or defense being pursued.

It is these indispensable skills, among others, that a client engages.� Of course, there are counsels who have both wisdom and experience that give their clients great advantage.� There are still, however, counsels who wander in their mediocrity whether consciously or unconsciously.

The state does not guarantee to the client that they will receive the kind of service that they expect.� Through this court, we set the standard on competence and integrity through the application requirements and our disciplinary powers.� Whether counsel discharges his or her role to the satisfaction of the client is a matter that will ideally be necessarily monitored but, at present, is too impractical.

Besides, finding good counsel is also the responsibility of the client especially when he or she can afford to do so.� Upholding client autonomy in these choices is infinitely a better policy choice than assuming that the state is omniscient.� Some degree of error must, therefore, be borne by the client who does have the capacity to make choices.

This is one of the bases of the doctrine that the error of counsel visits the client.� This court will cease to perform its social functions if it provides succor to all who are not satisfied with the services of their counsel.

But, there is an exception to this doctrine of binding agency between counsel and client.� This is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, almost bordering on recklessness and utter incompetence, that we can safely conclude that the due process rights of the client were violated.� Even so, there must be a clear and convincing showing that the client was so maliciously deprived of information that he or she could not have acted to protect his or her interests.� The error of counsel must have been both palpable yet maliciously exercised that it should viably be the basis for disciplinary action.

Thus, in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People,58 this court reiterated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

For the exception to apply . . . the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client�s own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case.� Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.59cralawred
cralawlawlibrary

In Bejarasco, Jr., Peter Bejarasco, Jr., failed to file a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals within the extended period prayed for.� The Court of Appeals then dismissed the Appeal and issued an Entry of Judgment.� His conviction for grave threats and grave oral defamation became final, and a warrant for his arrest was issued.60cralawred

In his Petition for Review on Certiorari before this court, Peter Bejarasco, Jr. argued that his counsel�s negligence in failing to file the Appeal deprived him of due process.61cralawred

This court rejected Peter Bejarasco, Jr.�s argument, ruling that �[i]t is the client�s duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case[.]�62� �[T]o merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.�63cralawred

This court noted the 16 months from the issuance of the Entry of Judgment and the 22 months from the issuance of the trial court�s Decision before Peter Bejarasco, Jr. appealed his conviction.64� According to this court, �[h]e ought to have been sooner alerted about his dire situation by the fact that an unreasonably long time had lapsed since the [trial court] handed down the dismissal of his appeal without [his counsel] having updated him on the developments[.]�65cralawred

In the present case, petitioner took almost seven (7) years, or almost 84 months, from the Court of Appeals� issuance of the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration to file a Petition before this court.� As this court ruled in Bejarasco, Jr., petitioner ought to have been sooner alerted of the �unreasonably long time�66 the Court of Appeals was taking in resolving his appeal.� Worse, he was arrested in Pasay City, not in Cebu where he resides.� His failure to know or to find out the real status of his appeal �rendered [petitioner] undeserving of any sympathy from the Court vis-a-vis the negligence of his former counsel.�67cralawred

We fail to see how petitioner could not have known of the issuance of the Resolution.� We cannot accept a standard of negligence on the part of a client to fail to follow through or address counsel to get updates on his case.� Either this or the alternative that counsel�s alleged actions are merely subterfuge to avail a penalty well deserved.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.* Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Designated acting member per S.O. No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.

1Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 331 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].

2 Id.

3Rollo, pp. 3�26.

4 Id. at 61.

5 Id. at 46.

6 Id. at 47.

7 Id. at 46-47.

8 RTC records, pp. 183�193.� The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr.

9 Id. at 193.

10 Id. at 188�189.

11 Id. at 193.

12 Id. at 199�206.

13 Id. at 237. The Order was penned by Pairing Judge Victorino U. Montecillo.

14 Id. at 241.

15 Id. at 242.

16 Id. at 245�246.

17Rollo, pp. 29�39.� The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (Chair) (former Justice of this court) and Bienvenido L. Reyes (currently a Justice of this court) of the Second Division.

18 Id. at 38.

19 Id. at 41.

20 Id.

21 CA rollo, p. 208.

22 Id. at 206.

23 See CA rollo, p. 206.

24 RTC records, p. 268.

25 Id. at 274.

26 Id. at 282.

27Rollo, pp. 265 and 272�273.

28 Id. at 3.

29 Id. at 68�69.

30 Id. at 68.

31 Id. at 77�86.

32 Id. at 88�89.

33 Id. at 111�129.

34 Id. at 132�146.

35 Id. at 155�166.

36 Id. at 171�178.

37 Id. at 190�206.

38 Id. at 17�19.

39 Id. at 20�21.

40 Id. at 21.

41 Id. at 85.

42 Id. at 119.

43 Id. at 118�120.

44 Id. at 122�125.

45 Id. at 126.

46 Id. at 127.

47 Id. at 143, citing Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 253, 273�274 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

48 Id.

49Lagua v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173390, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 176, 181 [Per J. Sereno (Now C.J.), Second Division].

50Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, 610 Phil. 444, 453 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

51 Id. at 453�454.

52Rollo, p. 63.

53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, sec. 36 provides:

Section 36.� Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. � A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

54 RTC records, p. 269.� The registry return card addressed to Atty. Francis M. Zosa was attached at the back of p. 269 of the RTC records.

55 Rules of Court, Rule 122, sec. 6 provides:

Section 6. When appeal to be taken. � An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.� This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.

56Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 330 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].

57 Id. at 331.

58 G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].

59 Id. at 331.

60 Id. at 329�330.

61 Id. at 330.

62 Id. at 331.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 Id.

66 Id.

67 Id. at 332.



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






January-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015 - BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MINDA G. ROSALES(NOW REPRESENTED BY HER NEW ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GARY LLOYD G. ROSALES), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO AND JOSEPHINE S. GARABATO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015 - JOSELITO F. TEJANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 - RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

  • G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015 - NORIEL R. MONTIERRO, Petitioner, v. RICKMERS MARINE AGENCY PHILS., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015 - MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187892, January 14, 2015 - UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC. Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203384, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPS. JOSE CASTUERA AND PERLA CASTUERA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3194 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-1-01-MTC), January 27, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CONSTANTINO P. REDO�A, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TANAUAN, LEYTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015 - SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. BERSAMIN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015 - ALEJANDRO C. ALMENDRAS, JR., Petitioner, v. ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015 - ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2465 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1849-P], January 12, 2015 - CONCHITA S. BAHALA, Complainant, v. CIRILO DUCA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015 - MARILEN G. SOLIMAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ARNALDO BOSITO Y CHAVENIA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207993, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERARDO ENUMERABLE Y DE VILLA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 - ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL, Petitioner, ALFREDO S. LIM, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO DILLA Y PAULAR, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015 - SPOUSES JOSE O. GATUSLAO AND ERMILA LEONILA LIMSIACO-GATUSLAO, Petitioners, v. LEO RAY V. YANSON, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2940, January 21, 2015 - JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., Complainant, v. GEORGE E. VIAJAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, BUTUAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015 - NEIL B. AGUILAR AND RUBEN CALIMBAS, Petitioners, v. LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT COOPERATIVE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL AND ROMMEL CASTRO Y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015 - ARCATOMY S. GUARIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015 - DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015 - ROMMEL B. DARAUG, Petitioner, v. KGJS FLEET MANAGEMENT MANILA, INC., KRISTIAN GERHARD JEBSEN SKIPSREDER, MR. GUY DOMINO A. MACAPAYAG AND/OR M/V �IBIS ARROW,� Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 - IRENE D. OFILADA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RUBEN ANDAL AND MIRAFLOR ANDAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193451, January 28, 2015 - ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, Petitioner, v. ISIDORO A. ANTE, RAUL C. ADDATU, NICANOR B. PADILLA, JR., DANTE Y. CE�IDO, AND RHAMIR C. DALIOAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197011, January 28, 2015 - ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS, Petitioner, v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES, INC., RICHARD TAN AND CATHERINE P. RIALUBIN-TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015 - UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE. LTD. AND/OR VICTORIANO B. TIROL, III, Petitioners, v. DELIA MALIPOT, IN BEHALF OF GLICERIO MALIPOT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015 - ONE SHIPPING CORP., AND/OR ONE SHIPPING KABUSHIKI KAISHA/JAPAN, Petitioner, v. IMELDA C. PE�AFIEL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015 - GLENN VI�AS, Petitioner, v. MARY GRACE PAREL-VI�AS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 - THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015 - GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015 - RICARDO C. HONRADO, Petitioner, v. GMA NETWORK FILMS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178169, January 12, 2015 - NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE AND/OR GERARDO TRINIDAD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 - VIRGILIO C. BRIONES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213525, January 27, 2015 - FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015 - KYLE ANTHONY ZABALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, WILLIAM VALENZONA AND ANTONIO G. HABALO, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HEIRS OF COL. ROLANDO DE GUZMAN, FRANCO CALANOG AND AVELINO MANGUERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015 - CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS, Petitioner, v. ST. SCHOLASTICA�S COLLEGE WESTGROVE AND/OR SR. EDNA QUIAMBAO, OSB, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015 - AL O. EYANA, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., ALAIN A. GARILLOS, CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC. (U.S.A.), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189571, January 21, 2015 - THE HONORABLE MONETARY BOARD AND GAIL U. FULE, DIRECTOR, SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION DEPARTMENT II, AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND REEDEREI CLAUS PETER OFFEN, Petitioners, v. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205433, January 21, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. AVELINO DE ZOSA AND BARTOLOME DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015 - RUKS KONSULT AND CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. ADWORLD SIGN AND ADVERTISING CORPORATION* AND TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163928, January 21, 2015 - MANUEL JUSAYAN,ALFREDO JUSAYAN, AND MICHAEL JUSAYAN, Petitioners, v. JORGE SOMBILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195272, January 14, 2015 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (FORMERLY PRUDENTIAL BANK), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DAVID M. CASTRO AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015 - SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. TEODORO T. RIEL, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 85, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.; UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.

  • G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA aka �JERIC� AND JUAN BUENDIA Y DELOS REYES aka �JUNE�, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 193383-84, January 14, 2015 - CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. NOS. 193407-08 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206832, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO MORALES Y LAM, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL BALUTE Y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PALMY TIBAYAN AND RICO Z. PUERTO, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3919-RTJ], January 12, 2015 - ANTONIO S. ASCA�O, JR., CONSOLACION D. DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO, JULIETA D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC, EMILIANO E. LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L. NOGUERA, FIDEL S. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA G. SANTOS, AVELINA M. COLONIA, ERIC S. PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL B. ISON, Complaints, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., BRANCH 45, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198756, January 13, 2015 - BANCO DE ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioners, RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioners, CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER AND BUREAU OF TREASURY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015 - RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES AND LUIS MANALANG, Petitioners, v. BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015 - YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TRANS-ASIA OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015 - THE LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND/OR REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR. IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHI CHAN LIU A. K. A. CHAN QUE AND HUI LAO CHUNG A.K.A. LEOFE SENGLAO, Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015 - EDMUND SIA, Petitioner, v. WILFREDO ARCENAS, FERNANDO LOPEZ, AND PABLO RAFANAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015 - RODRIGO RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SALVADOR CHUA AND S. VIOLETA CHUA, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 184472 - SPS. SALVADOR CHUA AND VIOLETA S. CHUA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO RIVERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015 - ROGELIO J. GONZAGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3281 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3998-P), January 28, 2015 - FELISICIMO* R. SABIJON AND ZENAIDA A. SABIJON, Complainants, v. BENEDICT** M. DE JUAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KABACAN, NORTH COTABATO, BRANCH 22, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TEAM (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015 - VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner, v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015 - NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND MCARTHUR MINING, INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210660, January 21, 2015 - FLOR G. DAYO, Petitioner, v. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR NAFTO TRADE SHIPPING COMMERCIAL S.A., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204689, January 21, 2015 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RUNE AND LEA STROEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015 - WINEBRENNER & I�IGO INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203351, January 21, 2015 - PANAY POWER CORPORATION (FORMERLY AVON RIVER POWER HOLDINGS CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • UDK-15143, January 21, 2015 - IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY.

  • G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015 - MA. CHARITO C. GADIA, ERNESTO M. PE�AS, GEMMABELLE B. REMO, LORENA S. QUESEA, MARIE JOY FRANCISCO, BEVERLY A. CABINGAS, IVEE U. BALINGIT, ROMA ANGELICA O. BORJA, MARIE JOAN RAMOS, KIM GUEVARRA, LYNN S. DE LOS SANTOS, CAREN C. ENCANTO, EIDEN BALDOVINO, JACQUELINE B. CASTRENCE, MA. ESTRELLA V. LAPUZ, JOSELITO L. LORD, RAYMOND G. SANTOS, ABIGAIL M. VILORIA, ROMMEL C. ACOSTA, FRANCIS JAN S. BAYLON, ERIC O. PADIERNOS, MA. LENELL P. AARON, CRISNELL P. AARON, AND LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER F. PAPA, Petitioners, v. SYKES ASIA, INC./ CHUCK SYKES/ MIKE HINDS/ MICHAEL HENDERSON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015 - RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199648, January 28, 2015 - FIRST OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECURITRON SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015 - FERNANDO W. CHU, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180147, January 14, 2015 - SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.,1 Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180148 - ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180149 - SARA LEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180150 - CESAR C. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180319 - FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180685 - EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NLRC, ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., SARA LEE CORPORATION, SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., COLLIN BEAL AND ATTY. CESAR C. CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 - MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203026, January 28, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL PASION Y DELA CRUZ A.K.A. �ATHAN� AND DENNIS MICHAEL PAZ Y SIBAYAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON, AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 148748, January 14, 2015 - IMELDA, LEONARDO, FIDELINO, AZUCENA, JOSEFINA, ANITA AND SISA, ALL SURNAMED SYJUCO, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. FELISA D. BONIFACIO AND VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206393, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL JOSON Y ROGANDO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. AND ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, RONIE SUALOG, JOEL CALIDA, JOHNNY ARINTO, CARLITO PRESENTACION, AND ROBERTO DE GUZMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015 - HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015 - RICHARD RICALDE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174184, January 28, 2015 - G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP, GODOFREDO TRILLANA, AND JULIANA TRILLANA, Petitioners, v. RICARDO AMBOS, BENJAMIN PUTIAN, AND RUSSELL AMBOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015 - ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, v. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO AND DOLORES V. MOLINA, Respondents.; [G.R. No. 112564] - DOLORES V. MOLINA, Petitioner, v. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, QUEZON CITY, BR. 105 AND MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128422] - DOLORES V. MOLINA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND EPIMACO ORETA, Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128911] - THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION AND ALBERTO V. REYES, Petitioners, v. DOLORES V. MOLINA AND HON. MARCIANO BACALLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 216, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167519, January 14, 2015 - THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. U-LAND AIRLINES, CO., LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191710, January 14, 2015 - DEMETRIA DE GUZMAN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS OLGA C. BARBASO AND NOLI G. CEMENTTNA;* LOLITA A. DE GUZMAN; ESTHER G.MILAN; BANAAG A. DE GUZMAN; AMOR G. APOLO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS ALBERTO T. APOLO, MARK APOLO AND GEORGE APOLO;* HERMINIO A. DE GUZMAN; LEONOR G. VTVENCIO; NORMA A. DE GUZMAN; AND JOSEFINA G. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. FBLINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168616, January 28, 2015 - HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200628, January 13, 2015 - MARIA THERESA G. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND AUDITOR NARCISA DJ JOAQUIN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 - SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA, Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, Respondents.