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
 

   
July-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 205681, July 01, 2015 - JANET CARBONELL, Petitioner, v. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO A. CARBONELL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208686, July 01, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALELIE TOLENTINO A.K.A. "ALELIE TOLENTINO Y HERNANDEZ," Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210341, July 01, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSEFINO O. ALORA AND OSCAR O. ALORA, Respondent.

  • G. R. No. 209845, July 01, 2015 - MELCHOR G. MADERAZO AND DIONESIO R. VERUEN, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3182, July 01, 2015 - ATTY. AURORA P. SANGLAY, Complainant, v. EDUARDO E. PADUA II, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-12-3101, July 01, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. BEATRIZ E. LIZONDRA, COURT INTERPRETER II AND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TABUK CITY, KALINGA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181517, July 06, 2015 - GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. AND FRUTO SAYSON, JR., Petitioners, v. NISSIN-UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. NO. 193058, July 08, 2015 - EDGAR C. NUQUE, Petitioner, v. FIDEL AQUINO AND SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND ERLINDA BABINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190134, July 08, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO AND SHIRLEY T. LIM, AGUSAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY DR. SHIRLEY T. LIM, PRESIDENT AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF FELIX A. CUENCA, MARY ANN M. MALOLOT, AND REY ADONIS M. MEJORADA, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPELAS, TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MINDANAO STATION; SHERIFF ARCHIBALD C. VERGA, AND HIS DEPUTIES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, HALL OF JUSTICE, LIBERTAD, BUTUAN CITY; AND FIRST CONSOLIDATED BANK, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015 - MABINI COLLEGES, INC. REPRESENTED BY MARCEL N. LUKBAN, ALBERTO I. GARCIA, JR., AND MA. PAMELA ROSSANA A. APUYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212194, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROD FAMUDULAN1 Y FEDELIN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187631, July 08, 2015 - BATANGAS CITY, MARIA TERESA GERON, IN HER CAPACITY AS CITY TREASURER OF BATANGAS CITY AND TEODULFO A. DEGUITO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY LEGAL OFFICER OF BATANGAS CITY, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212205, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015 - RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO" - FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201110, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y CRISTOBAL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183735, July 06, 2015 - SEGIFREDO T. VILCHEZ, Petitioner, v. FREE PORT SERVICE CORPORATION AND ATTY. ROEL JOHN T. KABIGTING, PRESIDENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200670, July 06, 2015 - CLARK INVESTORS AND LOCATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216691, July 21, 2015 - MARIA ANGELA S. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSE ALEJANDRE P. PAYUMO III, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197731, July 06, 2015 - HERMIE OLARTE Y TARUG, AND RUBEN OLAVARIO Y MAUNAO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208792, July 22, 2015 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207435, July 01, 2015 - NORMA EDITA R. DY SUN-ONG, Petitioner, v. JOSE VICTORY R. DY SUN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10187 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3053], July 22, 2015 - CELINA F. ANDRADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODRIGO CERA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417 [Formerly known as OCA IPI No. 10-3466-RTJ], July 22, 2015 - ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO D. ESIDERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171247, July 22, 2015 - ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. AMELIA C. MANALASTAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-PASIG CITY, BRANCH 268, AND LEONARDO S. UMALE [DECEASED] SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE, CLARISSA VICTORIA UMALE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3257, July 22, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOSE V. MENDOZA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GASAN, MARINDUQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211535, July 22, 2015 - BANK OF COMMERCE, Petitioner, v. MARILYN P. NITE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200773, July 08, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANGELINE L. DAYAOEN, AGUST1NA TAUEL, AND LAWANA T. BATCAGAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192099, July 08, 2015 - PAULINO M. EJERCITO, JESSIE M. EJERCITO AND JOHNNY D. CHANG, Petitioners, v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186322, July 08, 2015 - ENRICO S. EULOGIO AND NATIVIDAD V. EULOGIO, Petitioners, v. PATERNO C. BELL, SR., ROGELIA CALINGASAN-BELL, PATERNO WILLIAM BELL, JR., FLORENCE FELICIA VICTORIA BELL, PATERNO FERDINAND BELL III, AND PATERNO BENERAÑO BELL IV, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 209353-54, July 06, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Respondent.; [G.R. Nos. 211733-34] - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-14-1839, July 22, 2015 - ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO, Complainant, v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189262, July 06, 2015 - GBMLT MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. MA. VICTORIA H. MALINAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207286, July 29, 2015 - DELA ROSA LINER, INC. AND/OR ROSAURO DELA ROSA, SR. AND NORA DELA ROSA, Petitioners, v. CALIXTO B. BORELA AND ESTELO A. AMARILLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDNA ORCELINO-VILLANUEVA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167679, July 22, 2015 - ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185224, July 29, 2015 - AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION] AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190983, July 29, 2015 - SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI, Petitioner, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186305, July 22, 2015 - V-GENT, INC., Petitioner, v. MORNING STAR TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3304 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I No. 11-3670-P), July 01, 2015 - MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, Complainant, v. 1) CLERK OF COURT V DUKE THADDEUS R. MAOG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 155, PASIG CITY, 2) SHERIFF IV DOMINGO R. GARCIA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172983, July 22, 2015 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175188, July 15, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. (LTDI [NOW GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL], Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015 - EDUARDO CELEDONIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210412, July 29, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. KAMRAN F. KARBASI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210646, July 29, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207791, July 15, 2015 - THE CITY OF DAVAO, REPRESENTED BY THE CITY TREASURER OF DAVAO CITY, Petitioner, v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMADO S. DALISAY, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ATTY. NICASIO B. PADERNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015 - JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201494, July 29, 2015 - MARITES R. CUSAP, Petitioner, v. ADIDAS PHILIPPINES, INC., (ADIDAS), PROMOTION RESOURCES & INTER-MARKETING EXPONENTS, INC. (PRIME) AND JC ATHLETES, INC. (JCA), Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2293 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-12-411-MTC), July 15, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOEBERT C. GUAN, FORMER CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BULAN, SORSOGON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199660, July 13, 2015 - U-BIX CORPORATION AND EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, Petitioners, v. VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198096, July 08, 2015 - CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC. AND/OR MR. EDUARDO R. JABLA, CENTENNIAL MARITIME SERVICES & MTV BONNIE SMITHWICK, Petitioners, v. PASTOR M. QUIAMBAO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-36-SCC), July 01, 2015 - BAGUAN M. MAMISCAL, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208587, July 29, 2015 - JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY, INC., HELEN D. DAGDAGAN, PATRICK PACIS, KENNETH PACIS, AND SHIRLEY DOMINGUEZ, Petitioners, v. CECILIA LICLICAN, NORMA D. ISIP, AND PURITA DOMINGUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 203054-55, July 29, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193219, July 27, 2015 - COPY CENTRAL DIGITAL COPY SOLUTION AND/OR VIRGILIO MONTANO, Petitioners, v. MARILYN DOMRIQUE AND CARINA LEAÑO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188464, July 29, 2015 - ALBERTO J. RAZA, Petitioner, v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS., INC. AND MAMORU ONO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174185, July 22, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. WILFREDO MANCAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200940, July 22, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARTIN NERIO, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190998, July 20, 2015 - SPOUSES ROBERT C. PADERANGA AND JOVITA M. PADERANGA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PENDATUN A. BOGABONG AND NORMA P. BOGABONG; STALINGEORGE PADERANGA AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY; CIPRIANO RATUNIL; ANTONIO MIÑOZA; HEIRS OF TOMAS TAN SR., LOURDES TAN AND LIBEN GO MEDINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193034, July 20, 2015 - RODGING REYES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SALUD M. GEGATO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212336, July 15, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARSENIO D. MISA III, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10628, July 01, 2015 - MAXIMINO NOBLE III, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191258, July 08, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VINCENT GARRIDO Y ELORDE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207639, July 01, 2015 - BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. AND/OR V-SHIP NORWAY AND/OR CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. CARLOS L. FLORES, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214466, July 01, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALCUEVA Y BONDOCOY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 194328, July 01, 2015 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. INTERPACIFIC CONTAINER SERVICES AND GLORIA DEE CHONG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175999, July 01, 2015 - NELSON LAI Y BILBAO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207145, July 28, 2015 - GIL G. CAWAD, MARIO BENEDICT P. GALON, DOMINGO E. LUSAYA, JEAN V. APOLINARES, MA. LUISA S. OREZCA, JULIO R. GARCIA, NESTOR M. INTIA, RUBEN C. CALIWATAN, ADOLFO Q. ROSALES, MA. LUISA NAVARRO, AND THE PHILIPPINE PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM); ENRIQUE T. ONA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH); AND FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193388, July 01, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO BOCADI Y APATAN, ACCUSED, ALBERTO BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192173, July 29, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015 - PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE AND CLARE SINFOROSA ANDRADE-CASILIHAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015 - CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. CA-15-32-P (formerly OCA IPI No. 14-219-CA-P), July 29, 2015 - COMMITTEE ON ETHICS & SPECIAL CONCERNS, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Complainant, v. MARCELO B. NAIG, UTILITY WORKER II, MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204738, July 29, 2015 - GLENDA RODRIGUEZ-ANGAT, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015 - LEONILA G. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206423, July 01, 2015 - LEONCIO ALANGDEO, ARTHUR VERCELES, AND DANNY VERGARA, Petitioners, v. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, HON. BRAULIO D. YARANON (TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY INCUMBENT CITY MAYOR, HON. MAURICIO DOMOGAN), JEOFREY MORTELA, HEAD DEMOLITION TEAM, CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE, AND ERNESTO LARDIZABAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207575, July 15, 2015 - HEDCOR, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175796, July 22, 2015 - BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BENEDICTO & TERESITA YUJUICO, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-53-J [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-230-CA-J], July 14, 2015 - RE: COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2015 OF CATHERINE DAMAYO, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, VENIRANDA DAMAYO, AGAINST HON. MARILYN LAGURA-YAP, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS-VISAYAS, CEBU CITY, CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 162217, July 22, 2015 - HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA I, (IN SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS OF MELECIO BUENO), Petitioners, v. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, ZAMBALES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 2014-07-SC, July 08, 2015 - RE: REPORT OF ATTY. CARIDAD A. PABELLO, CHIEF OF OFFICE, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES- OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OAS-OCA), ON NEGLECT OF DUTY OF FERDINAND F. ANDRES, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)-PERSONNEL DIVISION, OAS-OCA, THE PROCESSOR-IN-CHARGE OF APPOINTMENT AND THE ALLEGED ERRONEOUS RECORDING, ERASURE, AND ALTERATION OF THE PERFORMANCE RATING ON THE RECORD BOOK.

  • G.R. No. 210861, July 29, 2015 - CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ATTY. MARIO T. BERNALES, Petitioner, v. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. AND GAWAD KALINGA FOUNDATION, INC. REPRESENTED BY ITSEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOSE LUIS OQUIÑENA,* AND ITS CAMARINES SUR CHAPTER HEAD, HARRY AZANA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195196, July 13, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTANLY OCTA Y BAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215764, July 06, 2015 - RICHARD K. TOM, Petitioner, v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196864, July 08, 2015 - SPOUSES VICTOR P. DULNUAN AND JACQUELINE P. DULNUAN, Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206970, July 29, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO EDAÑO AND NESTOR EDAÑO, ACCUSED, ANTONIO EDAÑO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 192463, July 13, 2015 - OMAIRA LOMONDOT AND SARIPA LOMONDOT, Petitioners, v. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, PRESIDING JUDGE, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, 4TH SHARI'A JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, LANAO DEL SUR AND AMBOG PANGANDAMUN AND SIMBANATAO DIACA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204089, July 29, 2015 - GRACE BORGOÑA INSIGNE, DIOSDADO BORGOÑA, OSBOURNE BORGOÑA, IMELDA BORGOÑA RIVERA, AND ARISTOTLE BORGOÑA, Petitioners, v. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES, INC. AND FRANCIS BORGOÑA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207098, July 08, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NONIETO GERSAMIO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212929, July 29, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE GALVEZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191894, July 15, 2015 - DANILO A. DUNCANO, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), AND HON. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 163356-57, July 01, 2015 - JOSE A. BERNAS, CECILE H. CHENG, VICTOR AFRICA, JESUS B. MARAMARA, JOSE T. FRONDOSO, IGNACIO T. MACROHON, JR., AND PAULINO T. LIM, ACTING IN THEIR CAPACITY AS INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS OF MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, INC., AND ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MAKATI SPORTS CLUB, Petitioners, v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO, VICENTE R. AYLLON, RICARDO G. LIBREA, SAMUEL L. ESGUERRA, ROLANDO P. DELA CUESTA, RUBEN L. TORRES, ALEX Y. PARDO, MA. CRISTINA SIM, ROGER T. AGUILING, JOSE B. QUIMSON, CELESTINO L. ANG, ELISEO V. VILLAMOR, FELIPE L. GOZON, CLAUDIO B. ALTURA, ROGELIO G. VILLAROSA, MANUEL R. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN A. CARANDANG, REGINA DE LEON-HERLIHY, CARLOS Y. RAMOS, JR., ALEJANDRO Z. BARIN, EFRENILO M. CAYANGA AND JOHN DOES, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 163368-69 - JOVENCIO F. CINCO, RICARDO G. LIBREA AND ALEX Y. PARDO, Petitioners, v. JOSE A. BERNAS, CECILE H. CHENG AND IGNACIO A. MACROHON, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4129-RTJ], July 20, 2015 - FLOR GILBUENA RIVERA, Complainant, v. HON. LEANDRO C. CATALO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 256, MUNTINLUPA CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204117, July 01, 2015 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3347 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4067-P], July 29, 2015 - AMADEL C. ABOS, Complainant, v. SALVADOR A. BORROMEO IV, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200558, July 01, 2015 - CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN AND ANNABELLA V. BORROMEO, Petitioners, v. CRISTINA DISONGLO-ALMAZORA, RENILDA ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN, RODOLFO CASUBUAN, SUSANA ALMAZORA-MENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO ALMAZORA AND NEN1TA ALMAZORA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192024, July 01, 2015 - FORTUNE TOBACCO ORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195166, July 08, 2015 - SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA AND ALMA ABELLA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROMEO ABELLA AND ANNIE ABELLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213104, July 29, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PO1 CYRIL A. DE GRACIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015 - ROBERT CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015 - ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILS., INC., ENTERPRISE SHIPPING AGENCY SRL AND/OR EVANGELINE RACHO, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO S. QUIOGUE, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212025, July 01, 2015 - EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL, INC., Petitioner, v. VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198436, July 08, 2015 - PIONEER INSURANCE SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MORNING STAR TRAVEL & TOURS, INC., ESTELITA CO WONG, BENNY H. WONG, ARSENIO CHUA, SONNY CHUA, AND WONG YAN TAK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187491, July 08, 2015 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LILIA S. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209822, July 08, 2015 - DIONISIO DACLES,* Petitioner, v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION AND/OR RAGAS TIU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163362, July 08, 2015 - ALEJANDRA ARADO HEIRS: JESUSA ARADO, VICTORIANO ALCORIZA, PEDRO ARADO, HEIRS: JUDITHO ARADO, JENNIFER ARADO, BOBBIE ZITO ARADO, SHIRLY ABAD, ANTONIETA ARADO, NELSON SOMOZA, JUVENIL ARADO, NICETAS VENTULA, AND NILA ARADO, PEDRO ARADO, TOMASA V. ARADO, Petitioners, v. ANACLETO ALCORAN AND ELENETTE SUNJACO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202262, July 08, 2015 - JOSE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS, INC., GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT, INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF CLUB, NASUGBU RESORTS, INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND GULOD RESORT, INC., Petitioners, v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NASUGBU BATANGAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 156022, July 06, 2015 - AURELLANO AGNES, EDUARDO AGNES, ESPIRITU AGNES, ESTELLA AGNES, PANTALEON AGNES, FILOTEO APUEN, IMELDA APUEN, MOISES APUEN, ROGELIO APUEN, GONZALO AUSTRIA, JAVIER AUSTRIA, BONIFACIO EGUIA, LYDIA EGUIA, MANUEL GABARDA, SR., MELECIO GARCIA, CRISTOBAL LOQUIB, MARIA LOQUIB, MATERNO LOQUIB, GEORGE MACANAS, MODESTO MANLEBTEN, JUANITO AUSTRIA, CONCHITA BERNAL, AURELIO BERNAL, PABLITO BOGANTE, FELICIANO CANTON, ALFREDO CANETE, CECILIA CANETE, CHERRY DE MESA, ROBERTO NOVERO, PERLITO PABIA, RODRIGO SABROSO, JUAN TALORDA, AND RAFAELA TRADIO, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209786, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY C. PALOTES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196461, July 15, 2015 - WARLITO C. VICENTE, Petitioner, v. ACIL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203961, July 29, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ROBERTO LARA AND ROGELIO "NOEL" DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC. AND ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN, Petitioners, v. JANET T. SIASON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183681, July 27, 2015 - SPO2 ROLANDO JAMACA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205575, July 22, 2015 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP AND CASMERO MAHILUM, Petitioners, v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. (VECO), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015 - NORLINDA S. MARILAG, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015 - ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211972, July 22, 2015 - WILSON GO AND PETER GO, Petitioners, v. THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENAVENTURA, REPRESENTED BY RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS, AND REGINA A. BIHIS; AND RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS AND REGINA A. BIHIS, M THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 212045 - BELLA A. GUERRERO, DELFIN A. GUERRERO, JR. AND LESTER ALVIN A. GUERRERO, Petitioners, v. THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENAVENTURA, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY RESURRECION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS AND REGINA A. BIHIS, AND RESURRECION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS AND REGINA A. BIHIS, IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212865, July 15, 2015 - HORACIO SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. LISA CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207843, July 15, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) AND PETRON CORPORATION,* Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182814, July 15, 2015 - LIGAYA MENDOZA AND ADELIA MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (EIGHT DIVISION), HONORABLE JUDGE LIBERATO C. CORTEZ AND BANGKO KABAYAN (FORMERLY IBAAN RURAL BANK, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON, LEAN ADRIANO @ DENDEN, ABBA SANTIAGO Y ADRIANO, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, ACCUSED, ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208928, July 08, 2015 - ANDY ANG, Petitioner, v. SEVERINO PACUNIO, TERESITA P. TORRALBA, SUSANA LOBERANES, CHRISTOPHER N. PACUNIO, AND PEDRITO P. AZARCON, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GALILEO P. TORRALBA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202632, July 08, 2015 - ROBERTO STA. ANA DY, JOSE ALAINEO DY, AND ALTEZA A. DY FOR THEMSELVES AND AS HEIRS/SUBSTITUTES OF DECEASED-PETITIONER CHLOE ALINDOGAN DY, Petitioners, v. BONIFACIO A. YU, SUSANA A. TAN, AND SOLEDAD ARQUILLA SUBSTITUTING DECEASED-RESPONDENT ROSARIO ARQUILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169158, July 01, 2015 - PENTAGON INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FILOMENO V. MADRIO, LUISITO G. RUBIANO, JDA INTER-PHIL. MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10662 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2654], July 07, 2015 - JUN B. LUNA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015 - DANDY L. DUNGO AND GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160033, July 01, 2015 - TAGAYTAY REALTY CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARTURO G. GACUTAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175733, July 08, 2015 - WESTMONT BANK (NOW UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS.*) Petitioner, v. FUNAI PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, SPOUSES ANTONIO AND SYLVIA YUTINGCO, PANAMAX CORPORATION, PEPITO ONG NGO, RICHARD N. YU, AIMEE R. ALBA, ANNABELLE BAESA, NENITA RESANE, AND MARIA ORTIZ, Respondents.; G.R. No. 180162 - CARMELO V. CACHERO, Petitioner, v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. AND/OR WESTMONT BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212049, July 15, 2015 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, MARLON R. ROÑO AND "STAR PRINCESS," Petitioners, v. ROMEO V. PANOGALINOG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 155580, July 01, 2015 - ROMEO T. CALUZOR, Petitioner, v. DEOGRACIAS LLANILLO AND THE HEIRS OF THE LATE LORENZO LLANILLO, AND MOLDEX REALTY CORPORTATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197127, July 15, 2015 - NOEL L. ONG, OMAR ANTHONY L. ONG, AND NORMAN L. ONG, Petitioners, v. NICOLASA O. IMPERIAL, DARIO R. ECHALUCE, ROEL I. ROBELO, SERAFIN R. ROBELO, EFREN R. ROBELO, RONILO S. AGNO, LORENA ROBELO, ROMEO O. IMPERIAL, NANILON IMPERIAL CORTEZ, JOVEN IMPERIAL CORTEZ, AND RODELIO O. IMPERIAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159271, July 13, 2015 - SPOUSES BENITO BAYSA AND VICTORIA BAYSA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FIDEL PLANTILLA AND SUSAN PLANTILLA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181426, July 13, 2015 - GAMES AND GARMENTS DEVELOPERS, INC., Petitioner, v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167510, July 08, 2015 - ALVIN MERCADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160206, July 15, 2015 - M/V "DON MARTIN" VOY 047 AND ITS CARGOES OF 6,500 SACKS OF IMPORTED RICE, PALACIO SHIPPING, INC., AND LEOPOLDO "JUNIOR" PAMULAKLAKIN, Petitioners, v. HON. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159271, July 13, 2015 - SPOUSES BENITO BAYSA AND VICTORIA BAYSA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FIDEL PLANTILLA AND SUSAN PLANTILLA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181426, July 13, 2015 - GAMES AND GARMENTS DEVELOPERS, INC., Petitioner, v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160206, July 15, 2015 - M/V "DON MARTIN" VOY 047 AND ITS CARGOES OF 6,500 SACKS OF IMPORTED RICE, PALACIO SHIPPING, INC., AND LEOPOLDO "JUNIOR" PAMULAKLAKIN, Petitioners, v. HON. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167510, July 08, 2015 - ALVIN MERCADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172980, July 22, 2015 - CELSO F. PASCUAL, SR. AND SERAFIN TERENCIO, Petitioners, v. CANIOGAN CREDIT AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, JOSE ANTONIO R. LEE, ATTY. VENANCIO C. REYES, JR., AND NESTOR P. TINIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203928, July 22, 2015 - CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205681, July 01, 2015 - JANET CARBONELL, Petitioner, v. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO A. CARBONELL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208686, July 01, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALELIE TOLENTINO A.K.A. "ALELIE TOLENTINO Y HERNANDEZ," Appellant.

  • G. R. No. 209845, July 01, 2015 - MELCHOR G. MADERAZO AND DIONESIO R. VERUEN, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210341, July 01, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSEFINO O. ALORA AND OSCAR O. ALORA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3182, July 01, 2015 - ATTY. AURORA P. SANGLAY, Complainant, v. EDUARDO E. PADUA II, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-12-3101, July 01, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. BEATRIZ E. LIZONDRA, COURT INTERPRETER II AND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TABUK CITY, KALINGA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181517, July 06, 2015 - GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. AND FRUTO SAYSON, JR., Petitioners, v. NISSIN-UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190134, July 08, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO AND SHIRLEY T. LIM, AGUSAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY DR. SHIRLEY T. LIM, PRESIDENT AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF FELIX A. CUENCA, MARY ANN M. MALOLOT, AND REY ADONIS M. MEJORADA, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPELAS, TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MINDANAO STATION; SHERIFF ARCHIBALD C. VERGA, AND HIS DEPUTIES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, HALL OF JUSTICE, LIBERTAD, BUTUAN CITY; AND FIRST CONSOLIDATED BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. NO. 193058, July 08, 2015 - EDGAR C. NUQUE, Petitioner, v. FIDEL AQUINO AND SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND ERLINDA BABINA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015 - MABINI COLLEGES, INC. REPRESENTED BY MARCEL N. LUKBAN, ALBERTO I. GARCIA, JR., AND MA. PAMELA ROSSANA A. APUYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187631, July 08, 2015 - BATANGAS CITY, MARIA TERESA GERON, IN HER CAPACITY AS CITY TREASURER OF BATANGAS CITY AND TEODULFO A. DEGUITO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY LEGAL OFFICER OF BATANGAS CITY, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212194, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROD FAMUDULAN Y FEDELIN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212205, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLING, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216691, July 21, 2015 - MARIA ANGELA S. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSE ALEJANDRE P. PAYUMO III, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015 - RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSELITO C. BARROZO" FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201110, July 06, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y CRISTOBAL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183735, July 06, 2015 - SEGIFREDO T. VILCHEZ, Petitioner, v. FREE PORT SERVICE CORPORATION AND ATTY. ROEL JOHN T. KABIGTING, PRESIDENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200670, July 06, 2015 - CLARK INVESTORS AND LOCATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197731, July 06, 2015 - HERMIE OLARTE Y TARUG, AND RUBEN OLAVARIO Y MAUNAO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208792, July 22, 2015 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10187 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3053], July 22, 2015 - CELINA F. ANDRADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODRIGO CERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207435, July 01, 2015 - NORMA EDITA R. DY SUN-ONG, Petitioner, v. JOSE VICTORY R. DY SUN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417 [Formerly known as OCA IPI No. 10-3466-RTJ], July 22, 2015 - ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO D. ESIDERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171247, July 22, 2015 - ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. AMELIA C. MANALASTAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-PASIG CITY, BRANCH 268, AND LEONARDO S. UMALE [DECEASED] SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE, CLARISSA VICTORIA UMALE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3257, July 22, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOSE V. MENDOZA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GASAN, MARINDUQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200773, July 08, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANGELINE L. DAYAOEN, AGUST1NA TAUEL, AND LAWANA T. BATCAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211535, July 22, 2015 - BANK OF COMMERCE, Petitioner, v. MARILYN P. NITE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192099, July 08, 2015 - PAULINO M. EJERCITO, JESSIE M. EJERCITO AND JOHNNY D. CHANG, Petitioners, v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186322, July 08, 2015 - ENRICO S. EULOGIO AND NATIVIDAD V. EULOGIO, Petitioners, v. PATERNO C. BELL, SR., ROGELIA CALINGASAN-BELL, PATERNO WILLIAM BELL, JR., FLORENCE FELICIA VICTORIA BELL, PATERNO FERDINAND BELL III, AND PATERNO BENERAÑO BELL IV, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 209353-54, July 06, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Respondent.; G.R. Nos. 211733-34 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-14-1839, July 22, 2015 - ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO, Complainant, v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189262, July 06, 2015 - GBMLT MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. MA. VICTORIA H. MALINAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207286, July 29, 2015 - DELA ROSA LINER, INC. AND/OR ROSAURO DELA ROSA, SR. AND NORA DELA ROSA, Petitioners, v. CALIXTO B. BORELA AND ESTELO A. AMARILLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167679, July 22, 2015 - ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDNA ORCELINO-VILLANUEVA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190983, July 29, 2015 - SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI, Petitioner, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185224, July 29, 2015 - AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION] AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186305, July 22, 2015 - V-GENT, INC., Petitioner, v. MORNING STAR TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3304 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I No. 11-3670-P), July 01, 2015 - MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, Complainant, v. 1) CLERK OF COURT V DUKE THADDEUS R. MAOG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 155, PASIG CITY, 2) SHERIFF IV DOMINGO R. GARCIA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172983, July 22, 2015 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175188, July 15, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. (LTDI [NOW GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL], Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015 - EDUARDO CELEDONIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210412, July 29, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. KAMRAN F. KARBASI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210646, July 29, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207791, July 15, 2015 - THE CITY OF DAVAO, REPRESENTED BY THE CITY TREASURER OF DAVAO CITY, Petitioner, v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMADO S. DALISAY, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ATTY. NICASIO B. PADERNA, Respondent.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

      G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    PERALTA, J.:

    Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated January 21, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93337, the dispositive portion of which reads:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution, dated December 15, 2005, of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as its Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004, are hereby SET ASIDE.

    SO ORDERED.2
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    The facts are as follows:

    Respondent Universal Rightfield Property Holdings, Inc. (URPHI) is a corporation duly registered and existing under the Philippine Laws, and is engaged in the business of providing residential and leisure-related needs and wants of the middle and upper middle-income market.

    On May 29, 2003, petitioner Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), through its Corporate Finance Department, issued an Order revoking URPHI's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public for its failure to timely file its Year 2001 Annual Report and Year 2002 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Reports pursuant to Section 173 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), Republic Act No. 8799.

    On October 16, 2003, URPHI filed with the SEC a Manifestation/Urgent Motion to Set Aside Revocation Order and Reinstate Registration after complying with its reportorial requirements.

    On October 24, 2003, the SEC granted URPHI's motion to lift the revocation order, considering the current economic situation, URPHI's belated filing of the required annual and quarterly reports, and its payment of the reduced fine of P82,000.00.

    Thereafter, URPHI failed again to comply with the same reportorial requirements.

    In a Notice of Hearing dated June 25, 2004, the SEC directed URPHI to show cause why its Registration of Securities and Certificate of Permit to Sell Securities to the Public should not be suspended for failure to submit the said requirements. Pertinent portion of the notice reads:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    Records show that the corporation has failed to submit the following reports in violation of SRC Rule 17.1:

    (1) 2003 Annual Report (SEC Form 17-A); and
    (2) 2004 1st Quarter Report (SEC Form 17-Q)

    The company has been allowed a non-extendible period until May 31, 2004 within which to file its 2003 Annual Report but to date the said report has not been submitted.

    In view of the foregoing and considering the inadequate information available to the public, the corporation is hereby directed to show cause why the Registration of its Securities and Certificate of Permit to Sell Securities should not be suspended, in a hearing scheduled before Atty. Francia A. Tiuseco-Manlapaz on July 6, 2004, at the Securities Registration Division, Corporation Finance Department of the Commission, 6th Floor, SEC Building, EDA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila at 10:00 o'clock in the morning. Failure of the company to appear, through its representative, at the said hearing shall be deemed a waiver on its part to be heard with regard to the suspension of its Certificate of Permit to Sell Securities to the Public.

    SO ORDERED.4
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    During the scheduled hearing on July 6, 2004, URPHI, through its Chief Accountant, Rhodora Lahaylahay, informed the SEC why it failed to submit the reportorial requirements, viz.: (1) it was constrained to reduce its accounting staff due to cost-cutting measures; thus, some of the audit requirements were not completed within the original timetable; and (2) its audited financial statements for the period ending December 31, 2003 could not be finalized by reason of the delay in the completion of some of its audit requirements.

    In an Order dated July 27, 2004, the SEC suspended URPHI's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public for failure to submit its reportorial requirements despite the lapse of the extension period, and due to lack of sufficient justification for its inability to comply with the said requirements.

    On August 23, 2004, the SEC, through its Corporation Finance Department, informed URPHI that it failed to submit its 2004 2nd Quarter Report (SEC Form 17-Q) in violation of the Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations of the SRC Rule 17.1(1)(A)(ii).5 It also directed URPHI to file the said report, and to show cause why it should not be held liable for violation of the said rule.

    In a letter dated September 28, 2004, URPHI requested for a final extension, or until November 15, 2004, within which to submit its reportorial requirements. Pertinent portions of the letter read:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    We refer to your Order dated 27 July 2004, wherein the Commission resolved to SUSPEND the Corporation's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public due to non-filing of the Corporation's reportorial requirements under SRC Rule 17 effective for sixty (60) days or until the reporting requirements are complied [with]; otherwise, the Commission shall proceed with the revocation of the Corporation's registration [of] securities. To date, the Corporation has not filed with the Commission its 2003 Annual Report in SEC Form 17-A and 2004 1st and 2nd Quarterly reports in SEC Form 17-Q. The non-submission of these reportorial requirements, as we have already disclosed to you per our letter dated 13 September 2004, was due to the non-finalization of the Corporation's audited financial statement for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.

    During our meeting with our external auditor, SGV & Co. last 8 September 2004, SGV agreed to facilitate the finalization of our financial statements within two (2) weeks. Notwithstanding the same, the Corporation foresees the impossibility of complying with its submission until the end of the month, as the partners of SGV are still reviewing the final draft of the financial statements.

    The Corporation intends to comply with its reportorial requirements. However, due to the foregoing circumstances, the finalization of our financial statement has again been delayed. In this regard, may we request for the last time until November 15, 2004 within which to submit said reportorial requirements.6
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    On December 1, 2004, URPHI filed with the SEC its 2003 Annual Report.

    In an Order of Revocation7 dated December 8, 2004, the SEC revoked URPHI's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public for its failure to submit its reportorial requirements within the final extension period.

    On December 9, 10, and 14, 2004, URPHI finally submitted to the SEC its 1st Quarterly Report for 2004, 2nd Quarterly Report for 2004, and 3rd Quarterly Report for 2004, respectively.

    Meantime, URPHI appealed the SEC Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004 by filing a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum both dated January 3, 2005.

    In a Resolution dated December 15, 2005, the SEC denied URPHI's appeal, thus:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Memorandum dated 03 January 2005 of Universal Rightfield Property Holdings, Inc. praying for the reversal of the Order of Revocation dated 08 December 2004 is DENIED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.8
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Aggrieved, URPHI filed a petition for review with the CA.

    In a Decision dated January 21, 2008, the CA granted the petition and set aside the SEC Order of Revocation after finding that URPHI was not afforded due process because no due notice was given and no hearing was conducted before its registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public was revoked. The CA noted that the hearing conducted on July 6, 2004 was only for the purpose of determining whether URPHI's registration and permit to sell should be suspended and not whether said registration should be revoked.

    The CA ruled that based on how Sections 5.1 (m)9 and 13.110 of the SRC are worded, suspension and revocation of URPHI's registration of securities each requires separate notices and hearings. It also held that the ruling11 in Globe Telecom, Inc. v. The National Telecommunications Commission12 (Globe Telecom, Inc.) applies squarely to this case since the Section 13.1 of the SRC itself provides that due notice and hearing are required before revocation may be ordered by the SEC. In view of such specific mandate of the SRC in cases of revocation, the CA rejected the SEC's argument that the hearing conducted for the suspension of URPHI's registration can already be considered as the hearing for revocation.

    The CA also held that the SEC cannot brush aside the specific mandate of Section 13.1 of the SRC by merely invoking the doctrine that administrative due process is satisfied when the party is given the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling taken. Citing Globe Telecom, Inc.13 the CA explained that while such doctrine remains valid and has been applied in numerous instances, it must give way in instances when the statute itself, such as Section 13.1, demands prior notice and hearing. It added that the imperativeness for a hearing in cases of revocation of registration of securities assumes greater significance, considering that revocation is a measure punitive in character undertaken by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.

    Dissatisfied with the CA Decision, the SEC filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, raising the sole issue that:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.14
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    On the one hand, the SEC contends that URPHI was accorded all the opportunity to be heard and comply with all the reportorial requirements before the Order of Revocation was issued.

    Specifically, in the Order dated July 27, 2004 suspending URPHI's registration of securities for 60 days, the SEC expressly warned that such registration would be revoked should it persistently fail to comply with the said requirements. Still, URPHI continuously failed to submit the required reports. On August 23, 2004, the SEC directed again URPHI to submit the required report and to show cause why it should not be held liable for violation of the law. Instead of submitting the required reports, URPHI requested for a final extension, or until November 15, 2004, within which to comply with its reportorial requirements. For URPHI's failure to submit the said reports, the SEC issued the Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004. URPHI immediately filed a motion for reconsideration thereof through a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum both dated January 3, 2005, which the SEC later denied in the Resolution dated December 15, 2005. Hence, URPHI was amply accorded its guaranteed right to due process.

    The SEC also submits that the factual milieu of Globe Telecom, Inc.15 cited by the CA in its Decision is starkly different from this case. Unlike in the former case where the Court ruled that the fine imposed by the National Telecommunications Commission without notice and hearing, was null and void due to the denial of petitioner's right to due process, the SEC points out that URPHI was duly notified of its violations and the corresponding penalty that may be imposed should it fail to submit the required reports, and was given more than enough time to comply before the Order of Revocation was issued. The SEC adds that a hearing was conducted on July 6, 2004 as to URPHI's repeated failure to submit the reportorial requirements as mandated by the SRC and its implementing rules and regulations, which was the basis in issuing the said Order.

    On the other hand, URPHI insists that the CA was correct in ruling that the SRC requires separate notices and hearings for revocation and suspension of registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public. It then asserts that the warning contained in the SEC's suspension Order dated July 27, 2004 does not meet the requirement of notice under the SRC. It stresses that while the SEC issued a separate notice of hearing for such suspension, no similar notice was issued as regards such revocation. It also notes that the July 6, 2004 hearing was with regard to the suspension of its registration of securities, and that no hearing was ever conducted for purposes of revocation of such registration.

    On the SEC's claim that URPHI was afforded due process because it was already given the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the Order of Revocation by filing its Notice of Appeal and Memorandum, URPHI argues that the filing of such appeal did not cure the violation of its right to due process. In support of its argument, URPHI cites the Globe Telecom, Inc.16 ruling that notice and hearing are indispensable when an administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial functions and that such requirements become even more imperative if the statute itself demands it.

    URPHI further cites the ruling17 in BLTB, Co. v. Cadiao, et al.,18 to support its view that a motion for reconsideration is curative of a defect in procedural due process only if a party is given sufficient opportunity to explain his side of the controversy. It claims that the controversy referred to is the underlying substantive controversy of which the procedural due process controversy is but an offshoot. Noting that the only issue raised in its appeal was procedural, i.e., whether it was denied prior notice and hearing under the SRC, URPHI contends that it cannot be said that by appealing to the SEC, it had the opportunity to explain its side on substantive controversy which pertains to its alleged violation of the SRC and failure to comply with the reportorial requirements that prompted the SEC to issue the Order of Revocation. Hence, such appeal cannot be considered curative of the defect in procedural due process which attended the issuance of the said Order.

    URPHI further submits that the prior revocation of its registration on May 29, 2003 did not cure the lack of due process which attended the revocation of its registration on December 8, 2004. Since the SEC deemed it proper to lift the prior revocation, such can no longer be used to sustain another revocation order, much less one issued without prior notice and hearing.

    Granted that it was accorded due process, URPHI asserts that the revocation of its registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public is inequitable under the circumstances. It calls attention to the severe and certain consequences of such revocation, i.e., termination of the public offering of its securities, return of payments received from purchasers thereof, and its delisting from the PSE, which will cause financial ruin and jeopardize its efforts to recover from its current financial distress. Claiming that it exerted best effort and exercised good faith in complying with the reportorial requirements, URPHI avers that the interest of the investing public will be better served if, instead of revoking its registration of securities, the SEC will merely impose penalties and allow it to continue as a going concern in the hope that it may later return to profitability.

    The petition is meritorious.

    There is no dispute that violation of the reportorial requirements under Section 17.119 of the Amended Implementing Rules and Regulation20 of the SRC is a ground for suspension or revocation of registration of securities pursuant to Sections 13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC. However, contrary to the CA ruling that separate notices and hearings for suspension and revocation of registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public are required, Sections 13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC expressly provide that the SEC may suspend or revoke such registration only after due notice and hearing, to wit:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    13.1. The Commission may reject a registration statement and refuse registration of the security thereunder, or revoke the effectivity of a registration statement and the registration of the security thereunder after due notice and hearing by issuing an order to such effect, setting forth its findings in respect thereto, if it finds that:

    a) The issuer:

    x x x x

    (ii) Has violated any of the provisions of this Code, the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, or any order of the Commission of which the issuer has notice in connection with the offering for which a registration statement has been filed;21ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    x x x x

    54.1. If, after due notice and hearing, the Commission finds that: (a) There is a violation of this Code, its rules, or its orders; (b) Any registered broker or dealer, associated person thereof has failed reasonably to supervise, with a view to preventing violations, another person subject to supervision who commits any such violation; (c) Any registrant or other person has, in a registration statement or in other reports, applications, accounts, records or documents required by law or rules to be filed with the Commission, made any untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading; or, in the case of an underwriter, has failed to conduct an inquiry with reasonable diligence to insure that a registration statement is accurate and complete in all material respects; or (d) Any person has refused to permit any lawful examinations into its affairs, it shall, in its discretion, and subject only to the limitations hereinafter prescribed, impose any or all of the following sanctions as may be appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances:

    (i) Suspension, or revocation of any registration for the offering of securities;22
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    The Court has consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.23 Any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on such motion.24 What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    In the present case, due notice of revocation was given to URPHI through the SEC Order dated July 27, 2004 which reads:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    Considering that the company is under rehabilitation, the request was granted and it was given a non-extendible period until May 31, 2004 within which to comply.

    Despite the extension[,] however, it failed to submit said reports. Hence, a hearing was held on July 6, 2004 wherein the company's representative, its Chief Accountant and a Researcher appeared. No sufficient reason or justification for the company's inability to comply with its reporting obligation was presented.

    In view thereof, the Commission[,] in its meeting held on July 22, 2004, resolved to SUSPEND the Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public issued to UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., in accordance with Section 54 of the Securities Regulation Code.

    This said Suspension shall be effective for sixty (60) days or until the reporting requirements are complied [with,] otherwise the Commission shall proceed with the revocation of the company's registration of securities.

    Let this Order be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines or on the Commission's web page.

    SO ORDERED.26
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Contrary to the view that a separate notice of hearing to revoke is necessary to initiate the revocation proceeding, the Court holds that such notice would be a superfluity since the Order dated July 27, 2004 already states that such proceeding shall ensue if URPHI would still fail to submit the reportorial requirements after the lapse of the 60-day suspension period. After all, “due notice” simply means the information that must be given or made to a particular person or to the public within a legally mandated period of time so that its recipient will have the opportunity to respond to a situation or to allegations that affect the individual’s or public’s legal rights or duties.27ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    Granted that no formal hearing was held before the issuance of the Order of Revocation, the Court finds that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process when URPHI was given opportunity to be heard. Upon receipt of the SEC Order dated July 27, 2004, URPHI filed the letters dated September 13 and 28, 2004, seeking a final extension to submit the reportorial requirements, and admitting that its failure to submit its 2nd Quarterly Report for 2004 was due to the same reasons that it was unable to submit its 2003 Annual Report and 1st Quarterly Report for 2004. Notably, in its Order of Revocation, the SEC considered URPHI's letters and stated that it still failed to submit the required reports, despite the lapse of the final extension requested.

    In A.Z. Arnaiz, Realty, Inc. v. Office of the President,28 the Court held that due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memoranda or oral arguments. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties. Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court rules that URPHI was afforded opportunity to be heard when the SEC took into account in its Order of Revocation URPHI's September 13 and 28, 2004 letters, explaining its failure to submit the reportorial requirements, as well as its request for final extension within which to comply. Pertinent portions of the said Order read:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    The Commission in its meeting held on July 22, 2004 resolved to suspend its Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public. The Order of Suspension stated that it was to be effective for sixty (60) days or until the reporting requirements were complied with by the company; otherwise, the Commission shall proceed with the revocation of the company's registration of securities.

    The sixty (60)-day period had elapsed on September 25, 2004 but the Commission received a letter on September 29, 2004 from the President of the company, Mr. Jose L. Merin. In the said letter, it was admitted that the corporation had failed to submit its 2003 Annual Report (SEC Form 17-A) and its 2004 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports (SEC Form 17-Q) but explained that the reason for its inability to submit said reports was due to the non-finalization of the company's audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. It further stated that during its meeting with its external auditor, SGV & Co., last September 8, 2004, SGV agreed to facilitate the finalization of its financial statements within two (2) weeks. The corporation foresaw the impossibility of complying with its submission until the end of the month as the partners of SGV were still reviewing the final draft of the financial statements, thus, the request for extension FOR THE LAST TIME until November 15, 2004 within which to comply.

    SEC Form 17-A (for 2003) was finally submitted on December 1, 2004.

    IN VIEW THEREOF, the Commission, in its meeting held on December 2, 2004, resolved to REVOKE the Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public issued to UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.29
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Aside from having been given the opportunity to be heard before the SEC issued the Order of Revocation, URPHI was likewise able to seek reconsideration of such action complained of. After the issuance of the said Order, URPHI filed a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum, asserting that it was issued without due notice and hearing, and that the revocation is inequitable under the circumstances. In the Resolution dated December 15, 2004, the SEC denied URPHI's appeal in this wise:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    In the instant case, URPHI was accorded due process when its Chief Financial Officer gave its side on the imputed violation and informed the Commission that it will not be able to submit its Annual Report (SEC Form 17-A) for the fiscal year ending on 31 December 2003 and requested for additional time to comply with the said requirements. The Commission granted URPHI a non-extendible period of forty-seven (47) calendar days or until 15 November 2004 within which to comply.

    In spite of the extension of time given, URPHI still failed to submit the said reports. During the 06 July 2004 hearing where the Chief Accountant and researcher of URPHI were present, both failed to present sufficient justifications for URPHI's inability to comply with its reporting obligations.

    It is also noteworthy to mention that URPHI's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public had been revoked on several occasions on account of the same deficiency. URPHI is aware of the SRC Rules and must suffer the consequences of its reported violations.30
    chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Verily, URPHI was given the opportunity to be heard before the Order of Revocation was issued, as well as the opportunity to seek the reconsideration of such order.

    Meanwhile, the Court disagrees with URPHI's claim that the Globe Telecom, Inc.31 ruling – that notice and hearing are indispensable when an administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial functions and that such requirements become even more imperative if the statute itself demands it – is applicable to the present case.

    In Gamboa v. Finance Secretary,32 the Court has held that the SEC has both regulatory and adjudicative functions, thus:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    Under its regulatory responsibilities, the SEC may pass upon applications for, or may suspend or revoke (after due notice and hearing), certificates of registration of corporations, partnerships and associations (excluding cooperatives, homeowners associations, and labor unions); compel legal and regulatory compliances; conduct inspections; and impose fines or other penalties for violations of the Revised Securities Act, as well as implementing rules and directives of the SEC, such as may be warranted.

    Relative to its adjudicative authority, the SEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies and cases involving –
    1. Intra-corporate and partnership relations between or among the corporation, officers and stockholders and partners, including their elections or appointments;

    2. State and corporate affairs in relation to the legal existence of corporations, partnerships and associations or to their franchises; and

    3. Investors and corporate affairs particularly in respect of devices and schemes, such as fraudulent practices, employed by directors, officers, business associates, and/or other stockholders, partners, or members of registered firms; x x x
    As can be gleaned from the aforequoted ruling, the revocation of registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public is not an exercise of the SEC's quasi-judicial power, but of its regulatory power. A "quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.33 Although Section 13.1 of the SRC requires due notice and hearing before issuing an order of revocation, the SEC does not perform such quasi-judicial functions and exercise discretion of a judicial nature in the exercise of such regulatory power. It neither settles actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, nor adjudicates private rights and obligations in cases of adversarial nature. Rather, when the SEC exercises its incidental power to conduct administrative hearings and make decisions, it does so in the course of the performance of its regulatory and law enforcement function.

    Significantly, unlike in Globe Telecom, Inc.34 where the Court ruled that the fine imposed by the NTC without notice and hearing, was null and void due to the denial of petitioner's right to due process, the revocation of URPHI's registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public cannot be considered a penalty but a withdrawal of a privilege, which regulatory power the SEC validly exercised after giving it due notice and opportunity to be heard.

    While URPHI correctly relied in BLTB Co., Inc. v. Cadiao35 to support its view that a motion for reconsideration is curative of a defect in procedural due process only if a party is given sufficient opportunity to explain his side of the controversy, the Court rejects URPHI's claim that it did not have the opportunity to explain the substantive controversy of its violation of the SRC reportorial requirements.36 Contrary to the claim that only the issue of procedural due process was raised in its appeal with the SEC, URPHI also raised in its Memorandum dated January 3, 2005 the reasons why it failed to comply with the said requirements, and why revocation is inequitable under the circumstances.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    For the late filing of annual report and quarterly report, SEC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 2005, the Consolidated Scale of Fines in effect at the time the offenses were committed, provides for the following administrative penalties:
    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
    SRC/IRR Provisions
    Description
    First Offense
    Second Offense
    Third Offense
    Section 17.1; SRC Rule 17.1
    Late Filing of Quarterly Report (SEC Form 17-Q)
    Reprimand/Warning
    P50,000.00 plus P300.00 per day of delay
    P60,000.00 plus P600.00 per day of delay
     
    Late Filing of Annual Report (SEC Form 17-A)
    Reprimand/Warning
    P100,000.00 plus P500.00 per day of delay
    P200,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per day of delay

    It bears emphasis that URPHI had committed several offenses for failure to comply with the reportorial requirements for which it was fined and its registration of securities revoked. On May 29, 2003, the SEC issued an Order revoking URPHI's Registration of Securities and Permit to Sell Securities to the Public for its failure to timely file its Year 2001 Annual Report and Year 2002 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Reports. Then, on October 24, 2003, the SEC granted URPHI's petition to lift the revocation, considering the current economic situation, its belated filing of the required annual and quarterly reports, and its payment of the reduced fine of P82,000.00. Despite the foregoing, URPHI failed again to submit its 2003 Annual Report, and Year 2004 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Reports within the requested extension periods.

    Therefore, notwithstanding the belated filing of the said reports, as well as the claim that public interest would be better served if the SEC will merely impose penalties and allow it to continue in order to become profitable again, the SEC cannot be faulted for revoking once again URPHI's registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public due to its repeated failure to timely submit such reports. Needless to state, such continuing reportorial requirements are pursuant to the state policies declared in Section 238 of the SRC of protecting investors and ensuring full and fair disclosure of information about securities and their issuer.

    All told, the CA erred in ruling that the SEC revoked URPHI's registration of securities and permit to sell them to the public without due process of law. Quite the contrary, the requirements of due notice and hearing under Sections 13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC were substantially complied with. Due notice was made through the Order dated July 27, 2004 stating that revocation proceeding shall ensue if URPHI would still fail to submit the reportorial requirements after the lapse of the 60-day suspension period. Though no formal hearing was held, URPHI was still given an opportunity to be heard through the letters dated September 13 and 18, 2004 before the Order of Revocation was issued, as well as through its Notice of Appeal and Memorandum when it moved to reconsider the said order.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated January 21, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93337, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the Resolution dated December 15, 2005 of the Securities and Exchange Commission and its Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004 are REINSTATED.

    SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

    Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Perez,* and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2112 dated July 16, 2015.

    1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, concurring; rollo, pp. 28-42.

    2Id. at 41-42. (Emphasis in the original)

    3 SEC. 17. Periodic and Other Reports of Issuers.

    17.1. Every issuer satisfying the requirements in Subsection 17.2 hereof shall file with the Commission:

    a) Within one hundred thirty-five (135) days, after the end of the issuer’s fiscal year, or such other time as the Commission may prescribe, an annual report which shall include, among others, a balance sheet, profit and loss statement and statement of cash flows, for such last fiscal year, certified by an independent certified public accountant, and a management discussion and analysis of results of operations; and

    b) Such other periodical reports for interim fiscal periods and current reports on significant developments of the issuer as the Commission may prescribe as necessary to keep current information on the operation of the business and financial condition of the issuer.

    4Id. at 49.

    5  1. Reporting and Public Companies

    The reportorial provisions of this paragraph shall apply to reporting and public companies, as defined under SRC Rule 3. However, the obligation of a company, which has sold a class of its securities pursuant to a registration under Section 12 of the Code shall be suspended for any fiscal year if as of the first day of any such fiscal year, it has less than one hundred (100) holders of such class of securities and the Commission is duly notified of the same. Such suspension shall only be availed of after the year of said registration becomes effective.

    A. Every issuer set forth in paragraph 1 hereof, shall file with the Commission:

    i. x x x

    ii. A quarterly report on SEC Form 17-Q, within forty-five (45) days after the end of each of the first three (3) quarters of each fiscal year. The first quarterly report of the issuer shall be filed either within forty-five (45) days after the effective date of the registration statement or on or before on which such report would have been required to be filed if the issuer had been required previously to file reports on SEC Form 17-Q, whichever is later.

    6Rollo, p. 53.

    7Id. at 54-55.

    8Id. at 47.

    9 5.1. The Commission shall act with transparency and shall have the powers and functions provided by this Code, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the Investment Houses Law, the Financing Company Act and other existing laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the following powers and functions:

    x x x x

    (m) Suspend, or revoke, after proper notice and hearing the franchise or certificate of registration of corporations, partnerships or associations, upon any of the grounds provided by law; and

    10 13.1. The Commission may reject a registration statement and refuse registration of the security thereunder, or revoke the effectivity of a registration statement and the registration of the security thereunder after due notice and hearing by issuing an order to such effect, setting forth its findings in respect thereto, if it finds that:

    a) The issuer:

    x x x x

    (ii) Has violated any of the provisions of this Code, the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, or any order of the Commission of which the issuer has notice in connection with the offering for which a registration statement has been filed;

    11 The necessity of notice and hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the circumstances involved. In so far as generalization is possible in view of the great variety of administrative proceedings, it may be stated as a general rule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing.

    12 479 Phil. 1, 39 (2004).

    13Id.

    14Rollo, p. 17.

    15Supra note 12.

    16Id.

    17 x x x There is then no occasion to impute deprivation of property without due process where the adverse party was heard on a motion for reconsideration constituting as it does sufficient opportunity for him to inform the Tribunal concerned of his side of the controversy. x x x

    18 131 Phil. 81, 88 (1968).

    19 2. Reporting and Public Companies

    The reportorial provisions of this paragraph shall apply to reporting and public companies, as defined under SRC Rule 3. However, the obligation of a company, which has sold a class of its securities pursuant to a registration under Section 12 of the Code shall be suspended for any fiscal year if as of the first day of any such fiscal year, it has less than one hundred (100) holders of such class of securities and the Commission is duly notified of the same. Such suspension shall only be availed of after the year said registration becomes effective.

    A. Every issuer set forth in paragraph 1 hereof, shall file with the Commission:

    i. An annual report on SEC Form 17-A for the fiscal year in which the registration statement was rendered effective by the Commission, and for each fiscal year thereafter, within one hundred five (105) days after the end of the fiscal year.

    ii. A quarterly report on SEC Form 17-Q, within forty-five (45) days after the end of each of the first three quarters (3) of each fiscal year. The first quarterly report of the issuer shall be filed either within forty-five (45) days after the effective date of the registration statement or on or before the date on which such report would have been required to be filed if the issuer had been required previously to file reports on SEC Form 17-Q, whichever is later.

    x x x

    20Amended IRR published on February 13, 2004.

    21Emphasis added.

    22Id. (Emphasis added

    23A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., v. Office of the President, 638 Phil 481, 491 (2010), citing Zacarias v. National Police Commission, 460 Phil. 555, 563 (2003); Stayfast Philippines Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81480, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 596; Villareal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97505, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 293; and Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. v. Torres, G.R. No. 98050, March 17, 1994, 231 SCRA 335.

    24A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., v. Office of the President, supra.

    25Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, October 22, 2012, 684 SCRA 297, 305.

    26Rollo, pp. 50-51. (Emphasis ours)

    27 Due Notice. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed. (2008). Retrieved July 22, 2015 from http://legal.dictionary.the freedictionary.com/DueNotice.

    28Supra note 23, citing Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman, 623 Phil. 764, 778 (2009); and Marcelo v. Bungubung, 575 Phil. 538, 553 (2008).

    29Rollo, pp. 54-55. (Emphasis in the original)

    30Id. at 47.

    31Supra note 12.

    32 668 Phil. 1, 67 (2011), citing Securities and Exchange Commission v. Court of Appeals, et al., 316 Phil. 903, 907 (1995). (Emphasis added)

    33United Coconut Planters Bank v. E Ganzon, Inc., 609 Phil. 104, 122 (2009).

    34Supra note 12.

    35Supra note 18.

    36Rollo, p. 145

    37Id. at 68-71.

    38 SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policy. – The State shall establish a socially conscious, free market that regulates itself, encourage the widest participation of ownership in enterprises, enhance the democratization of wealth, promote the development of the capital market, protect investors, ensure full and fair disclosure about securities, minimize if not totally eliminate insider trading and other fraudulent or manipulative devices and practices which create distortions in the free market.

    To achieve these ends, this Securities Regulation Code is hereby enacted.cralawred

    G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, 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