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. 204738, July 29, 2015 - GLENDA RODRIGUEZ-ANGAT, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent.

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

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 204738, July 29, 2015

    GLENDA RODRIGUEZ-ANGAT, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

    At bar is a petition1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 31, 2012 and its Resolution3 dated December 4, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116748 which reversed and set aside the Resolutions4 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and affirmed the Decision5 of respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) dated September 23, 2009 finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct with the penalty of dismissal from the service with the attendant accessory penalties.

    Petitioner Glenda Rodriguez-Angat was a former employee of the GSIS holding the position of Acting Senior Social Insurance Specialist detailed at the then Loans Department of the then Social Insurance Group.  Petitioner was assigned a personal IP address with a Terminal ID to enable her to perform her functions and access GSIS databases.6  Respondent GSIS is a government owned and controlled corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended.

    Respondent charged petitioner with Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations consequent to the following antecedent facts:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

    The case stemmed from the audit conducted by the Internal Audit Services Group (IASG) from 27 to 28 January, 2006 of salary loans with outstanding balances but tagged as fully paid in the central office.  One of the cases uncovered was that of Ms. Sy, of the Manila Health Department, with CM No. 215839, who retired from government service on 26 April 2003.  Apparently, the gross amount of her loan was [P]135,608.00 but the posted payments were only [P]56,301.00 at the time the same was tagged in the database as fully paid.  Based on the Certification issued by the Information Technology Services Group (ITSG) dated 20 July 2006, signed by Managers Ethelda A. Antonio of the Systems Administration Department (SADMD) and Eduardo B. Naraval, Network and Telecom Department (NTD), the Terminal ID used in the tagging of the salary loan of Ms. Sy as fully paid was A7C4 which belonged to respondent Angat.7

    In a Show Cause Memorandum8 dated February 20, 2007, respondent required petitioner to explain her participation in the erroneous tagging of the loan of Sy.   Petitioner replied via a verified memorandum dated February 28, 2007 with the GSIS Investigation Department where she denied any participation in the erroneous tagging of the salary loan and claimed that she was never assigned to the Loans Division which was responsible for the tagging of the loan accounts as “fully paid”.9   Petitioner further claimed that even if the tagging was done using her terminal, such fact alone does not necessarily prove that it was she herself who personally committed the erroneous tagging.

    Respondent was not persuaded by petitioner’s explanation and filed against the latter Administrative Case No. 07-010 on July 26, 2007 for Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations with the following material allegations, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x x
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    On November 17, 2003, Respondent used, or allowed others to use, her terminal with terminal ID A7C4 to tag as fully paid the salary loan of Mercy M. Sy using the operator code VPAO which belonged to Ms. Vicenta P. Abelgas.

    The full payment tagging was erroneous as the salary loan amount was Php135,608.00, whereas the posted payments as of the date of tagging only amounted to Php56,301.00.

    The use of Respondent’s computer terminal in such erroneous tagging is prohibited under SVP Order No. 02-99, which imposes upon computer terminal owners the duty to take extra care and measure in protecting their terminals from distortion, tampering or unauthorized use by anyone.

    WHEREFORE, Respondent is hereby directed to submit two (2) copies of her written answer under oath to the charge against her within five (5) working days from receipt hereof and to present whatever evidence she may so desire in support of her defense. x x x10

    In an Answer11 dated August 8, 2007, petitioner denied all the allegations hurled against her.  She maintained that she did not use nor allowed others to use her computer terminal to tag as fully paid the salary loan of Sy.  She further pointed out that “[a]s the Formal Charge admits, the tagging was made using the operator code VPAO belonging to MS. VICENTA P. ABELGAS and not to her.”12  Petitioner also claimed that the terminal with ID A7C4 which was used to tag as fully paid the salary loan of Sy did not belong to her.  She showed an Official Memorandum dated November 25, 2003 to prove that her terminal ID was A7BN and not A7C4.  She also posited that the erroneous tagging could have been due to a computer system error or to procedural lapses in the claims transactions of Sy.

    The pre-hearing conference and formal investigation of the case ensued.  After the proceedings, respondent issued its assailed Decision13 dated September 23, 2009 finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and meting upon her the penalty of dismissal with the attendant accessory penalties.  Respondent ruled, among others, that petitioner was unable to refute “the ITSG Certification showing that she is the owner of the computer terminal with ID ‘A7C4’”14 and which ownership carried with it the presumption of control over its usage.  The assailed September 23, 2009 Decision held, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    The respondent’s postulation, that the tagging is attributable to computer error or to procedural lapses of the claims processor cannot be given credence as it is bereft of any supporting evidence. It is axiomatic that a party has the burden of proof to establish his claim or defense. While the prosecution satisfactorily discharged its burden of proving that full payment tagging was done using the respondent’s computer terminal as shown by the ITSG Certification, the respondent failed to prove that such transaction was due to technical glitches only and that it was not deliberately done by herself or any other individual.

    The evidence presented by the respondent to prove her claim that terminal ID “A7C4” has not been assigned to her is inconclusive at best. Ms. Garcia, her own witness, testified that she did not know if the respondent was assigned terminal IDs other than “A7BN”. x x x [R]espondent has failed to discharge her burden of submitting sufficient evidence to refute the ITSG Certification showing that she is the owner of the computer terminal with ID “A7C4”.

    x x x x

    Under [SVP Order No. 02-99], the computer terminal owner carries the greater accountability as the presumed author of any transaction done on his or her terminal even assuming, for arguments’ sake, there is sharing of both the USER ID and computer terminal.  Office Order No. 2-99 creates a presumption of control by the owners over their respective USER IDs and computer terminals. Practically, however, a USER ID is useless without a computer terminal. Conversely, anybody who has complete access to a computer terminal can use the same for any transaction using his or her own USER ID or somebody else’s. Thus, where a USER ID is used on another person’s computer terminal, it behooves the computer terminal owner to prove lack of complicity with the owner of the USER ID, or lack of opportunity to perform the subject transaction.

    There is no showing that there was no way for the respondent to perform the unlawful and fraudulent full payment tagging using her computer terminal. That Ms. Abelgas has been identified as the owner of USER ID “VPAO” does not necessarily mean that the respondent had no involvement in the performance of the subject transaction. Her ownership of the computer terminal carries with it the presumption of control. x x x Indeed, there is nothing in the evidence presented that would support, or tend to support, a conclusion that the respondent had no control over her computer terminal or opportunity to commit the irregularity.

    x x x The respondent failed not only in proving that somebody else, aside from herself, used her computer terminal for the purpose of authoring a crime, she also failed to prove that she could not have authored the said crime.

    Verily, that the respondent used her computer terminal for the unwarranted and fraudulent tagging, despite being aware of its repercussions on the processing of the member’s claims and benefits is a clear manifestation of her mal-intent, more than just an unhealthy regard for her duty and responsibility to protect her computer terminal from all forms of unauthorized use.  She is, therefore, liable for Grave Misconduct, and not just for Simple Neglect of Duty or Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.15

    The GSIS justified its finding of Grave Misconduct notwithstanding the fact that a lesser charge of Simple Neglect of Duty and/or Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations was formally charged.   The GSIS held that its ruling is legally plausible since there is enough evidence to prove that the acts of herein petitioner constituted Grave Misconduct.   The GSIS further asserted that it is the court that decides the designation of a crime after it has studied the facts, and that charges in an administrative proceeding need not be as precise as those in a criminal prosecution.  The GSIS thus ruled, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, respondent Glenda Rodriguez-Angat is hereby found guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal with all the attendant accessory penalties.16

    Petitioner appealed the GSIS Decision to the CSC raising the following issues: whether she may be held liable for Grave Misconduct; and, whether there is substantial evidence to find her guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.17redarclaw

    On May 4, 2010, the CSC issued Resolution No. 10089618 granting petitioner’s appeal, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the appeal of Glenda Rodriguez-Angat, Acting Senior Social Insurance Specialist, Loans Department, Social Insurance Group, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 23, 2009 of GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia, finding Rodriguez-Angat guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the attendant accessory penalties, is SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Glenda Rodriguez-Angat is REINSTATED to her former position and shall be paid her back salaries and other benefits corresponding to the period of her illegal termination.19

    The CSC explained that petitioner may not be held liable for Grave Misconduct, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x  Pertinent is the case of People vs. Ramos (296 SCRA 559) where the Supreme Court ruled, as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    “An accused person cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right.”20

    The CSC further ratiocinated in its Resolution, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    In the instant case, Rodriguez-Angat was formally charged with Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, which under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) are only less grave and light offenses, respectively.  Hence, applying the abovementioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court, Rodriguez-Angat cannot be held guilty of the higher or grave offense of Grave Misconduct. To do so would constitute a denial of her right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which she was charged.

    As regards the issue of whether substantial evidence exists to find Rodriguez-Angat guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, the Commission likewise rules in the negative.  Records show that the GSIS failed to sufficiently prove that Rodriguez-Angat did the tagging of the salary loan account of Mercy M. Sy of the Manila Health Department as fully paid despite its outstanding balance or that she allowed others to use her computer terminal in the performance of such act.  What was merely established is that the loan account of Sy was tagged as fully paid using Terminal ID A7C4 which allegedly belonged to Rodriguez-Angat.  The GSIS, however, failed to present any evidence to prove that, indeed, Terminal ID A7C4 belongs to Rodriguez-Angat.   At this juncture, it is worth stressing that a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.  (Dela Cruz vs. Sison, 451 SCRA 754), and that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence – mere allegation is not evidence (Ramoran vs. Jardine CMG Life Insurance Co., Inc., 326 SCRA 208).21

    Respondent moved for reconsideration22 of CSC Resolution No. 100896.  On October 6, 2010, the CSC issued Resolution No. 100016723 denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration for failure to present new evidence to warrant a reversal or modification of its earlier Resolution, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, CSC Resolution No. 10-0896 dated May 4, 2010 STANDS.24

    Respondent sought the reversal of the questioned CSC Resolutions before the CA via petition for review25 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.  The CA petition raised two issues: whether the CSC erred in applying the 1998 case of People v. Ramos26 in reversing the finding of respondent that petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct; and, whether the IASG’s Audit Report and the ITSG’s Certification constitute substantial evidence which petitioner failed to rebut with relevant evidence.

    In its assailed Decision27 promulgated on May 31, 2012, the CA reversed and set aside both questioned CSC Resolutions and affirmed the GSIS Decision, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the GSIS Decision dated September 23, 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.28

    The appellate court disagreed with petitioner that the application of the case of People v. Ramos deprived her of the right to be informed of the nature of the charge against her.  It ruled that petitioner was sufficiently informed of the basis of the charges against her and held that the designation of an offense in an administrative proceeding is not controlling and the person charged may be found guilty of another offense if the substance of the allegations and the evidence presented are sufficient to prove one’s guilt.29  The CA further explained, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    A reading of the formal charge against her reveals that Angat had allegedly used or allowed the use of her terminal in fraudulently tagging the salary loan of Mercy Sy as fully paid when it still had an outstanding balance. Clearly then, Angat was sufficiently informed of the basis of the charge against her. Angat’s constitutional right to be informed of the charge against her was therefore not violated. And the failure to designate the offense specifically and with precision is of no moment in this administrative case.30

    The CA thus concluded, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x [T]hat the respondent used her computer terminal for the unwarranted and fraudulent tagging, despite being aware of its repercussions on the processing of the member’s claim and benefits is a clear manifestation of her mal-intent, more than just an unhealthy regard for her duty and responsibility to protect her computer terminal from all forms of unauthorized use.  She is, therefore, liable for Grave Misconduct and not just for Simple Neglect of Duty or Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.31

    As to the issue on whether respondent was able to present substantial evidence to prove the guilt of petitioner, the CA ruled that “the prosecution overwhelmingly established that terminal ID A7C4 belonged to Angat.”32   It based its conclusion on a certified copy of a Certification issued by the ITSG showing that terminal ID A7C4 was used in the fraudulent tagging; on the testimonies of the employee who maintains the record of terminal IDs and IP addresses issued by the ITSG; and on the testimony of the witness who testified that he himself assigned the IP address with terminal ID A7C4 to petitioner.33  The CA ruled that petitioner on her part failed to disprove that terminal ID A7C4 belonged to her – a fact which was substantially established by respondent. In sum, the appellate court found that the submissions of respondent were sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioner in an administrative proceeding, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    At this point, We must stress that as an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar against which the evidence at hand is measured is not the highest quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral certainty to support affirmative findings.  Instead, the lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies.  Because administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support the conclusion that acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed (or have not been performed), reasonable doubt does not ipso facto result in exoneration unlike in criminal proceedings where guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This hornbook doctrinal distinction undergirds our parallel findings of administrative liability and criminal acquittal on reasonable doubt for charges arising from the same facts.34

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration35 of the appellate court’s Decision, but the motion was denied in a Resolution36 dated December 4, 2012 due to the lack of new matters to warrant a modification of the assailed Decision.  Hence, this appeal raising the following issues for our consideration:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    1. Did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction over the appeal/petition of GSIS?

    2. Does the evidence presented warrant the conviction of Angat?

    3. assuming that the evidence presented warrant the conviction of Angat, is it lawful to convict her of a higher or graver offense of Grave Misconduct and impose upon her the penalty of Dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties?37

    We first rule on the issue of jurisdiction.

    Petitioner contends that the CA did not acquire appellate jurisdiction due to the belated filing by respondent of its appeal to the CSC Resolutions.  According to petitioner, records show that respondent received its copy of the October 6, 2010 CSC Resolution on October 22, 2010 as evidenced by a Certification issued by the Pasay City Central Post Office – contrary to the allegation of respondent that it received the same only on October 27, 2010.  Following this argument, petitioner reckons the 15-day period to appeal38 from October 22, 2010 and claims that respondent had only up to November 8, 2010 within which to appeal the CSC Resolutions to the CA.   Thus, when respondent filed its petition for review before the appellate court on November 11, 2010 – or three (3) days after the expiration of the period to appeal – the CSC Resolutions have already become final and not appealable.

    We disagree with petitioner and affirm the timeliness of the appeal before the appellate court.

    The confusion brought about by the two (2) dates of receipt – October 22, 2010 and October 27, 2010 – by the Pasay City Central Post Office is settled by the presentation of the envelope with the front portion thereof bearing the date “October 27, 2010” when it was stamped “Received” by the General Services Department of the GSIS.  This was corroborated by a Certification39 dated February 23, 2011 issued by Postmaster IV Lita L. Villaseñor of the Pasay City Central Post Office and attested to by Letter Carrier Jamel Musa (Musa) who delivered the envelope.  Petitioner’s argument that the date of receipt should be reckoned on October 22, 2010 based on a Certification40 dated February 8, 2011 issued by Mary S. Asto of the Pasay Central Post Office cannot prevail over the strength of the testimony of Musa who personally hand-delivered the envelope to respondent and whose testimony was corroborated by the presentation of the dispatch document by the Postmaster.

    We agree with respondent that this issue had been indubitably proven by the following documentary evidence, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    1. The stamp on the face of the envelope containing the assailed resolution of the CSC, the original of which had been duly submitted before the Honorable CA, which clearly reflects that GSIS received the same on 27 October 2010. x x x

    2. The original receipt-stamp x x x by the GSIS General Services Department, also states that Registered Mail No. 07984 was duly received by the GSIS on 27 October 2010;chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    3. In a verification made by the GSIS Investigation Department with the Pasay City Central Post Office, it was revealed that the transmittal slip or “bill of particulars” that included Registered Mail No. 07984 had two dates of receipt bearing the Pasay City Central Post Office’s stamp: one is dated 22 October 2010, the other one is dated 27 October 2010 x x x.  However, Postmaster IV [Lita L. Villaseñor] of the Pasay Central Post Office issued a Certification x x x clarifying this matter and explaining that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

      ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
      This is to certify that as per records of this Office, Registered [Mail] # 07984, posted on October 20, 2010 at Batasang Post Office Quezon City addressed to Atty. Carmel F. Quintos and Atty. Ana Zita B. Abuda of GSIS Financial Center, was received and delivered by LC Jamel Musa on October 27, 2010, see attached copy dispatched, in contradiction to the certification issued on Feb. 8, 2011 the given date was October 22, 2010.41

    We shall discuss the second and third issues jointly.

    Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule where a finding of guilt would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent committed acts stated in the complaint.  Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.   The standard of substantial evidence is met when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant,42 and respondent’s participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.43redarclaw

    In the case at bar, petitioner was formally charged with Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.44   It is censurable under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Respondent, however, found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the attendant accessory penalties.  To be classified as grave, one’s misconduct must show the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules.45redarclaw

    Petitioner questions whether the evidence adduced by respondent is sufficient to establish her guilt and supports the imposed penalty of dismissal from the service.   The following facts were indubitably proven in the case at bar – giving us such reasonable ground to believe that petitioner is guilty of the acts alleged in the Formal Charge under GSIS Adm Case No. 07-010 dated July 26, 2007, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    One. The full payment tagging was erroneous.  Melissa Prado, a member of the audit team that discovered the wrongful full payment tagging, verified and authenticated the audit report which stated that Sy’s salary loan was erroneously tagged as fully paid even if she had an outstanding balance.

    Two. The erroneous full payment tagging was done using petitioner’s computer terminal with ID A7C4.  Joseph Sta. Romana (Sta. Romana), tasked of maintaining the record of terminal IDs and IP addresses issued by the ITSG, testified that it was his section which assigned the IDs and addresses, including terminal “A7C4” to petitioner.   Sta. Romana further testified that he himself assigned the IP address with Terminal ID “A7C4” to petitioner, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Q: 
    So in this Certification pertaining to Item No. 25, Glenda Rodriguez, you were also not told if this is actually the IP address of Glenda Rodriguez, as you have mentioned?
    A: 
    No, it’s just like this. When that office Manila District was formed, we were the ones who gave those IP assignments, bagong office kasi iyan eh.
    Q: 
    Were you the one who gave Ms. Glena Rodriguez this[?]
    A: 
    Yes.
    Q: 
    Aside from this Certification, do you still have any document stating that that particular IP address was assigned to Ms. Glenda Rodriguez-Angat?
    A: 
    Well hindi na kami na-update after that ma-open iyang office na iyon kung me mga movements.
    Q: 
    So you do know if this IP address really belongs to Ms. Glenda Rodriguez-Angat?
    A: 
    Originally, as per my record.
    Q: 
    But you don’t know if there are movements already?
    A: 
    Yes. Iyong movements ng tao[,] hindi kami na-u-update.
    Q: 
    So what does your office do if your office is not being [updated] with [regard] to the movements of the employees?
    A: 
    Well[,] marami pa kaming ibang jobs.
    Q: 
    So you do not do anything with [regard] to have your office being updated with [regard] to the movement of employees?
    A: 
    Kung ini-informed kami[,] i-u-update namin iyong records.
    Q: 
    But if you are not informed[,] you will not do anything?
    A: 
    Wala kaming magagawa.46

    Petitioner challenges the testimony of Sta. Romana for being inaccurate because of the latter’s statement that the ITSG has not updated its records.   She, however, failed to rebut Sta. Romana’s testimony that the IP address and the Terminal ID that were used in the erroneous tagging belonged to her.

    Three. The erroneous full payment tagging on petitioner’s terminal ID was committed using a User ID – VPAO – which belongs to another person, Vicenta P. Abelgas.   This sharing of computer User IDs and Terminal IDs is expressly prohibited under an office regulation, SVP Order No. 02-99, which was existing and in force at the time the erroneous tagging was committed.  SVP Order No. 02-99 specifically states that “[f]ull confidentiality shall be observed by the personnel in the use of his/her USER ID and PASSWORD ensuring that, even under any circumstances, borrowing thereof shall never be allowed.”47   Thus, when another User ID was used to access petitioner’s own terminal, an act expressly prohibited under SVP Order No. 02-99, petitioner committed a Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations as alleged in the Formal Charge.  Petitioner proffered the following explanation that a terminal user did not have full control over one’s assigned personal computer during the period that the erroneous tagging was committed.  It fails to convince us, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    During this period, access to the network was difficult because of the slow network connection such that selected personnel of the District Office [were] recalled to the Head Office in September 2003.  This was done to facilitate transactions and to speed up the delivery of services to members. Employees and their respective workstations were constantly moved such that terminals were not functioning or else were not connected to the Mainframe network.

    To remedy the situation, and in the best interest of service, it became necessary to allow the use of the personal computer (PC) with network connection by another personnel with or without the knowledge or consent of the personnel to [whom] the same was assigned. However, while another personnel was allowed the use of the PC, the User ID of the borrowing personnel was used to access the database.

    Thus, while the questioned transaction of the erroneous tagging of the salary loan account of Ms. Sy may have happened on the terminal of the undersigned, she was not the one who processed the transaction. As may be clearly gleaned from Schedule A of the Report of IASG, it was not the User ID of the undersigned which was used to access the database and process the transaction in question.


    Not being in full control of the use of her computer given the situation obtaining at the time the transaction in question was processed, and the indubitable fact that it was not the undersigned who processed the same since it was not her User ID which appeared in the log files extracted by ITSG, undersigned is without doubt free of any involvement or participation, directly or indirectly, in the erroneous tagging of the salary loan account of Ms. Mercy M. Sy.48

    The foregoing explanation of petitioner regarding the supposed office practice is bare, unsubstantiated and does not change the fact that as early as 1999, SVP Order No. 02-99 has expressly prohibited the sharing of computer terminals.  The other defense of petitioner that she could not have been responsible for the erroneous tagging because she belonged to another group and therefore was not part of the Loans Division also fails to persuade us.   To be sure, petitioner was not able to show how this factor could have prevented, or rendered impossible, the commission of the erroneous tagging using her terminal ID.   Lastly, petitioner could not escape liability due to an alleged computer system error which she was unable to sufficiently explain or corroborate with convincing evidence.

    Nonetheless, despite our ruling that petitioner is guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations as alleged in the Formal Charge, we disagree with the finding of the appellate court and the respondent that she should be held liable for Grave Misconduct.  Jurisprudence is replete with cases stating that misconduct shall be considered grave only in cases where the elements of “corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules [are proven] by substantial evidence.”49  The case of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo is instructive, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to procure some benefit for herself or for another, at the expense of the rights of others.  Nonetheless, “a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct.”50

    In the case at bar, respondent was not able to adduce substantial evidence to prove the elements constitutive of Grave Misconduct. Respondent failed to discharge its burden to show clear and convincing evidence that the erroneous full payment tagging was done due to corruption, willful intent to violate the law or persistent disregard of well-known legal rules on the part of petitioner.  Instead, respondent simply ratiocinated and concluded its finding of Grave Misconduct on petitioner using her terminal for the erroneous full payment tagging despite her awareness of its repercussions as “a clear manifestation of her mal-intent,” viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Verily, that the respondent used her computer terminal for the unwarranted and fraudulent tagging, despite being aware of its repercussions on the processing of the member’s claims and benefits is a clear manifestation of her mal-intent, more than just an unhealthy regard for her duty and responsibility to protect her computer terminal from all forms of unauthorized use. She is, therefore, liable for Grave Misconduct, and not just for Simple Neglect of Duty or Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.51

    That is not all.  Respondent, instead of discharging its burden to present substantial evidence to prove that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct, shifted the burden on petitioner herself to prove that she is not part of a fraudulent scheme that led to the unwarranted full payment tagging.  Respondent states in its assailed decision, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x Office Order No. 2-99 creates a presumption of control by the owners over their respective USER IDs and computer terminals. Practically, however, a USER ID is useless without a computer terminal. Conversely, anybody who has complete access to a computer terminal can use the same for any transaction using his or her own USER ID or somebody else’s. Thus, where a USER ID is used on another person’s computer terminal, it behooves the computer terminal owner to prove lack of complicity with the owner of the USER ID, or lack of opportunity to perform the subject transaction.52

    Hence, when petitioner was not able to prove her “lack of complicity with the owner of the USER ID, or lack of opportunity to perform the subject transaction,”53 respondent concluded, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    There is no showing that there was no way for the respondent to perform the unlawful and fraudulent full payment tagging using her computer terminal. x x x Indeed, there is nothing in the evidence presented that would support, or tend to support, a conclusion that the respondent had no control over her computer terminal or opportunity to commit the irregularity.

    x x x The respondent failed not only in proving that somebody else, aside from herself, used her computer terminal for the purpose of authoring a crime, she also failed to prove that she could not have authored the said crime.54

    Petitioner in the instant case could not be held guilty of an administrative offense for failure to prove that she is innocent.  It is a basic principle in administrative proceedings that the burden of proof to establish the guilt or culpability of the party being accused is on the party making the accusation.   Otherwise, the party making the accusation would be allowed to shift the burden of proof on the person accused to prove his or her own innocence.

    In the recent case of Government Service Insurance System v. Chua,55 an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service was filed by the GSIS against therein respondent for false alteration.  Respondent allegedly “padded” the salary updates of two applicants which enabled them to receive salary loans in excess of what they were eligible to borrow.  Respondent claimed good faith and lack of knowledge of any of the fraudulent scheme.  The GSIS found respondent liable on the ground that the fraudulent scheme could not have been perpetrated without respondent’s participation as terminal operator.  The GSIS stated that respondent’s act of encoding false information in a computer terminal to which she had sole access, and the haste in the grant and release of the loan applications, were sufficient evidence of her concerted participation in the fraudulent scheme to defraud the GSIS.  The CA downgraded respondent’s offense to simple misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of reasonable office rules.  On appeal, this Court ruled that the GSIS failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove that respondent was part of the fraudulent scheme.  We found that it is not sufficient to hold respondent administratively liable on the mere fact that she alone – being the owner of the computer terminal used and having access to the operator’s code to effect the alteration – could have done the encoding of the false salary updates.   We further explained, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x As the records show, the respondent did not deny that she might have made the false salary updates. What she contests is the sufficing circumstance as substantial evidence to support her participation in the fraudulent scheme against the GSIS.

    The records also disclose that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    First. The records do not contain any proof that the respondent’s encoding of false salary updates was intentional and had been made in bad faith.  We note that the GSIS failed to adduce evidence that the respondent’s work in making updates in the GSIS’ records was more than “clerical.” x x x

    Second.  There is no basis to support the GSIS’ and the CSC’s conclusions that there had been “close coordination” between the respondent and the other perpetrators; there was no evidence to establish a causal link between the fact of encoding (which was part of the respondent’s regular assigned task) and the haste in the grant and release of salary loans (which were done in the Manila District Office).

    Notably, the GSIS failed to show proof that she was actually a part of the fraudulent scheme. The records show that all the documents supplied to the respondent were prepared and executed at the Manila District Office and submitted to her by the applicants. The evidence does not show that she had a hand in the preparation of these documents. Neither is there evidence that she knew the employees working in the Manila District Office or the applicants. In fact, the records show that the liaison officer of the Philippine Postal Corporation, who was found to have been part of the anomalous transactions, barely knew the respondent. The records also show that, prior to this administrative complaint, the respondent was among the top employees in the Pasig District Office in her six (6) years of service and had not been involved in any anomalous transaction. Incidentally, no evidence was adduced establishing that the respondent derived any form of benefit in performing the acts complained of.

    x x x The respondent admitted that she failed to follow SVP Order No. 02-99 and by allowing other individuals to use her computer terminal and the operator’s code despite her knowledge of the prohibition under the rules. In addition, considering the nature of her work, she should have been more circumspect in observing the GSIS rules to ensure the integrity of the information found in its database. Lastly, the element of corruption by the respondent in violating SVP Order No. 02-99 and in encoding false salary updates was not proven. “Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.” All these, taken together, only amount to simple misconduct.56

    Prescinding from the foregoing, we cannot sustain the ruling of the GSIS and the CA that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct due to utter lack of evidence.

    While we find petitioner guilty of committing Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, we cannot hold her guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty as stated in the Formal Charge.  Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give his or her attention to a task expected of him.  It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.57  In the case of Escobar vda. de Lopez v. Luna,58  we enumerated the following acts to constitute simple neglect of duty, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Thus, in Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, we found respondent clerk of court guilty of simple neglect of duty for causing the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution and suspended him from office for one (1) month and one (1) day. In Alvarez v. Martin, we found a sheriff guilty of “failure/refusal to perform official duty” for failing to implement a writ of execution and suspended him for three (3) months without pay. In another case, we found the same sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement writs of execution in several civil cases and imposed against him a fine of P10,000.00.

    In the case at bar, the erroneous full payment tagging done on petitioner’s computer terminal using her Terminal ID and IP address does not qualify as Simple Neglect of Duty.   Nonetheless, these facts constitute a clear violation of SVP Order No. 02-99 resulting in Simple Misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.59  Petitioner’s violation of SVP Order No. 02-99 and respondent’s failure to prove the elements to qualify petitioner’s acts as grave, warrant our finding that petitioner is guilty of Simple Misconduct.  Corollary to this ruling, it is now moot to discuss the third issue raised by petitioner on whether she could be held liable of a higher or graver offense of Grave Misconduct.

    Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Uniform Rules), Simple Misconduct is classified as a less grave offense with the corresponding penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, while violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is classified as a light offense imposing the penalty of reprimand for the first offense.

    For the imposition of the proper penalty, Section 55, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules provides, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Section 55. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.

    Following Section 55, petitioner should be imposed a penalty ranging from suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.  In view of the presence of one aggravating circumstance due to petitioner committing Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, we deem it appropriate to impose the maximum penalty of suspension for six (6) months.   This is also the appropriate penalty under Section 49 (c) of the new Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service as promulgated on November 8, 2011, stating that “[t]he maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.”

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED.  The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116748 dated May 31, 2012 and December 4, 2012, respectively, are hereby MODIFIED.   Petitioner Glenda Rodriguez-Angat is found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and is ordered SUSPENDED for SIX (6) MONTHS.  She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

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

    Endnotes:


    * Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.

    1 Rollo, pp. 10-34.

    2 Id. at 39-52.  Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta concurring.

    3 Id. at 54-55.

    4 Id. at 81-87, 89-92.

    5 Id. at 68-79.

    6 Id. at 40, 68.

    7 Id. at 69.  Emphasis supplied.

    8 CA rollo, p. 72.

    9Rollo, p. 41.

    10 CA rollo, pp. 77-78.  Italics and emphasis in the original.

    11 Id. at 87-89.

    12 Id. at 87.

    13 Supra note 5.

    14 Id. at 74.

    15 Id. at 73-77. Citations omitted.

    16 Id. at 79.

    17 Id. at 84; CA rollo, p. 191.

    18 Supra note 4, at 81-87.

    19 Id. at 87. Emphasis in the original.

    20 Id. at 85. Italics and emphasis in the original.

    21 Id.  Additional emphasis supplied.

    22 CA rollo, pp. 244-258.

    23 Supra note 4, at 89-92.

    24 Id. at 92.  Emphasis in the original.

    25 CA rollo, pp. 4-46.

    26 357 Phil. 559 (1998).

    27 Supra note 2.

    28 Id. at 51.  Emphasis in the original.

    29 Id. at 46.

    30 Id.

    31 Id. at 47. Emphasis supplied.

    32 Id. at 49.

    33 Id.

    34 Id. at 50-51.  Italics in the original.

    35 Id. at 93-105.

    36 Supra note 3.

    37 Id. at 15.

    38 Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

    39 CA rollo, p. 317.

    40Rollo, p. 106.

    41 Id. at 279.  Emphasis omitted.

    42Menor v. Guillermo, 595 Phil. 10, 15 (2008). Citations omitted.

    43Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 667, 680.  Citations omitted.

    44Villanueva-Fabella v. Lee, 464 Phil. 548, 570-571 (2004).

    45Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr., 570 Phil. 464, 473 (2008), citing Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 432, 442 (2006) and Civil Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 490-491 (1999).

    46 TSN (Joseph Sta. Romana), October 30, 2007, pp. 7-9; rollo, pp. 144-146.

    47 CA rollo, p. 264. Emphasis supplied.

    48 Id. at 75-76.  Emphasis supplied.

    49Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, supra note 43, at 683.  Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.

    50 Id. at 683-684. Citations omitted.

    51Rollo, pp. 76-77.  Emphasis supplied.

    52 Id. at 75.  Emphasis supplied.

    53 Id.

    54 Id. at 75-76.  Emphasis supplied.

    55 G.R. No. 202914, September 26, 2012, 682 SCRA 118, 119 & 123.

    56 Id. at 123-125.  Citations omitted. Emphasis in the original.

    57Escobar vda. de Lopez  v. Luna, 517 Phil. 467, 479 (2006).

    58 Id. at 479-480 (2006). Citations omitted.

    59Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, supra note 43, at 683.

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