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 BENERAŅO 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 TONDEŅA 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 LEAŅO, 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 MIŅOZA; 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 OQUIŅENA,* 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 EDAŅO AND NESTOR EDAŅO, ACCUSED, ANTONIO EDAŅO, 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 BORGOŅA INSIGNE, DIOSDADO BORGOŅA, OSBOURNE BORGOŅA, IMELDA BORGOŅA RIVERA, AND ARISTOTLE BORGOŅA, Petitioners, v. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES, INC. AND FRANCIS BORGOŅA, 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. ROŅO 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 BENERAŅO 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 TONDEŅA 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. 196853, July 13, 2015 - ROBERT CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

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

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015

    ROBERT CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    Petitioner Robert Chua (Chua) was charged with 54 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) for issuing checks which were dishonored for either being drawn against insufficient funds or closed account.

    Factual Antecedents

    Chua and private complainant Philip See (See) were long-time friends and neighbors. On different dates from 1992 until 1993, Chua issued several postdated PSBank checks of varying amounts to See pursuant to their rediscounting arrangement at a 3% rate, to wit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

     
    PSBANK CHECK NO.
    DATED
    AMOUNT
    1
    018062
    December 25, 1993
    Php300,000.00
    2
    018061
    December 23, 1993
    Php350,000.00
    3
    017996
    December 16, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    4
    017992
    December 14, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    5
    017993
    December 14, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    6
    018138
    November 22,1993
    Php 6,000.00
    7
    018122
    November 19, 1993
    Php 13,000.00
    8
    018120
    November 18, 1993
    Php 6,000.00
    9
    018162
    November 22, 1993
    Php 10,800.00
    10
    018069
    November 17, 1993
    Php 9,744.25
    11
    018117
    November 17, 1993
    Php 8,000.00
    12
    018149
    November 28, 1993
    Php 6,000.00
    13
    018146
    November 27, 1993
    Php 7,000.00
    14
    006478
    November 26, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    15
    018148
    November 26, 1993
    Php300,000.00
    16
    018145
    November 26, 1993
    Php 7,000.00
    17
    018137
    December 10, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    18
    017991
    December 10, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    19
    018151
    December 10, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    20
    017962
    December 08, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    21
    018165
    December 08, 1993
    Php 14,000.00
    22
    018154
    December 07, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    23
    018164
    December 07, 1993
    Php 14,000.00
    24
    018157
    December 07, 1993
    Php600,000.00
    25
    018161
    December 06, 1993
    Php 12,000.00
    26
    018160
    December 05, 1993
    Php 12,000.00
    27
    018033
    November 09, 1993
    Php 3,096.00
    28
    018032
    November 08, 1993
    Php 12,000.00
    29
    018071
    November 06, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    30
    018070
    November 06, 1993
    Php150,000.00
    31
    006210
    October 21, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    32
    006251
    October 18, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    33
    006250
    October 18, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    34
    017971
    October 13, 1993
    Php400,000.00
    35
    017972
    October 12, 1993
    Php335,450.00
    36
    017973
    October 11, 1993
    Php464,550.00
    37
    006433
    September 24, 1993
    Php520,000.00
    38
    006213
    August 30, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    39
    017976
    December 13, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    40
    018139
    December 13, 1993
    Php125,000.00
    41
    018141
    December 13, 1993
    Php175,000.00
    42
    018143
    December 13, 1993
    Php300,000.00
    43
    018121
    December 10, 1993
    Php166,934.00
    44
    018063
    November 12, 1993
    Php 12,000.00
    45
    018035
    November 11, 1993
    Php 7,789.00
    46
    017970
    November 11, 1993
    Php600,000.00
    47
    018068
    November 18, 1993
    Php 7,800.00
    48
    017956
    November 10, 1993
    Php800,000.00
    49
    018034
    November 10, 1993
    Php 7,116.00
    50
    017907
    December 1, 1993
    Php200,000.00
    51
    018152
    November 30, 1993
    Php 6,000.00
    52
    018067
    November 30, 1993
    Php 7,800.00
    53
    006490
    November 29, 1993
    Php100,000.00
    54
    018150
    November 29, 1993
    Php 6,000.001
    However, See claimed that when he deposited the checks, they were dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account. Despite demands, Chua failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed on December 23, 1993 a Complaint2 for violations of BP 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. He attached thereto a demand letter3 dated December 10, 1993.

    In a Resolution4 dated April 25, 1994, the prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of charges against Chua. Accordingly, 54 counts of violation of BP 22 were filed against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City.

    Proceedings before the Metropolitan Trial Court

    During the course of the trial, the prosecution formally offered as its evidence5 the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 marked as Exhibit "B."6 Chua, however, objected7 to its admissibility on the grounds that it is a mere photocopy and that it does not bear any proof that he actually received it. In view of these, Chua filed on April 14, 1999 a Motion to Submit Demurrer to Evidence.8 Per Chua's allegation, however, the MeTC failed to act on his motion since the judge of said court vacated his post.

    Several years later, the prosecution filed a Motion to Re-Open Presentation of Prosecution's Evidence and Motion to Allow Prosecution to Submit Additional Formal Offer of Evidence9 dated March 28, 2003. It averred that while See was still trying to locate a demand letter dated November 30, 1993 (which it alleged to Irave been personally served upon Chua), the prosecution nevertheless decided to rest its case on February 24, 1999 so as not to further delay the proceedings. However, sometime in February 2002, See decided to have his house rented out such that he emptied it with all his belongings and had it cleaned. It was during this time that he found the demand letter dated November 30, 1993.10 The prosecution thus prayed that it be allowed to submit a supplemental offer of evidence to include said demand letter dated November 30, 1993 as part of its evidence. Again, the records of the case bear no copy of an MeTC Order or Resolution granting the aforesaid motion of the prosecution. Nevertheless, extant on records is a Formal Offer of Evidence11 filed by the private prosecutor submitting the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 as additional evidence. In his objection thereto,12 Chua averred that the papers on which the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 are written were given to him as blank papers. He affixed his signature thereon purportedly to give See the authority to retrieve a car which was supposed to serve as payment for Chua's obligation to See. In an Order13 dated November 18, 2005, the MeTC refused to take cognizance of the supplemental formal offer on the ground that the same was filed by the private prosecutor without the conformity of the public prosecutor. Be that as it may, the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 eventually found its way into the records of this case as Exhibit "SSS."14redarclaw

    Later, the defense, with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence.15 It again pointed out that the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 attached to See's affidavit-complaint is a mere photocopy and not accompanied with a Post Office Registry Receipt and Registry Return Receipt. Most importantly, it does not contain Chua's signature that would serve as proof of his actual receipt thereof. In view of these, the defense surmised that the prosecution fabricated the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 to remedy the lack of a proper notice of dishonor upon Chua. At any rate, it argued that while the November 30, 1993 demand letter contains Chua's signature, the same should not be given any probative value since it does not contain the date when he allegedly received the same. Hence, there is simply no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period that the law affords an issuer to make good the check from the date of his notice of its dishonor.

    In an Order16 dated January 12, 2007, the MeTC denied the defense's Demurrer to Evidence. The Motion for Reconsideration thereto was likewise denied in an Order17 dated May 23, 2007. Hence, the trial of the case proceeded.

    In a Consolidated Decision18 dated May 12, 2008, the MeTC convicted Chua of 54 counts of violation of BP 22 after it found all the elements of the offense obtaining in the case. Anent Chua's receipt of the notice of dishonor, it ratiocinated, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x x

    The prosecution had proved also that private complainant personally sen[t] a written notice of dishonor of the subject check to the accused and that the latter personally received the same. In fact, the defense stipulated in open court the existence of the said demand letter and the signature of the accused as reflected in the face of the demand letter, x x x In view of that stipulation, the defense is now estopped [from] denying its receipt thereof. Although there was no date when accused received the demand letter x x x the demand letter was dated, thus it is presumed that the accused received the said demand letter on the date reflected on it. It has been said that "admission verbal or written made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof." x xx

    [In spite of] receipt thereof, the accused failed to pay the amount of the checks or make arrangement for its payment [w]ithin five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the said checks have not been paid by the drawee bank. As a result, the presumption of knowledge as provided for in Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 which was the basis of reckoning the crucial five (5) day period was established.19
    Hence, the dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds accused Robert Chua GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of fifty four (54) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and hereby sentence[s] him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months imprisonment for each case and to restitute to the private complainant the total amount of the face value of all the subject checks in these cases with legal interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the filing of the informations until the full amount is fully paid and to pay the costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED.20
    Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

    Aggrieved, Chua appealed to the RTC where he argued that: (1) the complaint was prematurely filed since the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 had not yet been sent to him at the time of filing of the Complaint; (2) the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 has no probative value since it lacked proof of the date when Chua received the same; and, (3) since Chua was acquitted in two other BP 22 cases involving the same parties, facts and issues, he should likewise be acquitted in the present case based on the principle of stare decisis.

    In a Decision21 dated July 1, 2009, the RTC likewise found all the elements of BP 22 to have been sufficiently established by the prosecution, to wit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;

    (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;

    (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause ordered the bank to stop payment.

    As to first element, the RTC held that the evidence shows that Chua issued the checks in question. Next, on the basis of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 bearing Chua's signature as proof of receipt thereof, it was likewise established that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds with the drawee bank at the time he issued the checks, thus, satisfying the second element. It expounded:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Thus, in order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment, x x x

    In the present case, a demand letter (Exh. "SSS") was sent to accused-appellant informing him of the dishonor of the check and demanding he make good of the checks. The prosecution offered this in evidence, and the accused's signature thereon evidences his receipt of the said demand letter. Accused-appellant argues that there is no proof that he received the same considering that there is no date on his signature appearing on the document. But as borne out by the records of the proceedings, the defense even stipulated in open court the existence of the demand letter, x x x

    Thus, considering that the demand letter was dated November 30, 1993, the reckoning of the crucial five day period was established. Accused failed to make arrangement for the payment of the amount of check within five-day period from notice of the checks' dishonor.22
    Finally, the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the third element when it presented a bank employee who testified that the subject checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds or closed account.

    Anent the defense's invocation of the principle of stare decisis, the RTC found the same inapplicable since there is a distinction between the present case and the other cases where Chua was acquitted. In the instant case, the prosecution, as mentioned, was able to establish the second element of the offense by way of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 duly received by Chua. Whereas in the other cases where Chua was acquitted, there was no proof that he received a demand letter.

    Hence, the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision dated May 12, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.23
    Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)

    Before the CA, Chua argued against the probative value of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 by pointing out that: (1) for more than 10 years from the time the case was filed, the prosecution never adverted to its existence. He thus surmised that this was because the document was not really missing but in fact inexistent - a mere afterthought as to make it appear that the second element of the offense is obtaining in the case; (2) the subject demand letter is not a newly discovered evidence as it could have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence; and, (3) his counsel's admission of the physical existence of the subject demand letter and Chua's signature thereon does not carry with it the admission of its contents and his receipt of the same.

    Unpersuaded, the CA, in its November 11, 2010 Decision24 brushed aside Chua's arguments in this wise:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x [A]s aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, See could not have waited for a decade just to fabricate an evidence against petitioner. The contention that petitioner's counsel was tricked by the prosecution into stipulating on the admissibility of the demand letter is without basis. Once validly entered into, stipulations will not be set aside unless for good cause. They should be enforced especially when they are not false, unreasonable or against good morals and sound public policy. When made before the court, they are conclusive. And the party who validly made them can be relieved therefrom only upon a showing of collusion, duress, fraud, misrepresentation as to facts, and undue influence; or upon a showing of sufficient cause on such terms as will serve justice in a particular case. Moreover, the power to relieve a party from a stipulation validly made lies in the court's sound discretion which, unless exercised with grave abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal.25
    And just like the MeTC and the RTC, the CA concluded that the prosecution clearly established all the elements of the offense of violation of BP 22. Ultimately, it ruled as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision dated July 1, 2009 and order dated October 30, 2009 of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 219, are hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.26
    Chua filed a Motion for Reconsideration,27 but the same was denied in a Resolution28 dated May 4, 2011.

    Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Issues

    I

    THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD THE RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURTS THAT THE ACCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE DISHONORED CHECKS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE CHECKS UPON THEIR PRESENTMENT, BASED MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DATE OF THE PREPARATION OF THE LETTER IS THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY THE ADDRESSEE.

    II

    THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT CONSIDERED THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 30 NOVEMBER 1993 AS A NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.29
    The Parties y Arguments

    Chua asserts that the second element of the offense charged, i.e., knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, was not proved by the prosecution. He argues that the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds only arises after it is proved that the issuer actually received a notice of dishonor and within five days from receipt thereof failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment. Here, the date when Chua allegedly received the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 was not established by the prosecution. Citing Danao v. Court of Appeals,30 he thus contends that since there is no date of receipt from which to reckon the aforementioned five-day period, the presumption that he has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of the issuance of the checks did not arise.

    In any case, Chua argues that the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 is not a newly discovered evidence. He points out that a newly discovered evidence is one which could not have been discovered even in the exercise of due diligence in locating the same. In this case, See claims that he only found the letter after having his house cleaned. This means that he could have found it early on had he exercised due diligence, which, however, was neither shown by the prosecution.

    On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), avers that Chua's contention that there is no proof of the date when he actually received the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 involves a factual issue which is not within the province of a certiorari petition. As to the matter of whether the subject demand letter is a newly discovered evidence, the OSG calls attention to the fact that the MeTC, RTC and the CA all considered the said document as a newly discovered evidence. Hence, such fir ding deserves full faith and credence. Besides, Chua was correctly convicted for violation of BP 22 since all the elements of the offense were sufficiently proven by the prosecution.

    Our Ruling

    The Petition is impressed with merit.

    The issues raised by Chua involve questions of law.

    The OSG argues that the issues raised by Chua involve questions of fact which are not within the province of the present petition for review on certiorari. The Court, however, upon perusal of the petition, finds that the issues raised and the arguments advanced by Chua in support thereof, concern questions of law. "Jurisprudence dictates that there is a 'question of law' when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a 'question of fact' when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of 'law' or 'fact' is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law. However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual."31redarclaw

    Chua raises two issues in this petition, to wit: (1) whether the MeTC, RTC and the CA correctly applied the legal presumption that Chua has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time he issued the check based on his alleged receipt of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 and his failure to make good the checks five days from such receipt; and (2) whether the said courts correctly considered the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 as newly discovered evidence. As to the first issue, it is not disputed that the subject demand letter, while bearing the signature of Chua, does not indicate any date as to his receipt thereof. There being no disagreement as to this fact, the propriety of the conclusion drawn from the same by the courts below, that is, the date of the said letter is considered as the date when Chua received the same for the purpose of reckoning trie five-day period to make good the checks, clearly refers to a question of law. Similarly, the second issue is one concerning a question of law because it requires the application of the provision of the Rules of Court concerning a newly discovered evidence.32redarclaw

    Nevertheless, assuming that the questions posed before this Court are indeed factual, the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are not proper subject of certiorari petition admits of exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the lower courts failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case. The Court finds the said exception applicable in the instant case. Clearly, the petition deserves the consideration of this Court.

    The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offenses charged.

    In order to successfully hold an accused liable for violation of BP 22, the following essential elements must be present: "(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in br credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, witjhout any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment."33 "Of the three (3) elefrients, the second element is the hardest to prove as it involves a state of mind. Thus, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.34redarclaw

    In the instant case, what is in dispute is the existence of the second element. Chua asserts that the absence of the date of his actual receipt on the face of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 prevented the legal presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds from arising. On the other hand, the MeTC opined that while the date of Chua's actual receipt of the subject demand letter is not affixed thereon, it is presumed that he received the same on the date of the demand letter (November 30, 1993). Moreover, the lower courts banked on the stimulation entered into by Chua's counsel as to the existence of the demand letter anki of Chua's signature thereon. By reason of such stipulation, they all held that Cljiua could no longer impugn the said demand letter.

    In Danao v. Court of Appeals,35 the Court discussed the importance of proving the date of actual receipt of the notice of dishonor, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    In King vs. People, this Court, through Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, held: "To hold a person liable under B.P. Blg. 22, it is not enough to establish that a check issued was subsequently dishonored. It must be shown further that the person who issued the check knew 'at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.' Because this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge, as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    'SEC 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
    Thus, this Court further ruled in King, "in order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment."

    Indeed, the prima facie presumption in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 "gives the accused an opportunity to satisfy the amount indicated in the check and thus avert prosecution. This opportunity, as this Court stated in Lozano vs. Martinez, serves to mitigate the harshness of the law in its application.

    In other words, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer of the bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period."36 (Italics in the original, emphasis supplied)
    Similarly in the present case, there is no way to ascertain when the five-day period under Section 22 of BP 22 would start and end since there is no showing when Chua actually received the demand letter dated November 30, 1993. The MeTC cannot simply presume that the date of the demand letter was likewise the date of Chua's receipt thereof. There is simply no such presumption provided in our rules on evidence. In addition, from the inception of this case Chua has consistently denied having received subject demand letter. He maintains that the paper used for the purported demand letter was still blank when presented to him for signature and that he signed the same for another purpose. Given Chua's denial, it behooved upon the prosecution to present proof of his actual receipt of the November 30, 1993 demand letter. However, all that the prosecution did was to present it without, however, adducing any evidence as to the date of Chua's actual receipt thereof. It must be stressed that [t]he prosecution must also prove actual receipt of [the notice of dishonor] because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused.37 "The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of notice"38 which the Court finds wanting in this case.

    Anent the stipulation entered into by Chua's counsel, the MeTC stated:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    In the course of the said proceedings, the defense counsel manifested that he is willing to stipulate as to the existence of the demand letter and the signature of the accused as reflected on the face of the demand letter, x x x

    x x x x

    The prosecution had proved also that private complainant personally sent a written notice of dishonor of the subject checks to the accused and that the latter personally received the same. In fact, the defense stipulated in open court the existence of the said demand letter and the signature of the accused as reflected in the face of the demand letter, x x x. In view of that stipulation, the defense is now estopped in denying its receipt thereof.39
    As earlier mentioned, this ruling of the MeTC was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA.

    The Court, however, disagrees with the lower courts. It is plain that the stipulation only refers to the existence of the demand letter and of Chua's signature thereon. In no way can an admission of Chua's receipt of the demand letter be inferred therefrom. Hence, Chua cannot be considered estopped from claiming non-receipt. Also, the Court observes that Chua's admission with respect to his signature on the demand letter is consistent with his claim that See made him sign blank papers where the contents of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 were later intercalated.

    In view of the above discussion, the Court rules that the prosecution was not able to sufficiently prove the existence of the second element of BP 22.

    At any rate, the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 deserves no weight and credence not only because it does not qualify as a newly discovered evidence within the purview of the law but also because of its doubtful character.

    As may be recalled, the prosecution had already long rested its case when it filed a Motion to Re-Open Presentation of Prosecution's Evidence and Motion To Allow Prosecution To Submit Additional Formal Ofifer of Evidence dated March 28, 2003. Intending to introduce the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 as a newly discovered evidence, See attached to the said motion an affidavit40 of even date where he stated the circumstances surrounding the fact of his location of the same, viz.:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    2. When we initially presented our evidence in support of these criminal complaints, I was already looking for a copy of the demand letter personally served by the affiant (See) and duly received by [Chua];

    3. That despite diligent efforts to locate the demand letter x x x dated November 30, 1993, the same was not located until sometime in February 2002 when I was having our old house/office located at C-5 Christian Street, Grace Village, Quezon City, cleaned and ready to be rented out;

    4. x x x [upon] showing the same to the new handling public prosecutor, he advised the affiant to have it presented in Court.41
    In Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon,42 the Court held that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered. It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.

    The Rules do not give an exact definition of due diligence, and whether the movant has exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant." In other words, the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a good faith component. The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion; he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.43
    "Under the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment."44redarclaw

    In this case, the Court holds that the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 does not qualify as a newly discovered evidence within the purview of the law. Per See's statements in his affidavit, the said evidence was already known to him at the time he filed his complaint against Chua. It was also apparently available considering that it was just kept in his house. Undeniably, had See exercised reasonable diligence, he could have promptly located the said demand letter and presented it during trial. However, the circumstances suggest otherwise.

    Curiously, while See claims that the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 was already existing at the time he filed the complaint, the same was not mentioned therein. Only the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 was referred to in the complaint, which per See's own allegations, was also not actually received by Chua. In addition, the prosecution failed to present the original copy of the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 during trial. Clearly on the basis of the demand letter dated December 10, 1993 alone, the prosecution cannot possibly establish the existence of the second element of the offense. Indeed, the surrounding circumstances and the doubtful character of the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 make it susceptible to the conclusion that its introduction was a mere afterthought - a belated attempt to fill in a missing component necessary for the existence of the second element of BP 22.

    It may not be amiss to add at this point that out of the 54 cases for violation of BP 22 filed against Chua, 22 involve checks issued on November 30, 1993 or thereafter. Hence, the lower courts grievously erred in convicting Chua for those 22 cases on the basis of a purported demand letter written and sent to Chua prior to the issuance of said 22 checks. Checks can only be dishonored after they have been issued and presented for payment. Before that, dishonor cannot take place. Thus, a demand letter that precedes the issuance of checks cannot constitute as sufficient notice of dishonor within the contemplation of BP 22. It is likewise significant to note that aside from the absence of a date, the signature of Chua appearing on the questioned November 30, 1993 demand letter is not accompanied by any word or phrase indicating that he affixed his signature thereon to signify his receipt thereof. Indeed, "conviction must rest upon the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense."45 In view of the foregoing, the Court cannot accord the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 any weight and credence. Consequently, it cannot be used to support Chua's guilt of the offenses charged.

    All told, the Court cannot convict Chua for violation of BP 22 with moral certainty.

    Chua's acquittal, however, does not entail the extinguishment of his civil liability for the dishonored checks.46 "An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages."47 For this reason, Chua must be directed to restitute See the total amount of the face value of all the checks subject of the case with legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum reckoned from the time the said checks became due and demandable up to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.48redarclaw

    WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The assailed Decision dated November 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR No. 33079 which affirmed the Decisions of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36 and the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 finding petitioner Robert Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 54 counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Robert Chua is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and ordered RELEASED immediately unless he is detained for some other legal cause. He is ordered, however, to indemnify the private complainant Philip See the total value of the 54 checks subject of this case plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the time the said sum became due and demandable until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.

    SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

    Peralta,*Bersamin,**Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Per Special Order No. 2088 dated July 1, 2015.

    ** Per Special Order No. 2079 dated June 29, 2015.

    *** Per Special Order No. 2087 (Revised) dated July 1, 2015.

    1 CA rollo, pp. 136-137.

    2 Id. at 64-68.

    3 Id. at 69-72.

    4 Id. at 75-78.

    5 See Formal Offer of Exhibits dated January 22, 1999, id. at 83-97.

    6 Id. at 89.

    7 See Comment to Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits, id. at 98-102.

    8 Id. at 103-104.

    9 Id. at 105-106.

    10 Id. at 116-118.

    11 Id. at 113-115.

    12 See Admission/Objection with Comment to Additional Offer of Evidence by the Prosecution, id. at 120-121.

    13 Id. at 119.

    14 As mentioned in the MeTC Order dated January 12, 2007, id. at 131-133.

    15 Id. at 122-130.

    16 Id. at 131-133.

    17 Id. at 134-135.

    18 Id. at 136-140; penned by Judge Edgardo B. Bellosillo of MeTC, Branch 36, Quezon City.

    19 Id. at 139.

    20 Id. at 140.

    21 Id. at 59-61; penned by Judge Bayani V. Vargas of RTC, Branch 219, Quezon City.

    22 Id., unpaginated, between pp. 60 and 61.

    23 Id. at 61.

    24 Id. at 252-262; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.

    25 Id. at 259-260.

    26 Id. at 262.

    27 Id. at 263-272.

    28 Id. at 292.

    29Rollo, p. 20.

    30 411 Phil. 63 (2001).

    31Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes, GR. No. 194247, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 217, 225-226.

    32 Particularly Section 1(b), Rule 37 and Section 2(b), Rule 121 of the Rules of Court which provide as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Rule 37

    Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    x x x x

    (b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.

    Rule 121

    Section 2. Grounds for a new trial - The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    x x x x

    (b) That a new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

    33Rico v. People, 440 Phil. 540, 551 (2002).

    34Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 215, 223.

    35 Supra note 30.

    36 Id. at 72-73.

    37San Mateo v. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 660, 667.

    38Alferez v. People, 656 Phil. 116, 124 (2011).

    39 CA rollo, pp. 138-139.

    40 Id. at 107.

    41 Id.

    42 G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 154.

    43 Id. at 170, citing Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, 493 Phil. 194, 206 (2005).

    44Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Abay-abay, G.R. No. 198402, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 622, 629.

    45Cabugao v. People, 479 Phil. 546, 561 (2004).

    46San Mateo v. People, supra note 37 at 668.

    47 Id.

    48Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 454-456.

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