Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

For resolution of this Court is the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10, 2012 filed by petitioners, the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); Engineer Simplicio D. Gonzales, District Engineer, Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and Engineer Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr., Project Engineer, DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur assailing the Order1 dated May 24, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 62, which ordered herein petitioners to pay respondents spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto (Spouses Regulto) the amount of Two Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Pesos (P243,000.00) as just compensation for the part of their property traversed by the Naga City-Milaor Bypass Project of the DPWH.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

Respondents spouses Ildefonso B. Regulto and Francia R. Regulto are the registered owners of the property in controversy located at Mabel, Naga City, Camarines Sur consisting of 300 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 086-2010000231.2 The Spouses Regulto acquired the said property by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed by Julian R. Cortes, attorney-in-fact of the spouses Bienvenido and Beatriz Santos, in February 1994.3 The subject property originated from a Free Patent property consisting of 7,759 square meters registered and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 235 dated April 14, 1956.4

Sometime in April 2011, the DPWH Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur apprised the Spouses Regulto of the construction of its road project, the Naga City-Milaor Bypass Road, which will traverse their property and other adjoining properties.5 The DPWH initially offered the spouses the sum of P243,000.00 or P1,500.00 per square meter for the 162 square-meter affected area as just compensation.6

However, in a letter dated May 11, 2006, the DPWH, through District Engr. Rolando P. Valdez, withdrew the offer, and informed the Spouses Regulto that they were not entitled to just compensation since the title of their land originated from a Free Patent title acquired under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, known as the Public Land Act, which contained a reservation in favor of the government of an easement of right-of-way of twenty (20) meters, which was subsequently increased to sixty (60) meters by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 635, for public highways and similar works that the government or any public or quasi-public service enterprise may reasonably require for carrying on their business, with payment of damages for the improvements only.7

The Spouses Regulto, in their letter dated May 30, 2011, protested the findings of the DPWH and ordered them to cease from proceeding with the construction.8 They alleged that since their property is already covered by TCT No. 086-2010000231, it ceased to be a public land.9 They communicated that the market value of the property is P450,000.00 plus the Zonal Value of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which is more or less the acceptable just compensation of their property.10 Furthermore, they requested that they be furnished, within five (5) days from the receipt of their letter, with a Program of Works and Sketch Plan showing the cost of the project and the extent or area covered by the road that will traverse their property.11

The DPWH furnished the Spouses Regulto with the sketch plan showing the extent of the road right-of-way that will cut across their property.12 It also reiterated its earlier position that the title to the land was acquired under C.A. No. 141.13

On October 8, 2011, the Spouses Regulto filed a complaint for payment of just compensation, damages with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Naga City, Branch 62, against herein petitioners Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DPWH; District Engr. Valdez of the Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and Project Engr. Del Socorro, Jr. of the DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur.14

The Spouses Regulto averred that the DPWH acted with deceit, misrepresentation and evident bad faith in convincing them to sign on a paper after relying on the assurance that they would be paid with just compensation.15 They also alleged that their property is outside the coverage of Section 112, C.A. No. 141 because their land is a private property, and that the same is situated beyond the 60-meter radius or width from the public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, telegraph and telephone lines, airport runways, and other government structures.16

On August 5, 2011, the petitioners, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Spouses Regulto do not have a cause of action, and that their complaint failed to state the same.17 Petitioners asseverated that Section 112 of C.A. No. 141 is explicit on the encumbrance imposed upon lands originally covered by a free patent or any other public land patent.18 Petitioners also alleged that the respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies for not appealing the findings of the Regional Infrastructure Right-of-Way (IROW) Committee with the DPWH Regional Director or to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways.19

In an Order dated October 17, 2011, the RTC denied the motion filed by the petitioners citing that the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint to sustain a dismissal based on lack of cause of action.20 In this case, the complaint stated allegations of nonpayment of just compensation.21 Furthermore, the court mentioned that one of the exceptions of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is when the issue is one of law and when circumstances warrant urgency of judicial intervention, as in the case of the Spouses Regulto whose portion of their property has already been occupied by the petitioners without just compensation.22

In the Answer23 dated November 16, 2011, the petitioners reiterated their defense that no legal right has been violated since C.A. No. 141, as amended by P.D. No. 1361,24 imposes a 60-meter wide lien on the property originally covered by a Free Patent.25 Petitioners also avowed that Section 5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 897426 provides that if the private property or land is acquired under the provisions of C.A. No. 141, the government officials charged with the prosecution of the projects or their representative is authorized to take immediate possession of the property subject to the lien as soon as the need arises, and the government may obtain a quitclaim from the owners concerned without the need for payment for the land acquired under the said quitclaim mode except for the damages to improvements only.27 Hence, petitioners maintained that the Spouses Regulto are not entitled to a just compensation for the portion of their property affected by the construction of the Naga City-Milaor Bypass Road.28

The petitioners, in a Motion dated December 19, 2011, prayed for the issuance of the writ of possession of the subject property in their favor for the construction of the project to finally proceed and be completed without further delay.29

On January 2, 2012, the RTC ordered the respondents spouses to remove the obstructions that they erected on the subject property within three days, or the petitioners may dismantle the same to proceed with the construction of the bypass road project.30 Likewise, the petitioners were ordered to deliver the check already prepared in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for payment of the trees/improvements on the property.31 The petitioners were also ordered to deposit with any authorized government depository bank the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (P36,450.00) equivalent to the assessed value of the 162 square meters of the subject property, which was assessed at P67,500.00 by the 2010 tax declaration, that the road project will traverse.32

In an Order dated January 27, 2012, the RTC dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the Spouses Regulto, and sustained its earlier order that the petitioners deposit the amount of P36,450.00.33 The RTC also acknowledged the receipt of the Spouses Regulto of the check for the payment of the improvements on the property affected by the project.34

Consequently, the RTC, in its Order dated May 24, 2012, ordered the petitioners to pay the Spouses Regulto the amount of P243,000.00 as just compensation for the affected portion of their property.35 The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Engr. Rolando F. Valdez and Engr. Victorino M. del Socorro, Jr., Republic of the Philippines and the Dept. of Public Works and Highways to pay plaintiffs-spouses Ildefonso and Francia Regulto the amount of P243,000.00 as just compensation for their property traversed by the Naga-Milaor Bypass Project.

SO ORDERED.36ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The RTC concluded that the government waived the encumbrance provided for in C.A. No. 141 when it did not oppose the further subdivision of the original property covered by the free patent or made an express intent on making its encumbrance before the residential lots, which are part of the said subdivision, were sold to other innocent purchasers for value, especially after the 25-year period has lapsed since the free patent.37

Hence, the petitioners, through the OSG, filed the instant petition raising the following issues:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO AND IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LAND WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLIC LAND AWARDED TO RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST BY FREE PATENT, AND THUS A LEGAL EASEMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THE TRIAL COURT'S RATIOCINATION - THAT THE SUBJECT-PROPERTY HAS IPSO FACTO CEASED TO BE "PUBLIC LAND" AND THUS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE LIEN IMPOSED BY SAID PROVISION OF C.A. NO. 141, BY VIRTUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING ALREADY COVERED BY A TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IN THEIR NAME - CONTRAVENES SECTION 44 OF P.D. NO. 1529 AND NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS.

THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 8 ("EXPROPRIATION"), NOT SECTION 5 ("QUIT CLAIM"), OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. NO. 8974 IS THE APPLICABLE PROVISION REGARDING THE MODE OF ACQUISITION OF RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This Court finds the instant petition partially meritorious.

At the outset, it is noted that petitioners filed the instant petition before this Court without appealing the said case before the Court of Appeals (CA). A strict application of the policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts is unnecessary when cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but purely legal questions.39 Section 2 (c),40 Rule 41, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a decision or order of the RTC may, as done in the instant petition, be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, provided that such petition raises only questions of law.41

The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact are explained in the case of Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) v. Republic of the Philippines42 as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence on a certain state of facts. The issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted. In contrast, a question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites the calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses; the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole; and the probability of the situation.
In the case at bar, the petitioners raise questions of law in disputing the denial by the RTC in the application of C.A. No. 141 to impose the legal easement of right-of-way to the subject property, and the application of Section 8 (Expropriation) of the IRR of R.A. No. 8974 instead of Section 5 (Quit Claim) in the acquisition of the said property.

Essentially, the issue for resolution of this Court is whether the petitioners are liable for just compensation in enforcing the Government's legal easement of right-of-way on the subject property which originated from the 7,759 square-meter of public land awarded by free patent to the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses Regulto.

Petitioners allege that a legal easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the Government since the land in controversy was originally public land awarded by free patent to the Spouses Regulto's predecessors-in-interest.

The RTC, however, ruled that the provision of C.A. No. 141 regarding the easement of right-of-way in favor of the government is not applicable to the subject property since the law is clearly meant for lands granted gratuitously by the government in favor of individuals tasked to make it agriculturally productive.43 It ruled that the subject property is already a private property since the Spouses Regulto acquired the same through a deed of absolute sale from the spouses Bienvenido and Beatriz Santos in February 1994, and that the same originated from the property covered by TCT No. 24027.44

This Court finds that the RTC erroneously ruled that the provisions of C.A. No. 141 are not applicable to the case at bar. On the contrary, this Court held that "a legal easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the Government over land that was originally a public land awarded by free patent even if the land is subsequently sold to another."45 This Court has expounded that the "ruling would be otherwise if the land was originally a private property, to which just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of right-of-way."46

It is undisputed that the subject property originated from and was a part of a 7,759-square-meter property covered by free patent registered under OCT No. 235.47 furthermore, the Spouses Regulto's transfer certificate of title, which the RTC relied, contained the reservation: "subject to the provisions of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act, as well as to those of the Mining Law, if the land is mineral, and subject, further, to such conditions contained in the original title as may be subsisting."48

Jurisprudence settles that one of the reservations and conditions under the Original Certificate of Title of land granted by free patent is that the said land is subject "to all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and prescribed by law especially those mentioned in Sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended."49

Section 112 of C.A. No. 141, as amended, provides that lands granted by patent shall be subjected to a right-of-way in favor of the Government, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 112. Said land shall further be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding sixty (60) meters on width for public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, telegraph and telephone lines, airport runways, including sites necessary for terminal buildings and other government structures needed for full operation of the airport, as well as areas and sites for government buildings for Resident and/or Project Engineers needed in the prosecution of government-infrastructure projects, and similar works as the Government or any public or quasi-public service or enterprise, including mining or forest concessionaires, may reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only.

Government officials charged with the prosecution of these projects or their representatives are authorized to take immediate possession of the portion of the property subject to the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the owners. It is however, understood that ownership over said properties shall immediately revert to the title holders should the airport be abandoned or when the infrastructure projects are completed and buildings used by project engineers are abandoned or dismantled, but subject to the same lien for future improvements.50ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In other words, lands granted by patent shall be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding 60 meters in width for public highways, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, and other similar works of the government or any public enterprise, free of charge, except only for the value of the improvements existing thereon that may be affected.51

We are not persuaded with the ruling of the RTC that the government waived the encumbrance imposed by C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act) when it did not oppose the subdivision of the original property covered by the free patent. The reservation and condition contained in the OCT of lands granted by free patent, like the origins of the subject property, is not limited by any time period, thus, the same is subsisting.52 This subsisting reservation contained in the transfer certificate of title of the Spouses Regulto belies such supposition that the Government waived the enforcement of its legal easement of right-of-way on the subject property when it did not oppose to the subdivision of the property in 1995.

Petitioners allege that since the property in controversy was originally acquired under the provisions of special laws, particularly C.A. No. 141, then Section 5 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8974 should be applied in the present case. Petitioners insist that the acquisition of the portion of the subject property is through execution of quitclaims.

Section 5 of the IRR of R.A. No. 8974 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 5. Quit Claim - If the private property or land is acquired under the provisions of Special Laws, particularly Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as the Public Land Act, which provides a 20-meter strip of land easement by the government for public use with damages to improvements only, P.D. No. 635 which increased the reserved area to a 60-meter strip, and P.D. No. 1361 which authorizes government officials charged with the prosecution of projects or their representative to take immediate possession of portion of the property subject to the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the owners, then a quit claim from the owners concerned shall be obtained by the Implementing Agency. No payment by the government shall be made for land acquired under the quit claim mode.53ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
With the existence of the said easement of right-of-way in favor of the Government, the petitioners may appropriate the portion of the land necessary for the construction of the bypass road without paying for it, except for damages to the improvements. Consequently, the petitioners are ordered to obtain the necessary quitclaim deed from the Spouses Regulto for the 162-square-meter strip of land to be utilized in the bypass road project.

It is noted that the 162 square meters of the subject property traversed by the bypass road project is well within the limit provided by the law. While this Court concurs that the petitioners are not obliged to pay just compensation in the enforcement of its easement of right-of-way to lands which originated from public lands granted by free patent, we, however, rule that petitioners are not free from any liability as to the consequence of enforcing the said right-of-way granted over the original 7,759-square-meter property to the 300-square-meter property belonging to the Spouses Regulto.

There is "taking," in the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof.54 Using one of these standards, it is apparent that there is taking of the remaining area of the property of the Spouses Regulto. It is true that no burden was imposed thereon, and that the spouses still retained title and possession of the property. The fact that more than half of the property shall be devoted to the bypass road will undoubtedly result in material impairment of the value of the property. It reduced the subject property to an area of 138 square meters.

Thus, the petitioners are liable to pay just compensation over the remaining area of the subject property, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of writ of possession or the actual taking until full payment is made.

The case of Republic v. Hon. Jesus M. Mupas55 elucidated just compensation in this language:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Just compensation is defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator." The word "just" is used to qualify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey the idea that the amount to be tendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. On the other hand, the word "compensation" means "a full indemnity or remuneration for the loss or damage sustained by the owner of property taken or injured for public use."

Simply stated, just compensation means that the former owner must be returned to the monetary equivalent of the position that the owner had when the taking occurred. To achieve this monetary equivalent, we use the standard value of "fair market value" of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation or at the time of the taking of property, whichever is earlier.56ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Consequently, the case is remanded to the court of origin for the purpose of determining the final just compensation for the remaining area of the subject property. The RTC is thereby ordered to make the determination of just compensation payable to the respondents Spouses Regulto with deliberate dispatch. The RTC is cautioned to make a determination based on the parameters set forth by law and jurisprudence regarding just compensation.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10, 2012 filed by the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways; Engineer Simplicio D. Gonzales, District Engineer, Second Engineering District of Camarines Sur; and Engineer Victorino M. Del Socorro, Jr., Project Engineer, DPWH, Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur, is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.

The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 62 for the determination of the final just compensation of the compensable area consisting of 138 square meters, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of writ of possession or the actual taking until full payment is made.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe,*JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 14, 2014.

1 Penned by Judge Antonio C.A. Ayo, Jr., rollo, pp. 36-38.

2Rollo, p. 46.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 54.

5 Id. at 47.

6 Id. at 38.

7 Id. at 60.

8 Id. at 61.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 62.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 45.

15 Id. at 47.

16 Id. at 49.

17 Id. at 64-72.

18 Id. at 66.

19 Id. at 69-70.

20 Id. at 73.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 74-92.

24 FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ONE HUNDRED TWELVE OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE, AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE

25Rollo, p. 78.

26 An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.cralawred

27Rollo, pp. 80-81.

28 Id. at 89.

29 Id. at 96-10.3.

30 Id. at 104.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 Id. at 105.

34 Id.

35 Id. at 38.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38Rollo, pp. 19-20.

39Dio v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 244, 252.cralawred

40 Section 2. Modes of appeal.

(c) Appeal by certiorari.


Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERRY LIPATA Y ORTIZA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016 - RAPPLER, INC., Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016 - RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195176, April 18, 2016 - THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. PAZ Y. KHU, FELIPE Y. KHU, JR., AND FREDERICK Y. KHU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196470, April 20, 2016 - ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, Petitioners, v. NORMITA JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN AND EUFEMIA PIDLAOAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELICIANO YAMBAO, NAMELY: CHONA YAMBAO, JOEL YAMBAO, WILLY YAMBAO, LENNIE YAMBAO AND RICHARD YAMBAO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF HERMOGENES YAMBAO, NAMELY: ELEANOR YAMBAO, ALBERTO YAMBAO, DOMINIC YAMBAO, ASESCLO YAMBAO, GERALD DANTIC AND MARIA PILAR YAMBAO, WHO ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARIA PILAR YAMBAO., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193554, April 13, 2016 - SPOUSES RODRIGO IMPERIAL, JR. AND JOCELYN IMPERIAL, AND FE IMPERIAL, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ASUNCION PINIGAT., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195155, April 13, 2016 - DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. MINA, AS HEIR-SUBSTITUTE OF THE LATE DELFIN A. MINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217930, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA NAVARRA, Petitioners, v. YOLANDA LIONGSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208648, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO UMANITO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016 - PEDRO RAMOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 208896-97, April 06, 2016 - EDREN RICASATA, Petitioner, v. CARGO SAFEWAY, INC. AND EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN), LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195054, April 04, 2016 - ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. RENATO GARCIA AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO KALAW, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6934, April 06, 2016 - HELEN CHANG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198774, April 04, 2016 - TEOFILO ALOLINO, Petitioner, v. FORTUNATO FLORES AND ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184348, April 04, 2016 - TAN PO CHU, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX T. CHINGKOE, ROSITA L. CHINGKOE, AND RODRIGO GARCIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198222, April 04, 2016 - GOLDEN CANE FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STEELPRO PHILIPPINES, INC., SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, UP-TOWN INDUSTRIES SALES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187633, April 04, 2016 - HEIRS OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON AND VICENTE MALUPENG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207408, April 18, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELINO M. TIMBOL, JR., NAMELY, MICHAEL JOHN JORGE TIMBOL, FELINO JAMES JORGE TIMBOL, AND MARILOU TIMBOL, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND PACENCIA MOLINYAWE, REPRESENTED BY MARITES MOLINYAWE AND FRED SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202756, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY DEOGRACIAS A. SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y. SALUD, AND JOE VINCENT Y. SALUD, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195611, April 04, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM, NAMELY, PRUDENCIA D. LIM, ANGELINA D. LIM, SIXTA D. LIM BAJA, ERNESTO D. LIM, MIGUEL D. LIM, JOSEFAD.LIM, CASIMIRO D. LIM, BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, AND ENGRACIA D. LIM UY, (THE LAST FIVE BEING DECEASED, BUT REPRESENTED BY PRUDENCIA D. LIM), HEIRS OF JEORGE* JOSEFAT,** EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN, SANTIAGO PARONG, ANTONIO P. CACHO, JESSMAG, INC., ROSITA LAGUERTA, EMILIO JOSE, HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD, ANTONIO DIAZ, ANTONIO CHUA, GUILLERMO J. JOSE, DANIEL MA. JOSE, LOURDES JOSE, JUNA MA. JOSE, WILFREDO V. GARCIA, JESUS BILBAO, JOSECONCEPCION,JR., FRANCISCO ACHACOSO, DENNIS B. PABLIZO,*** ROMEO A. CRUZ, JOSE DE LA ROSA, VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO, ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS, MARIETA CARPIO BACAY, MARIETA PALMA, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND OFELIA HUANG, PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, AND MELBA M. MANDOCDOC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214567, April 04, 2016 - DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK AND LILIA CASTRO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016 - MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES, REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H. PE

  • G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016 - LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Petitioner, v. ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016 - RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON JANUARY 13, 2015, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASES SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT FROM MAY 19-22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR.

  • G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016 - LUIS DERILO Y GEPOLEO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016 - DOEHLE-PHILMAN1 MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. HENRY C. HARO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016 - NENA C. ANG, SPOUSES RENATO C. ANG AND PAULINE ANG, SPOUSES GUILLERMO SY AND ALISON ANG-SY, NELSON C. ANG, RICKY C. ANG , AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND MELINDA C. ANG, Petitioners, v. CHINATRUST (PHILIPPINES) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION AND THE ASIAN DEBT FUND, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208676, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN MENALING Y CANEDO Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 210220-21, April 06, 2016 - EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI, ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G. ROXAS, AND FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219811, April 06, 2016 - REX DACLISON, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO BAYTION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201852, April 05, 2016 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE TAN RAMIREZ, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE NINE MILLION (9,000,000) MEMBER CONSUMERS OF NEA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (MCC) OR REINVESTMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (RFSC), Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO, ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO, BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I, CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III, CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II, CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO, ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III, LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II, MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I, NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II - Area I, NEECO II - Area II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I, QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO, SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO, SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO, ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO I, ZAMSURECO II, BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO, MACELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO, TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO, LASURECO, MAGELCO, DIELCO, and COTELCO-PALMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y BACUNGAY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207659, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "Punday/Masta" AND HERMAN' DE LOS REYES @ "YOB," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016 - LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner, v. AGHAM PARTY LIST (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REP. ANGELO B. PALMONES), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213394, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J. PACQUIAO, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION AND THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192320, April 04, 2016 - BENJAMIN L. VERGARA, JONA M. SARVIDA AND JOSEPHINE P. SABALLA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. EUSEBIO I. OTADOY, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016 - FELICIANO LEGASPI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016 - NARCISA M. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA ADORABLE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205002, April 20, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC VICE-PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER AND ATTY. CIPRIANO U. ASILO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016 - PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 211329 - CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Petitioners, v. PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016 - RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3447 (formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2915-P), April 19, 2016 - LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Complainant, v. RENATO V. BODOY, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRENEO JUGUETA Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3436 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-12-261-RTC], April 05, 2016 - REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R. CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY

  • A.C. No. 10781 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2764], April 12, 2016 - COBALT RESOURCES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 - ARTHUR S. TULIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3437 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3665-P], April 20, 2016 - PROSECUTOR III LEO C. TABAO, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF IV JOSE P. CABCABIN, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181892, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HON. JESUS M. MUPAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209917 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC., TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 209696 - TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC. Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209731 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-115-RTC], April 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 14-4-115-RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13 AND 65, CULASI AND BUGASONG, ANTIQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016 - FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192428, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELPEDIO CASTA

  • G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016 - ALEX NULADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016 - VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH SURNAMED BALBA, Petitioners, v. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210308, April 06, 2016 - ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206766, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO YEPES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016 - ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., Petitioner, v. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216607, April 05, 2016 - ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, AND KRYSTLE MARIE C. BACANI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016 - ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK BALUYOT, AND CARLOS S. JOSE, Petitioners, v. CEBU AIR,INC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184068, April 19, 2016 - SIMNY G. GUY, AS MINORITY STOCKHOLDER AND FOR AND IN BEHALF OF GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. GILBERT G. GUY, ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO AND JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216776, April 19, 2016 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215534, April 18, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215557 - LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197136, April 18, 2016 - ROMEO PUCYUTAN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA AS ITS CITY TREASURER, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203949, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Petitioners, v. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205071 - JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217508, April 18, 2016 - JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y SERDONCILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016 - DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204325, April 18, 2016 - LYNMAN BACOLOR, JEFFREY R. GALURA, HELEN B. TORRES, FRITZIE C. VELLEGAS, RAYMOND CANLAS AND ZHEILA C. TORRES, Petitioners, v. VL MAKABALI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ALEJANDRO S. MAKABALI, MELCHOR CATAMBING AND DAX M. TIDULA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 - ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212382, April 06, 2016 - SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO CANOZA, Petitioners, v. EMILIO CONAG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211098, April 20, 2016 - THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199464, April 18, 2016 - ROGELIO ROSARIO, RUDY ROSARIO, MARY ANN GUTIERREZ, SYLVIA CASTILLO, LOURDES JOSE, LORENA ESTEPA, VIRGINIA ESTEPA AND REMEDIOS SABADO, Petitioners, v. RIZALITO F. ALBA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206459, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES FLORANTE E. JONSAY AND LUZVIMINDA L. JONSAY AND MOMARCO IMPORT CO., INC., Petitioners, v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167838, April 20, 2016 - JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPS. VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209011, April 20, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. DIANA P. ALIBUDBUD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016 - 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. 207662, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, Accused.; FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016 - PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., Petitioners, v. TOMAS M. FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M. SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA, SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B. ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U. SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F. SALINEL, BEBIANA SAN PEDRO, AND MARINA SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175736 & 175898, April 12, 2016 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA) BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBER-CONSUMERS OF BATELEC II, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 175898 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, SEC. RAPHAEL LOTILLA, WILFREDO BILLENA, JOSE VICTOR LOBRIGO, EVANGELITO ESTACA AND MARILYN CAGUIMBAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ, Petitioners, v. BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND CELESTINO NOOL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172593, April 20, 2016 - NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RA

  • G.R. No. 192488, April 19, 2016 - BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC., MA. AMELIA S. BONOAN, AND CARMELITA S. DELA RAMA, Petitioners, v. JOCELYN L. NAVAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194119, April 13, 2016 - SONIA F. MARIANO, Petitioner, v. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR. ELIZABETH M. DEL RIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215548, April 05, 2016 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215726 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 216158 - MANGONDAYA ASUM TAGO, Petitioner, v. COMELEC AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT LARIOSA AND JAYPEE PINEDA, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2455 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.10-3443-RTJ), April 11, 2016 - NEMIA CASTRO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016 - RENE B. HERMANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. IGMEDIO S. PRADO JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016 - BIBIANO C. RIVERA AND LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA C. CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 213069 - CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) FOUNDATION AS REPRESENTED BY JESUS EMMANUEL L. VARGAS, Petitioner, v. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL AS REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 - PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194402, April 05, 2016 - NEPTALI S. FRANCO, MELINDA L. OCAMPO, ARTEMIO P. MAGABO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SOLEDAD MAGABO, BERNARDA C. LAVISORES, NICOMEDES B. DEYNATA, ALBERTO D. DOSAYLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AILENE JOY BILLONES DOSAYLA AND MARIETTA U. LARRACAS, Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE HON. ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD AND RICALINDA N. ADRIATICO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU-A, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213299, April 19, 2016 - PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016 - WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI,1 LENDO LOMINIQUI,2 AND JUN ANDALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210540, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HOMER AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203370, April 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 215106 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016 - CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, Petitioner, v. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214934, April 12, 2016 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JOVEN L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 - TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-59-MCTC, April 12, 2016 - RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE 7TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LILOAN-COMPOSTELA, LILOAN, CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 208360, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FELIPE BUGHO Y ROMPAL, A.K.A. "JUN THE MAGICIAN", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208446, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ARMANDO CADANO @ MANDO, JOJO ENORME @ JOJO, RUTHER GARCIA @ BENJIE/LOLOY, AND ALIAS TABOY, ACCUSED, JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, Accused-Appellants.