Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > August 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 206936, August 03, 2016 - PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND MATEO A. BELIZAR, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 206936, August 03, 2016 - PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND MATEO A. BELIZAR, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 206936, August 03, 2016

PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND MATEO A. BELIZAR, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the October 31, 2012 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the Petition for Review3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 110724, and the CA's April 24, 2013 Resolution4 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration5 of the herein assailed Decision.

Factual Antecedents

On October 28, 2004, herein respondent Mateo A. Belizar (Belizar) filed SSC Case No. 11-15788-04 before the Social Security Commission (SSC), his co≠respondent in this Petition, to establish his actual period of employment with herein petitioner PICOP Resources, Inc.6 and compel the latter to remit unpaid Social Security System (SSS) premium contributions, in order that he may collect his SSS retirement benefits.7chanrobleslaw

The SSS intervened in the case, and, after proceedings in due course were taken, the SSC issued its February 4, 2009 Resolution8 containing the following pronouncement:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Upon due consideration of all the evidence on record, this Commission is thoroughly convinced that the petitioner was continuously employed as a preventive maintenance mechanic by respondent Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc/PICOP from 1966 to 1978. This finding is moored primarily on the positive and straightforward testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses, namely: Ramon A. Osaraga, and his brother, Anastacio Belizar, who, being co-employees of the petitioner within the same department of the respondent company, testified on the basis of their personal knowledge that the petitioner was, indeed, continuously employed by the respondent company during the said period. The sworn declarations of Felix V. Romero in the Joint Affidavit dated August 23, 2002 and that of Manuel M. Mijares in his Affidavit dated December 1, 2005, moreover, gave added evidentiary weight in establishing the petitioner's actual period of employment.

Based on the admission of the respondent in its Answer, the petitioner appears in its records to have been first employed in November 1966. Culled also from the certificate of employment dated September 14, 1977 issued by the respondent, the petitioner was paid a daily rate of P7.00 from November 3, 1966 until June 15, 1968. While there is testimonial evidence to prove that the petitioner worked with the respondent until 1978, it cannot be determined exactly when his employment ceased in that year, as well as the amount of his monthly compensation from July 1968 onwards. Hence, this Commission deems it appropriate to hold that the petitioner worked with the respondent from November 1966 until December 1978 and was paid the legal minimum wage then prevailing.

Despite the petitioner's claim that he was employed by the respondent starting 1965, there is no sufficient evidence to warrant such a finding as both the testimonial and documentary evidence on record preponderates as to show that he was first employed by the respondent only in November 1966, which, incidentally, is also the date he was reported to the SSS for coverage by the respondent. It was only the petitioner's brother, Anastacio Belizar, who claimed that the former was already working at PICOP when he was first hired in the last quarter of 1965. The rest of the petitioner's witnesses have no personal knowledge if he, indeed, worked with the respondent in 1965.

The respondent's bare contention that the petitioner was merely employed as a "casual Mechanic Helper" and/or "Casual Mechanic I", whose employment contract was periodically renewed, is belied by the overwhelming evidence as to the actual nature and duration of his employment in the respondent which it failed to refute.

It is paramount to clarify that not all casual employment are exempt from SS coverage. Section 8 (j) 3 of R.A. No. 1161, as amended, only exempts from SS coverage employment which is purely casual in nature and not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer. It is also settled that the determination of whether employment is casual or regular does not depend on the will or word of the employer, and the procedure of hiring but the nature of the activities performed by the employee, and to some extent, the length of performance and its continued existence x x x. And the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activities performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. x x x.

Thus, in the petitioner's case, his work as a Preventive Maintenance Mechanic from 1966 to 1978 at the mechanical and electrical section and/or light and heavy equipment department of the respondent company, which to date is engaged in the industry of paper production on a mammoth scale, is both necessary and desirable in the latter's usual trade or business. Despite the designation by the respondent of the petitioner's position in the certifications of employment that it issued as a mere "casual Mechanic Helper" and/or Casual Mechanic I, the repeated and continuous need for his services constitutes evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to the respondent and on the basis of the aforementioned legal authorities, his employment is regarded as regular.

Considering that the respondent only remitted 22 monthly SS contributions for and in behalf of the petitioner despite his continuous employment from November 1966 to December 1978, the respondent is liable to pay the unremitted SS contributions corresponding to the said period, as well as the 3% per month penalty imposed thereon for late payment until fully paid, pursuant to Section 22(a) of R.A. No. 8282 or the Social Security Act of 1997. Moreover, since the petitioner has reached the retirement age of sixty (60) on October 9, 2001, it appearing in his SSS records that he was born on October 9, 1941, the respondent is also liable to pay damages pursuant to Section 24(b) of the same law for failure to remit any contribution due prior to the date of contingency resulting into the reduction of benefits equivalent to the difference between the amount of benefit to which the employee member or his beneficiary is entitled to receive had the proper contributions been remitted to the SSS and the amount payable on the basis of the contributions actually remitted.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission finds, and so holds, that respondent PICOP RESOURCES, INC. is liable to pay the SSS, within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, the unremitted SS contributions corresponding to the petitioner's employment from November 1966 to December 1978 in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos and 10/100 (P1,373.10), the 3% per month penalty imposed thereon for late payment in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Sixty-Eight Pesos and 99/100 (P17,068.99), computed as of January 10, 2009, and damages in the amount of Seventy-Two Thousand Pesos (P72,000) for failure to remit all the contributions due the petitioner prior to his reaching the retirement age of sixty (60) on October 9, 2001, pursuant to Section 24(b) of the Social Security Act of 1997.

This is without prejudice to the right of the SSS to collect the additional 3% per month penalties that accrued after January 10, 2009 until fully paid.

Corollary herewith, the SSS is directed to immediately process and pay the petitioner's retirement benefit upon filing of the appropriate claim, it appearing from its records that he was born on October 9, 1941 and has already reached the retirement age of sixty (60) on October 9, 2001, subject to its existing rules and regulations, and to inform this Commission of its compliance herewith.

SO ORDERED.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,10 which the SSC denied in an Order11 dated July 15, 2009. It held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. For if only documentary evidence would be required to show the relationship, no scheming employer would ever be brought to the bar of justice, as no employer would wish to come out with any trace of illegality he has authored considering that it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written instrument x x x.

Thus, the existence of a documentary evidence tending to prove a person's employment for a limited period, such as in this case the adverted certifications of employment issued by the respondent's Human Resource Management, does not preclude the admission of other evidence, documentary or testimonial, to prove his actual period of employment, which may be longer than what has been certified by his employer. The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact and any competent evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Thus, in the petitioner's case, his positive and forthright testimony, as well as that of his witnesses, are considered competent proofs of his actual period of employment which may be admitted in addition to all the other evidence on record, testimonial or documentary.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Petition for Review13 filed with the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110724, petitioner sought reversal of the above SSC dispositions, arguing that the latter committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that Belizar was employed by it until 1978, and in giving more weight to Belizar's testimonial evidence instead of its documentary evidence.

Meanwhile, it appears that on April 26, 2010, petitioner remitted to the SSS Davao City Branch Office the amount of P1,373.10, or the total adjudged unremitted/delinquent SSS contributions corresponding to Belizar's employment from November 1966 to December 1978. This was supposedly done in availment of Republic Act No. 9903 (RA 9903), or the Social Security Condonation Law of 2009. For this, the SSS Bislig City Branch issued a Certification14 dated February 28, 2013, which states as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This is to certify that Picop Resources, Inc. (PRI) with SSS ER No. 09-1512165-0 had not filed an Application for Condonation of Penalty Program under R.A. No. 9903 or Social Security Condonation Law of 2009 in connection with SSC Case No. 11-15788-04 entitled 'Mateo Belizar vs. PRI.'

This is to certify further that PRI had paid Php1,373.10 on May 24, 2010 for the principal amount of its premium delinquency covering the period from January 1967 to December 1978 in favor of Mateo Belizar in compliance with the resolution of the Social Security Commission in SSC Case No. 11-15788-04. The penalties and damages, however, remain unpaid up to present.

Had the PRI applied for condonation of penalties under R.A. No. 9903 involving only one employee, Mateo Belizar, the same would be denied considering that the availment of the condonation of penalty program under R.A. 9903 should be for all employees of the delinquent employer.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On October 31, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 110724, which contains the following pronouncement:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE PETITION LACKS MERIT.

x x x x

The respondent SSC, in determining the coverable period of employment of x x x Belizar was clearly within its jurisdiction. Its finding that the private respondent was continuously employed as a preventive maintenance mechanic by Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc/PICOP from 1966 to 1978 was duly supported by substantial evidence as found in the records of the case. It was anchored not only on the credible testimonies of respondent Mateo's witnesses but also on the material admissions of the petitioner on record. The SSC, in its assailed resolution ratiocinated in this wise:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
'This finding is moored on the positive and straightforward testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses, namely: Ramon A. Osaraga, and his brother Anastacio Belizar, who, being co-employees of the petitioner within the same department of the respondent company, testified on the basis of their personal knowledge that the petitioner was, indeed, continuously employed by the respondent company during the said period. The sworn declarations of Felix V. Romero in the Joint Affidavit dated August 23, 2002 and that of Manuel M. Mijares in his Affidavit dated December 1, 2005, moreover, gave added evidentiary weight in establishing the petitioner's actual period of employment

Based on the admission of the respondent in its Answer, the petitioner appears in its records to have been first employed in November 1966. Culled also from the certificate of employment dated September 14, 1977 issued by the respondent, the petitioner was paid a daily rate of P7.00 from November 3, 1966 until June 15, 1968. While there is testimonial evidence to prove that the petitioner worked with the respondent until 1978, it cannot be determined exactly when his employment ceased in that year, as well as the amount of his monthly compensation from July 1968 onwards. Hence, this Commission deems it appropriate to hold that the petitioner worked with the respondent from November 1966 until December 1978 and was paid the legal minimum wage then prevailing.'

The public respondent SSS also argued that PICOP's assertion that its evidence deserve [sic] more probative value would entail the application of the rule on preponderance of evidence.

The findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies, which have acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, are accorded by this Court not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence. Only substantial, not preponderance, of evidence is necessary. Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

A preponderance of evidence is defined as 'evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'

x x x x

Errors of judgment are not necessarily a ground for reversal. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a situation, the administration of justice would not survive.

In its assailed order, the SSC pronounced:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
'It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted For if only documentary evidence would be required to show the relationship, no scheming employer would ever be brought to the bar of justice, as no employer would wish to come out with any trace of illegality he has authored considering that it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written instrument (Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 473).

Thus, the existence of a documentary evidence tending to prove a person's employment for a limited period, such as in this case the a[d]verted certifications of employment issued by the respondent's Human Resource Management, does not preclude the admission of other evidence, documentary or testimonial, to prove his actual period of employment, which may be longer than what has been certified by his employer. The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact and any competent evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Thus, in the petitioner's case, his positive and forthright testimony, as well as that of his witnesses, are considered competent proofs of his actual period of employment which may be admitted in addition to all the other evidence on record, testimonial or documentary.'

There is no reason for this Court to disturb the factual findings of the public respondent SSC. It is axiomatic that factual findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their field are binding and conclusive on the court, for as long as substantial evidence supports said factual findings.

The general rule is that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court. Hence, this Court finds the public respondent SSC to have acted well within its province and thus, no reversible error was committed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.16 (Italics in the original)
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing among others that all its adjudged liabilities were condoned when it availed of the provisions of RA 9903 on April 26, 2010 by paying the total adjudged unremitted/delinquent SSS contributions corresponding to Belizar's employment from November 1966 to December 1978. However, in an April 24, 2013 Resolution, the CA remained unconvinced.

Hence, the present Petition.

In an August 4, 2014 Resolution,17 this Court resolved to give due course to the Petition.

Issue

Petitioner submits that -
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT EVADED AND FAILED TO RULE ON THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, TO WIT:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHETHER X X X THE AVAILMENT BY PETITIONER OF THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 9903 HAD THE LEGAL EFFECT OF CONDONING THE PENALTIES, INTERESTS AND DAMAGES IMPOSED BY THE FEBRUARY 4, 2009 DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner's Arguments

Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that all its adjudged liabilities under the SSC's February 4, 2009 Resolution be considered condoned, petitioner maintains in the Petition and Reply19 that with its availment of the condonation program under RA 9903 and payment of delinquent and unpaid SSS contributions relative to Belizar's account within the period allowed by the law and applicable circulars, its other adjudged liabilities for penalties and damages should be eliminated and condoned as well; that since it is now undergoing rehabilitation, RA 9903 should be applied liberally in its case to allow it to fully recover; and that SSS's opposition, intervention, and chosen courses of action in the case are inconsistent with the concept of condonation mandated by RA 9903.

Respondent's Arguments

In its Comment20 praying for dismissal and corresponding affirmance of the assailed dispositions, the SSC argues that petitioner should have availed of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (1997 Rules); that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion; that the issue of condonation may not be raised, as it was not one of the issues submitted for resolution in the Petition for Review before the CA; that petitioner did not actually formally and properly avail of the condonation program under RA 9903, which fact is shown by the February 28, 2013 SSS Certification submitted by petitioner itself; and that if any, condonation under RA 9903 does not extend to the damages adjudged in SSC Case No. 11-15788-04.

Our Ruling

The Petition is denied.

The main issue to be resolved is: can petitioner avail of the provisions of RA 9903?

The answer is in the negative.

RA 9903, or the Social Security Condonation Law of 2009, provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 2. Condonation of Penalty. - Any employer who is delinquent or has not remitted all contributions due and payable to the Social Security System (SSS), including those with pending cases either before the Social Security Commission, courts or Office of the Prosecutor involving collection of contributions and/or penalties, may within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) remit said contributions; or

(b) submit a proposal to pay the same in installments, subject to the implementing rules and regulations which the Social Security Commission may prescribe: Provided, That the delinquent employer submits the corresponding collection lists together with the remittance or proposal to pay installments: Provided, further, That upon approval and payment in full or in installments of contributions due and payable to the SSS, all such pending cases filed against the employer shall be withdrawn without prejudice to the refiling of the case in the event the employer fails to remit in full the required delinquent contributions or defaults in the payment of any installment under the approved proposal.
In order to avail of the benefits under the said law, the employer must pay "all contributions due and payable" to the SSS, and not merely a portion thereof. In petitioner's case, it paid only the delinquent contributions corresponding to Belizar's account. The February 28, 2013 Certification issued by the SSS Bislig City Branch bears this out:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This is to certify that Picop Resources, Inc. (PRI) with SSS ER No. 09-1512165-0 had not filed an Application for Condonation of Penalty Program under R.A. No. 9903 or Social Security Condonation Law of 2009 in connection with SSC Case No. 11-15788-04 entitled'Mateo Belizar vs. PRI.'

This is to certify further that PRI had paid Php1,373.10 on May 24, 2010 for the principal amount of its premium delinquency covering the period from January 1967 to December 1978 in favor of Mateo Belizar in compliance with the resolution of the Social Security Commission in SSC Case No. 11-15788-04. The penalties and damages, however, remain unpaid up to present.

Had the PRI applied for condonation of penalties under R.A. No. 9903 involving only one employee, Mateo Belizar, the same would be denied considering that the availment of the condonation of penalty program under RA. 9903 should be for all employees of the delinquent employer.21 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
SSS Circular No. 2010-004, Series of 2010, which provides for the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9903, states that "[a]ny employer who is delinquent or has not remitted all contributions due and payable to the SSS may avail of the condonation program under the law.22 In order to be covered by the program, the employer must a) "[r]emit within the period of the Program the full amount of the delinquent contributions through any SSS Branch with tellering facility or authorized collection agents of the SSS e.g. banks, payment centers," or b) "[s]ubmit a proposal x x x within the period of the Program to pay the delinquent contributions in installment to the SSS Branch having jurisdiction over its place of business or household address."23 It would appear from the February 28, 2013 Certification issued by the SSS Bislig City Branch that petitioner failed to pay the full amount of its delinquent contributions; nor did it submit a proposal to pay the same in installments. Therefore, petitioner has not placed itself under the coverage of RA 9903.

"The clear intent of the law is to grant condonation only to employers with delinquent contributions or pending cases for their delinquencies and who pay their delinquencies within the six (6) month period set by the law."24 It was never the intention of RA 9903 to give the employer the option of remitting and settling only some of its delinquencies, and not all; of paying the lowest outstanding delinquencies and ignoring the most burdensome; of choosing the course of action most beneficial to it, while leaving its employees and government to enjoy the least desirable outcome. If this were so, then the purpose of the law would be defeated.

To repeat, the clear implication of the February 28, 2013 SSS Certification is that petitioner did not settle its delinquencies in full. Well into the present proceedings, petitioner has failed to disprove such fact. For this reason, it cannot avail of the benefits under RA 9903. "Laws granting condonation constitute an act of benevolence on the government's part, similar to tax amnesty laws; their terms are strictly construed against the applicants."25cralawred If petitioner desires to be covered under RA 9903, it must show that it is qualified to avail of its provisions. This it failed to do, and for this reason, it may not escape payment of its adjudged liabilities under the SSC's February 4, 2009 Resolution.

Having gone into the very heart of the case and resolved the main issue that needed to be addressed, the Court finds no need to dwell on the other matters raised by the parties. The resolution thereof cannot alter the inevitable outcome; on the other hand, these issues have become unessential and irrelevant. Since this Court has declared that petitioner did not qualify for availment of the provisions of RA 9903, it must therefore answer for its adjudged liabilities as determined by the SSC in its February 4, 2009 Resolution.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed October 31, 2012 Decision and April 24, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110724 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., on leave.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 3-25.

2 Id. at 27-43; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser.

3 Id. at 70-85.

4 Id. at 45-46.

5 Id. at 173-181.

6 A domestic corporation originally known as Bislig Bay Lumber, Inc., and later, Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines or PICOP.

7Rollo, pp. 47-49; Petition in SSC Case No. 11-15788-04.

8 Id. at 50-55; penned by Commissioner Fe Tibayan Palileo.

9 Id. at 53-55.

10 Id. at 56-67.

11 Id. at 68-69; penned by Commissioner Fe Tibayan Palileo.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 151-172.

14 Id. at 185.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 35-42.

17 Id. at 239-240.

18 Id. at 8-9.

19 Id. at 216-224.

20 Id. at 196-201.

21 Id. at 185.

22 SSS Circular No. 2010-004, Section 2. Emphasis supplied.

23 Id. Section 10. Emphasis supplied.

24Mendoza v. People, 675 Phil. 759, 765-766 (2011).

25cralawred Id. at 767.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





August-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 206936, August 03, 2016 - PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND MATEO A. BELIZAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201070, August 01, 2016 - LUZ S. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. LEONORA C. MARIANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195072, August 01, 2016 - BONIFACIO DANAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GREGORIO SERRANO AND ADELAIDA REYES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202531, August 17, 2016 - GOMECO METAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND PAMANA ISLAND RESORT HOTEL AND MARINA CLUB, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187349, August 17, 2016 - BARANGAY MAYAMOT, ANTIPOLO CITY, Petitioner, v. ANTIPOLO CITY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF ANTIPOLO, BARANGAYS STA. CRUZ, BAGONG NAYON AND MAMBUGAN, AND CITY ASSESSOR AND TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214450, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL PRADO Y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 194649, August 10, 2016 - SOLIMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND TERESITA L. SOLIMAN, Petitioners, v. IGMEDIO C. SARMIENTO, JOSE JUN CADA AND ERVIN R. ROBIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201106, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD BALLACILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212930, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELO BUENAFE Y BRIONES @ ANGEL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 158464, August 02, 2016 - JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192790, August 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YOLANDO LIBRE ALIAS "NONOY," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 184008, August 03, 2016 - INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. FILIPINO INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9436, August 01, 2016 - SPOUSES NUNILO AND NEMIA ANAYA, Complainants, v. ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, JR., Respondent.

  • GR. No. 196735, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN PROMULGATED: ALVIR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11380, August 16, 2016 - JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210218, August 17, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANTONINA RABIE, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212848, August 17, 2016 - ISIDRO COSME AND FERNAN COSME, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3485 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-47-MTC], August 01, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ELENA S. DIONISIO, FORMER OFFLCER-IN-CHARGE, INTERPRETER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CARDONA, RIZAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210752, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE REGALADO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191088, August 17, 2016 - FRILOU CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. AEGIS INTEGRATED STRUCTURE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205004, August 17, 2016 - SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. AND GONIGONDA IBIAS, Petitioners, v. BENITA PEREZ MACABEO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10443, August 08, 2016 - WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR., REPRESENTED BY ROSARIO B. CAMPOS, RITA C. BATAC AND DORINA D. CARPIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205623, August 10, 2016 - CONCHITA A. SONLEY, Petitioner, v. ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK/ EQUICOM SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208181, August 31, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202808, August 24, 2016 - EDUARDO C. SILAGAN, Petitioner, v. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., VICTORIANO A. BASCO AND/OR HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARITIME, CO., LTD.,* Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206878, August 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO CAGA Y FABRE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207586, August 17, 2016 - AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFPRSBS), Petitioner, v. EDUARDO SANVICTORES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016 - SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA, Complainants, v. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210128, August 17, 2016 - ATTY. AMADO Q. NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICES (DOF-RIPS), REPRESENTED BY JOSE APOLONIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182252, August 03, 2016 - JOSE NORBERTO ANG, Petitioner, v. THE ESTATE OF SY SO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167082, August 03, 2016 - TERESITA I. BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189852, August 17, 2016 - THOMAS BEGNAEN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES LEO CALIGTAN AND ELMACALIGTAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192297, August 03, 2016 - SUPRA MULTI-SERVICES, INC., JESUS TAMBUNTING, JR., AND RITA CLAIRE T. DABU, Petitioners, v. LANIE M. LABITIGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219830, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO O. BATUHAN AND ASHLEY PLANAS LACTURAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219783, August 03, 2016 - SPOUSES ERNESTO TATLONGHARI AND EUGENIA TATLONGHARI, Petitioners, v. BANGKO KABAYAN-IBAAN RURAL BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8825, August 03, 2016 - BUDENCIO DUMANLAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAIME M. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220998, August 08, 2016 - HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. RENANTE J. OBRA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209032, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIVENCIO AUSA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 218809, August 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN EGAGAMAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212530, August 10, 2016 - BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC., Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216130, August 03, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11113, August 09, 2016 - CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF THE ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213380, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMAN ESPIA, Accused-Appellant; JESSIE MORANA, REX ALFARO, RODRIGO AZUCENA, JR., AND RENANTE ABISADO, Accused.

  • G.R. No. 202176, August 01, 2016 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHUY LU TAN, MR. ROMEO TANCO, DR. SY SE HIONG, AND TAN CHU HSIU YEN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3113, August 02, 2016 - ROSEMARIE GERDTMAN, REPRESENTED BY HER SISTER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROSALINE LOPEZ BUNQUIN, Complainant, v. RICARDO V. MONTEMAYOR, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, CALAPAN CITY, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016 - GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. JUAN ANTONIO MUNOZ, Respondent.

  • G.R.No. 203880, August 10, 2016 - VICTORIA ECHANES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PATRICIO HAILAR AND ADORACION HAILAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200299, August 17, 2016 - SPOUSES JUAN CHUY TAN AND MARY TAN (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY THE SURVIVING HEIRS, JOEL TAN AND ERIC TAN, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206451, August 17, 2016 - ELPIDIO MAGNO, HEIRS OF ISIDRO M. CABATIC, NAMELY: JOSE CABATIC, RODRIGO CABATIC, AND MELBA CABATIC; AND ODELITO M. BUGAYONG, AS HEIR OF THE LATE AURORA MAGNO, Petitioners, v. LORENZO MAGNO, NICOLAS MAGNO, PETRA MAGNO, MARCIANO MAGNO, ISIDRO MAGNO, TEODISTA MAGNO, ESTRELLA MAGNO, BIENVENIDO M. DE GUZMAN, CONCHITA M. DE GUZMAN, SILARY M. DE GUZMAN, MANUEL M. DE GUZMAN AND MANOLO M. DE GUZMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196289, August 15, 2016 - Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217024, August 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODEL BOLO Y MALDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200765, August 08, 2016 - DESIDERIO RANARA, JR., Petitioner, v. ZACARIAS DE LOS ANGELES, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213157, August 10, 2016 - NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. OFELIAM. OLIVA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 213558 - OFELIA M. OLLVA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10231, August 10, 2016 - OSCAR M. BAYSAC, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELOISA M. ACERON-PAPA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189081, August 10, 2016 - GLORIA S. DY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANDY COMMODITIES CO., INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, WILLIAM MANDY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203192, August 15, 2016 - IBM PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. PRIME SYSTEMS PLUS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188769, August 03, 2016 - JOSEPH OMAR O. ANDAY A, Petitioner, v. RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN, INC., DEMOSTHENES P. ORAIZ and RICARDO D. GONZALEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE BOY EDA Y CASANI, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217872, August 24, 2016 - ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI) AND ATTY. MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS PRESIDENT OF ALFI, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. ARANETA, SALVACION C. MONTIERO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI AND MILDRED C. CASTOR, Petitioners, v. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CENTER FOR DRUG REGULATION AND RESEARCH, Respondents.; G.R. No. 221866 - MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS COUNSEL OF PETITIONERS, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, ROSIE B. LUISTRO, ELENITA S.A. SANDEJAS, EMILY R. LAWS, EILEEN Z. ARANETA, SALVACION C. MONTIERO, MARIETTA C. GORREZ, ROLANDO M. BAUTISTA, RUBEN T. UMALI AND MILDRED C. CASTOR, Petitioners, v. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND MARIA LOURDES C. SANTIAGO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CENTER FOR DRUG REGULATION AND RESEARCH, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208758, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOVEN GERON Y YEMA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DANILO A. PANGASINAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212632, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEN ANDO Y SADULLAH AND SARAH ANDO Y BERNAL, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219592, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTHUR PARCON Y ESPINOSA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 181268, August 15, 2016 - MILAGROS HERNANDEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FE HERNANDEZ-ARCEO, Petitioner, v. EDWINA C. OCAMPO, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, FELICITAS R. MENDOZA, METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINAN, LAGUNA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177875, August 08, 2016 - ATTY. RODOLFO D. MATEO, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ARTHUR P. AUTEA, PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, JOSE J. BELTRAN, EVELYN F. DACUYCUY, C.G. DUMATAY, HIGEVO C. MANGOSING, JOEY C. CASTRO, PACITA F. BARBA, RICARDO OLARTE, BELEN I. JUAREZ, LIZA T. OLIVAR, LUISA C. BOKINGO, SANDRO JESUS T. SALES, EDGARDO T. AGBAY, EDUARDO F. PACIO, MILDRED V. BEADOY, FRANCIS B. HILARIE, MA. NERIZZA L. BERDIN, LUIS S. RONGAVTLLA, ARLENE C. DIAZ, MARY JANE M. LAPIDEZ, MELCHOR P. ABRIL, VILMA A. VERGARA, MA. ISABEL S. NOFUENTE, BEATRIZ N. SORIANO, MA. ANNABELLE S. LUSUNG, JAIME M. NOFUENTE, ERLINDA RIZO, MA. CHAREVA S. GONZALES, LILIAN P. GACUSAN, MA. ANGELICA R. RONGAVILLA, EVELYN V. AYSON, CHARITO M. MENGUITO, ARLEEN E. BATAC, RENATO R. RIZO, EDUARDO D. ADINO, MILAGROS M. VELASCO, BELEN T. TORMON, RENATO P. GOJO CRUZ AND EMMIE L. RUALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185369, August 03, 2016 - J. TOBIAS M. JAVIER AND VINCENT H. PICCIO III, Petitioners, v. RHODORA J. CADIAO, ALFONSO V. COMBONG, JR., BENJAMIN E. JUANITAS, CALIXTO G. ZALDIVAR III, DANTE M. BERIONG, FERNANDO C. CORVERA, HECTOR L. FRANGUE AND KENNY S. OLANDRES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163494, August 03, 2016 - JESUSA T. DELA CRUZ Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220023, August 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DARIO TUBORO Y RAFAEL, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206227, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STANLEY BUENAMER Y MANDANE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215954, August 01, 2016 - SPOUSES JOVEN SY AND CORAZON QUE SY, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016 - WILFREDO MOSQUEDA, MARCELO VILLAGANES, JULIETA LAWAGON, CRISPIN ALCOMENDRAS, CORAZON SABINADA, VIRGINIA CATA-AG, FLORENCIA SABANDON, AND LEDEVINA ADLAWAN, Petitioners, v. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. No. 189305 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION (PBGEA), DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187850, August 17, 2016 - ANITA U. LORENZANA, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO LELINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215750, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLITO TAYAO Y LAYA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191527, August 22, 2016 - BALIBAGO FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. AND PHILIPPINE BAPTIST S.B.C., INC., Petitioners, v. FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. AND REYNALDO GALVAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-13-3137, August 23, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. UMAIMA L. SILONGAN, ABIE M. AMILIL, AND SALICK U. PANDA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170060, August 17, 2016 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CLARGES CORPORATION, REALTY Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 2404, August 17, 2016 - NILO B. DIONGZON, Petitioner, v. ATTY. WILLIAM MIRANO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016 - AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), Complainant, v. ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192491, August 17, 2016 - MARY JANE G. DY CHIAO, Petitioner, v. SEBASTIAN BOLIVAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, IN NAGA CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220479, August 17, 2016 - PASDA, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC, SR., SUBSTITUTED BY THE HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. DEMOSTHENES D. C. DIMAYACYAC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219569, August 17, 2016 - HSY MARKETING LTD., CO., Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO O. VILLASTIQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205573, August 17, 2016 - HELEN LORENZO CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, TEOFILO Q. INOCENCIO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REGIONAL OFFICE NO. III, AND YOLANDA MERCADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218578, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRICO BRIONES BADILLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213187, August 24, 2016 - HAIDE BULALACAO-SORIANO, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO PAPINA, REPRESENTED BY ROSEMARY PAPINA-ZABALA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016 - JAKERSON G. GARGALLO, Petitioner, v. DOHLE SEAFRONT CREWING (MANILA), INC., DOHLE MANNING AGENCIES, INC., AND MR. MAYRONILO B. PADIZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213241, August 01, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. JUAN F. VILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220461, August 24, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPOUSES PRIMO C. YBA—EZ AND NILA S. YBA—EZ, MARIS Q. REYOS, AND MICHELLE T. HUAT, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.C. No. 9464, August 24, 2016 - INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK, PHIL., INC., REPRESENTED BY LUIS MARCO I. AVANCE—A, Complainant, v. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-SIMBILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA," Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3418 (Formerly A.M. No. P-12-3-46-RTC), August 08, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANTONIA P. ESPEJO, STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222658, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO GALIA BAGAMANO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3515 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-4401-P), August 10, 2016 - ARNOLD G. TECSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARICEL LILLED ASUNCION-ROXAS, CLERK OF COURT VI, BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214186, August 03, 2016 - RODFHEL BACLAAN, TORREFIEL, MYRA SUACILLO, LORLIE ORENDAY, SHEELA LAO, AND LEODELYN LIBOT, Petitioners, v. BEAUTY LANE PHILS., INC/MS. MA. HENEDINA D. TOBOJKA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195138, August 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MISAMIS ORIENTAL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3490 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4278-P], August 30, 2016 - JUDGE FE GALLON-GAYANILO, Complainant, v. ERIC C. CALDITO, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 35, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO,, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11317, August 23, 2016 - ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215715, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDCEL COLORADA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220608, August 31, 2016 - MARCELINO T. TAMIN, Petitioner, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR MASTERBULK PTE. LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185473, August 17, 2016 - BERNADETTE IDA ANG HIGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200577, August 17, 2016 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CAROLINA P. JUEN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185638, August 10, 2016 - HONORABLE ALVIN P. VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR OF CABANATUAN CITY, AND SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF CABANATUAN CITY, Petitioners, v. LOURDES MELENCIO S. GRECIA, REPRESENTED BY RENATO GRECIA, AND SANDRA MELENCIO IN REPRESENTATION OF MA. PAZ SALGADO VDA. DE MELENCIO, CONCHITA MELENCIO, CRISTINA MELENCIO AND LEONARDO MELENCIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190143, August 10, 2016 - SPOUSES LOLITA ORENCIA AND PEDRO D. ORENCIA, Petitioners, v. FELISA CRUZ VDA. DE RANIN, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. ESTELA C. TANCHOCO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 - ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE, Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9920 [Formerly A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691], August 30, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198756, August 16, 2016 - BANCO DE ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioners; RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioners-Intervenors; CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, AND BUREAU OF TREASURY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016 - VICENTE M. GIMENA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR T. SABIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199239, August 24, 2016 - PERCY MALONESIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER OF AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO), Petitioner, v. ARTURO M. JIZMUNDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216146, August 24, 2016 - ALFREDO L. CHUA, TOMAS L. CHUA AND MERCEDES P. DIAZ, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 187822-23, August 03, 2016 - EVER ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING, INC., VICENTE C. GO AND GEORGE C. GO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (PBCOM), REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, MR. DOMINGO S. AURE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220399, August 22, 2016 - ENRIQUE Y. SAGUN, Petitioner, v. ANZ GLOBAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS (MANILA), INC., GAY CRUZADA, AND PAULA ALCARAZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174379, August 31, 2016 - E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. (ASSIGNEE OF INVENTORS CARINI, DUNCIA AND WONG), Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR EMMA C. FRANCISCO (IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE), DIRECTOR EPIFANIO M. EVASCO (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DHUECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PATENTS), AND THERAPHARMA, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3541 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3915-P], August 30, 2016 - SYLVIA G. CORPUZ, Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-16-3542 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 13-4049-P] - PRESIDING JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 7, Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-16-3543 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 13-4074-P] - IRINEO F. MARTINEZ, JR., Complainant, v. CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, RESPONDENT.; OCA IPI No. 14-2731-MTJ - CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 7, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8698, August 31, 2016 - MANUEL B. BERNALDEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILMA DONNA C. ANQUILO-GARCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198160, August 31, 2016 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v. GREGORIA ADOLFO, GREGORIO LAZARO AND HEIRS OF ELIAS POLICARPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209385, August 31, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SALUD ABALOS AND JUSTINA CLARISSA P. MAMARIL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189289, August 31, 2016 - GLORIA ZOLETA-SAN AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO SALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199431, August 31, 2016 - STA. FE REALTY, INC. AND VICTORIA SANDEJAS FABREGAS, Petitioners, v. JESUS M. SISON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221848, August 30, 2016 - FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. REY RUECA CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218086, August 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE BALISONG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 197356, August 24, 2016 - EMILIO A. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. CARMELITA TANGKENGKO, MORRIS TANGKENGKO AND RANILLO TANGKENGKO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183173, August 24, 2016 - THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Petitioners, v. EJERCITO LIM, DOING BUSINESS AS BONANZA AIR SERVICES, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CAPT. ERNESTO LIM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199497, August 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA CAMANNONG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 211724, August 24, 2016 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219071, August 24, 2016 - SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARAVILLO, JR., Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE,* NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, Respondents.