Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > August 2016 Decisions > G.R.No. 203880, August 10, 2016 - VICTORIA ECHANES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PATRICIO HAILAR AND ADORACION HAILAR, Respondents.:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R.No. 203880, August 10, 2016

VICTORIA ECHANES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PATRICIO HAILAR AND ADORACION HAILAR, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks the reversal of the Decision2 dated March 23, 2012, and Resolution3 dated October 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115688. The CA reversed the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, of Candon City, Ilocos Sur in Civil Case No. 1146-C, and reinstated the Decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sta. Cruz-Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur5 in Civil Case No. 552 dismissing the Complaint for Ejectment with Damages filed by petitioner.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe late Eduardo Cuenta was the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 1,447 square meters, more or less, located at Poblacion Anquileng (now Burgos), Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur designated as Lot No. 2297 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Lucia, Ilocos, Sur. As the owner of the said property, he was issued Tax Declaration No. 7622-C.6chanrobleslaw

On July 8, 1996, the heirs of Eduardo Cuenta executed an Extrajudicial Settlement7 dividing and adjudicating unto themselves the parcel of land left by Eduardo Cuenta.

A portion of Lot No. 2297 denominated as Lot No. 2297-A comprising 495 square meters was adjudicated to petitioner who is one of the heirs (granddaughter) of Eduardo Cuenta. Thereafter, petitioner applied for a free patent over Lot No. 2997-A. Accordingly, an Original Certificate of Title No. P-43056 was issued in her name by the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur on October 15, 1996.8chanrobleslaw

A portion of Lot No. 2291-A with an area of more or less 80 square meters is currently occupied by respondents. Since petitioner's children are in need of the area currently occupied by respondents, petitioner sent respondents a Notice to Vacate9 dated March 12,2009. The demand letter was received by the respondents on March 13, 2009. Despite receipt of said demand letter, respondents refused to vacate the premises.10chanrobleslaw

On April 14, 2009, petitioner filed a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sta. Cruz-Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur.11chanrobleslaw

Petitioner averred in her complaint that during the lifetime of her parents, respondents asked her parents that they be allowed to build their nipa house on the subject lot. The request by respondents was allegedly made in the presence of the petitioner. The request was granted by petitioner's parents on the condition that respondents would voluntarily vacate the land when the petitioner's family would need the same. Thus, according to petitioner, respondents' continued possession and occupation of the subject lot is out of tolerance and permission granted to them by petitioner and her parents.12chanrobleslaw

In their Answer, respondents countered that the late Domingo Joven (who died in 1967).13 the father of respondent Adoracion Joven Hailar, purchased the subject lot from the late Eduardo Cuenta after World War II as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 12141-C14 in the name of Domingo Joven issued in 1959. From then on, respondent Adoracion Joven Hailar and her siblings occupied and exercised acts of dominion, and have been in possession of the land exclusively, publicly, continuously for more than 40 years as evidenced by tax declarations and realty tax payments made by them. They built their family house thereon, and later, a house made of concrete materials was built valued at not less than P50,000.00.15chanrobleslaw

On April 19, 2010, the MCTC of Sta. Cruz - Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur, rendered a Decision, the decretal portion16 of which states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice on the part of the plaintiff in filing an accion publiciana or accion reivincicatoria, before the proper court. There being no proof of evident bad faith against the plaintiff in filing the instant case, no award of fees or damages may be granted.

SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, petitioner elevated the case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, of Candon City Ilocos Sur. On August 17, 2010, the RTC reversed and set aside the Decision of the MCTC. The dispositive portion of the decision states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the 11th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Cruz-Sta. Lucia, dated April 19, 2010, is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, Victoria Echanes, and against the defendants-appellees, Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar. The Court further orders:
  1. The Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar, and any person claiming title under them, to vacate the property-in-dispute, including the area where they builttheir house and to surrender the land in litigation to Victoria Echanes;

  2. The Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar, and any person claiming title under them to pay to Victoria Echanes the amount of P2,000.00 per month  as compensation for the use and occupation of the property-in-dispute, from March 28, 2009 and every month thereafter until they shall have finally vacated the premises;

  3. The Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar to pay attorney's fees in th&amount of P30,000.00 which is just and reasonable under the circumstances;
  4. The Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar to pay the costs of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED.17
Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated March 23, 2012, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and reinstated and affirmed the decision of the MCTC. Thefallo 18 states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 17, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of Candon City, Ilocos Sur is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The decision dated April 19, 2010 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur is REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but the same was denied by the CA on October 9, 2010.19chanrobleslaw

Hence, this petition, raising the following issues for resolution:
  1.  The CA erred in holding that petitioner failed to prove tolerance, by preponderance of evidence with respect to the possession of the respondents over the subject lot;
  2. The CA erred in holding that petitioner has failed to discharge her burden of proving her ejectment complaint by preponderance of evidence; and
  3. The CA erred when it reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.
To begin with, the only question that the courts must resolve in an unlawful detainer case is who between the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute.20 The main issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleading.21 The plaintiff must prove that it was in prior physical possession of the premises until it was deprived thereof by the defendant.22 The principal issue must be possession de facto, or actual possession, and ownership is merely ancillary to such issue.

However, where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has a better right to possess the property.23 In this regard, Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court allows the courts to provisionally determine the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of resolving the issue of physical possession. Otherwise stated, when the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership is to be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.24chanrobleslaw

In the case at bar, the petitioner derived her alleged right to possess the subject land from Original Certificate of Title No. P-43056 issued in her name by the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur on October 15, 1996. Petitioner contends that the issuance of said title presupposes her having been in possession of the property at one time or another.

On the other hand, the respondents' alleged right to possess the disputed property is based on having acquired the subject lot by Domingo Joven through purchase from Eduardo Cuenta. Tax Declaration No. 7622-C covering Lot No. 2207 was issued in 1952 in the name of Eduardo Cuenta. While Tax Declaration No. 12141-C, which is derived from and partly cancels Tax Declaration No. 7622-C, was issued in 1959 in the name of Domingo Joven. The land covered by Tax Declaration No. 12141-C has an area of 231 square meters.

The RTC opined that Eduardo Cuenta could have not sold the subject property after World War II, or on 1946, because he died in 1941 as alleged in the Extrajudicial Settlement. It noted that the tax declaration of respondents, dated 1959, does not indicate any mode of conveyance such that "no other conclusion can be arrived at other than that Eduardo Cuenta retained the ownership and possession of the entire residential land under Tax Declaration No, 7622-C, and that upon his death in 1941, his rights over the property were transmitted by operation of law to his surviving heirs, including the plaintiff-appellant (petitioner). 25cralawred Therefore, according to the RTC, the allegation of petitioner that respondents occupied the disputed property by mere tolerance of the parents of petitioner is easier to believe.26chanrobleslaw

In their Comments, respondents submit that the issuance of Tax Declaration No. 7622-C in 1952, covering Lot No. 2207 in the name of Eduardo Cuenta, disproves the finding of the RTC that Eduardo Cuenta died on May 15, 1941 as stated in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement. They argued that the purchase of the property took place between the year 1946 (the end of World War II) and 1952 (when the tax declaration was issued in the name of Domingo Joven).

It bears to reiterate that settled is the rule that the only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession  de jure. 27 It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable.28 In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants.29 Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.30chanrobleslaw

Therefore, since the issue of ownership is raised in this unlawful detainer case, its resolution boils down to which of the parties' respective evidence deserves more weight.31chanrobleslaw

At the outset, respondents stated in their Comment32 that the issue on tolerance is a question of fact and is an improper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45, and that the finding of the CA on the absence of tolerance on the part of petitioner is supported by substantial evidence and is conclusive and binding on the parties and on this Court.

The Court notes that the arguments raised here necessarily require a re-evaluation of the parties' submissions and the CA's factual findings. Ordinarily, this course of action is proscribed in a petition for review on certiorari; that is, a Rule 45 petition resolves only questions of law, not questions of fact. Moreover, factual findings of the CA are generally conclusive on the parties, and therefore, not reviewable by this Court provided they are supported by evidence on record or substantial evidence.33 By way of exception, however, the Court resolves factual issues when the findings of the MTCC and the RTC differ from those of the CA, as in this case.34chanrobleslaw

To prove the allegation of tolerance on the part of petitioner, she presented, among others, a portion of Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)35 dated September 11, 2003 taken during the hearing in the case for Quieting of Title36 and Annulment of Title37 filed against petitioner before the same MTC,38 and argued why the same was not considered by the MTC in the resolution of the issue.39 A perusal of the said TSN would show that Filomena Carbonell (sister of petitioner)40 testified that after World War II, Domingo Joven approached her aunt and begged that he be allowed to build a house on the disputed property. This lone statement of said witness in another case revealed somehow that it was not the parents of petitioner who allegedly tolerated the occupation of respondents contrary to the allegation of petitioner in her complaint.41chanrobleslaw

In the case of Quijano v. Amante, 42 it was held that the acts of tolerance must be proved showing the overt acts as to when and how the respondents entered the properties and who specifically allowed them to occupy the same. There should be any supporting evidence on record that would show when the respondents entered the properties or who had granted them to enter the same and how the entry was effected.43 Without these allegations and evidence, the bare claim regarding "tolerance" cannot be upheld.

As to the claim of respondents, it appears that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement was executed by the grandchildren (including petitioner) of Eduardo Cuenta. Since it cannot be ascertained from the deed as to when the children of Eduardo Cuenta died, or whether all the children of Eduardo Cuenta predeceased him, it is, therefore, not certain to say that the grandchildren inherited the subject property in 1941 when Eduardo Cuenta allegedly died. Assuming the children of Eduardo Cuenta (including the parent of petitioner) did not predecease Eduardo Cuenta, petitioner would then inherit the property only after the death of her parent, which date is not revealed in the deed. It is, therefore, an error on the part of the RTC to state that petitioner inherited the subject property in 1941, ahead of the alleged sale to respondents which took place after the World War, or sometime in 1946, or thereafter.

In an action for forcible entry and detainer, if plaintiff can prove prior physical possession in himself, he may recover such possession even from the owner, but, on the other hand, if he cannot prove such prior physical possession, he has no right of action for forcible entry and detainer even if he should be the owner of the property.44chanrobleslaw

There is no dispute that the respondents had continuously and openly occupied and possessed, in the concept of an owner, the subject property from the time they purchased it from Eduardo Cuenta. They segregated and declared for taxation purposes as early as 1959 the portion of Lot No. 2297-A consisting of 231 square meters. The property was consistently declared for taxation purposes until 2007. While tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proofs of possession, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not his actual or constructive possession.45 At the very least, they constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.

As correctly stated by the CA, the fact that respondents' documents traverse several decades, from 1959 to 2007, is an indication that respondents never abandoned their right to the property and have continuously exercised rights of ownership over the same. Their bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership was especially strengthened by their actual possession of property; in fact, respondents built a concrete house thereon. This adverse possession by the respondents belies the allegation of occupation by tolerance espoused by petitioner.

We agree with the ruling of the MTC that, compared to the bare assertion of petitioner that her parents merely tolerated respondents' possession, the version of the respondents that they are occupying the property by virtue of the conveyance in their favor through purchase many years ago is more credible.46chanrobleslaw

This ruling was affirmed by the CA, thus:
In emphasis, the petitioners very much placed in issue the alleged tolerance of the respondent's parents. In the law of evidence, allegations are not proofs, no more so when, as here the other party very much denied those allegations. The fatal error committed by the RTC is that it mistook allegations as proofs, ignoring the fact that those allegations were denied by petitioners.

In the akin case of Florentino Go, Jr., et al v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that:
xxx

It is settled that the one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land the moment he is required to leave. It is essential in unlawful detainer cases of this kind, that the plaintiff's supposed acts of tolerance, must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. This is where the petitioners' cause of action fails. The appellate court in full agreement with the MTC, made the conclusion that the alleged tolerance by their mother and after her death, by them, was unsubstantiated."
We agree with the MCTC that respondent failed to present evidence to support her claim that the occupation of the petitioners (respondents herein) was by mere tolerance. No weight should be given to the bare allegation of the respondent that petitioners' possession of the subject property was merely by virtue of her parents' tolerance because "bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules."47
The summary character of the proceedings in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto in the interest of preserving the peace of the community, but the summary proceedings may not be proper to resolve ownership of the property. Consequently, any issue on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of possession.48 On the other hand, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property and whatever may be the character of the plaintiffs prior possession, if it has in its favor priority in time, it has the security that entitles it to remain on the property until it is lawfully ejected through an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria by another having a better right.49chanrobleslaw

Thus, the unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid disruption of public order by those who would take the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession. In these cases, the issue is pure physical or de facto possession, and pronouncements made on questions of ownership are provisional in nature. The provisional determination of ownership in the ejectment case cannot be clothed with finality.50chanrobleslaw

In fact, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that "a judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land."

Hence, We need to stress that the ruling in this case is limited only to the determination as to who between the parties has a better right to possession. It will not bar any of the parties from filing an action with the proper court to resolve conclusively the issue of ownership.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 23, 2012, and its Resolution dated October 9, 2012, in CA-G.R. SPNo. 115688 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., J., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1 Rollo, pp. 8-18.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Antonio L. Villamor, concurring; id at 20-32.

3 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

4Id at 35-47.

5Id at 48-54.

6Id at 20, 92.

7 Id at 21, 90.

8Id at 21, 89.

9Id at 21.

10Id

11Id at 85.

12Id at 36, 85.

13Id at 68.

14 Id at 104.

15 Id at 49

16 Id at 91.

17Id at 112 and 113.

18Id at 30.

19 Id. at 33.

20 Estanislao, et al. v. Spouses Gudito, 706 Phil. 330, 335-336 (2013), citing Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 557, 579 (2004).

21 Caparros v. Court of Appeals, 252 Phil. 783, 787 (1989); Alvir v. Hon. Vera, etc., et al, 215 Phil. 308,311 (1984).

22Javelosa v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 331, 341 (1996); Maddammu v. Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, etc., et al, 74 Phil. 230, 231 (1943); Aguilar v. Cabrera, 74 Phil. 658, 665-666 (1944).

23 Spouses Dela Cruz v. Spouses Capco, 729 Phil. 624, 637 (2014).

24 Rules of Court, Rule 70, Section 16; see also Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 284 Phil. 217,232(1992).

25cralawred Rollo, p. 107.

26Id

27 Barrientos v. Rapal, 669 Phil. 438,444 (2011).

28Id

29Id

30 Id

31 Spouses Chingkoe v. Spouses Chingkoe, 709 Phil. 696, 707(2013).

32 Rollo, p. 119.

33] Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 539 Phil. 158, 169 (2006); Development Bank of the Phil. v. Traders Royal Bank, 642 Phil. 547, 556 (2010).

34] Dela Cruz v. Hermano, G.R. No. 160914, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 231, 238, citing Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, et al, 702 Phil. 506, 515 (2013).

35 Exhibit "L," rollo, p. 82.

36 Civil Case No. 275.

37 Civil Case No. 285

38 Both cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, laches and prescription. (Rollo, p. 12)

39 Rollo, p. 13.

40Id at 107.

41Id at 85.

42 G.R. No. 164277, October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 552, 564-565.

43 Padre v. Malabanan, 532 Phil. 714 (2006); Sarona, et al. v. Villegas, et al, 131 Phil. 365 (1968).

44 Ocampo v. Heirs of Bernardino Dionisio, G.R. No. 191101, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 381, 391-392, citing Salud Lizo v. Camilo Carandang, et al, 73 Phil. 649 (1942).

45 Dela Cruz v. Hermano, supra note 34, at 243.

46 Rollo, p. 90.

47 Rollo, pp. 28-29. (Citations omitted)

48 Spouses Refugia v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 982, 1006 (1996).

49 German Management & Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 258 Phil. 289, 293 (1989).

50 Barrientos v. Rapal, supra note 27, at 447, citing Spouses Samonte v. Century Savings Bank, 620 Phil. 494, 503 (2003).



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. YBAÑEZ AND NILA S. YBAÑEZ, 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. AVANCEÑA, 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.