Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > August 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DANILO A. PANGASINAN, Respondent.:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DANILO A. PANGASINAN, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO JR., J.:

The Case

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari are the Decision1 dated March 10, 2014 and Resolution2 dated August 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99739 which affirmed the Decision3 dated March 6, 2012 in Civil Case No. 11-0205 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260 in Parafiaque City (RTC), declaring the marriage of respondent Danilo A. Pangasinan and Josephine P. Pangasinan void on the ground of their respective psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

The Facts

Danilo and Josephine first met at the Philippine Plaza Hotel in Manila where they were both working sometime in 1981. Following a three-month courtship, Josephine became pregnant. To erase any notion of impropriety, the couple immediately contracted marriage, first civilly on December 29, 1981, followed by a church wedding on January 23, 1982.4 The couple begot three children—Juan Carlo, Julia Erika, and Josua.

At the outset, life for Danny and Josephine generally ran harmoniously, although marred from time to time by arguments about money matters. They did not have any major problems, and even became partners in Danilo's business pursuits.5 Signs of marital kinks appeared when Danilo's business began to slow down. This caused the couple to fight incessantly, since Danilo began to have difficulty supporting Josephine and their children at the same level to which they were accustomed.6 Allegations of infidelity on the part of Danilo compounded things.7chanrobleslaw

Sometime in September 2007, Josephine underwent hysterectomy. Four days after bringing her home from the hospital, Danilo flew to Tacloban for a business trip, which Josephine already knew of even prior to her operation. As it turned out, Josephine did not want him to leave. Danilo came home to find an irate Josephine seething at him. Josephine's sudden demand to see his bank passbook so enraged Danilo that he tossed the passbook in front of her. Josephine, in turn, became incensed and started to curse and berate him. Out of anger and exasperation, Danilo grabbed and smashed two glass cups beside him, while Josephine continued on with her tirade against him. Josephine left the conjugal home the next day, never to resume cohabitation with Danilo.8chanrobleslaw

Thereafter, Josephine filed a number of cases against Danilo, viz: two cases for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 and a petition for annulment—all of which she would withdraw. Subsequently, however, she filed an action for legal separation.9chanrobleslaw

After 30 years of marriage, Danilo filed a petition dated May 25, 2011 before the RTC, praying for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Josephine on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Docketed as Civil Case No. 11-0205, the petition was consolidated with the legal separation case that Josephine filed, but which was, however, ordered archived by the trial court upon her motion.

Danilo alleged in his petition that barely a few months into their boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, Josephine already exhibited certain negative traits, which he merely trivialized at that time.10 He eventually discovered his wife to be competitive, domineering, headstrong, and always determined to get what she wanted in the relationship. Their disagreements even over the most trivial matters usually ended up in fights. However, she would suddenly become overly excited and elated that she got her way whenever he gave in to her desires. She enjoyed talking about herself and expected him to give her special treatment, which he tried to satisfy by buying her nice and expensive gifts.11chanrobleslaw

Josephine's negative traits, so Danilo averred, existed prior to their marriage. These include an exaggerated sense of self-importance and sense of entitlement by giving the impression that she was superior to him. She always made the decisions during their marriage, especially when it came to money matters, and made it appear to her children that she was the one in-charge of the family. She ignored and demeaned his abilities and contributions, and complained that she received no help at all from him. 12 She was indifferent and lacked empathy to his plight, as shown by her lack of concern for his distress when she failed to take care of him in the hospital when he was recuperating from two heart surgeries in 2009. During this time, Josephine visited him but did not tend to his needs.13chanrobleslaw

In support of his case, Danilo presented Dr. Natividad A. Dayan (Dr. Dayan), a clinical psychologist, who, in her Psychological Evaluation Report,14 concluded that both Josephine and Danilo are psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their essential marital obligations of rendering love and respect to each other.

On January 9, 2012, the trial court issued an Order 15 approving the Compromise Agreement16 dated December 8, 2011 dividing their properties between them. Josephine manifested then that she is no longer presenting controverting evidence and is leaving the issue of nullity of their marriage entirely to the trial court for evaluation.

The Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision dated March 6, 2012, the trial court declared the marriage between Danilo and Josephine void from the start, noting, among others, that the totality of evidence presented show that both parties failed to establish a functional family as they were incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations. In this regard, the RTC gave much credence on Dr. Dayan's assessment of Josephine and Danilo's psychological incapacities. Thus, the trial court ordered them to comply with their compromise agreement respecting their property relations and the matter of support for their common children. The petition for legal separation was, however, dismissed for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, finding.merit to the petition, judgment is hereby rendered:
  1. DECLARING null and void ab initio the marriage between DANILO A. PANGASINAN and JOSEPHINE P. PANGASINAN solemnized on DECEMBER 29, 1981 in MAKATI CITY or any other marriages between them, on the ground of the psychological incapacity of respondent and incidentally on the part of petitioner.

  2. ORDERING both parties to strictly comply with the stipulations of their compromise agreement respecting their property relations and the matter of support for their common children.

  3. ORDERING the Local Civil Registrar of Makati City and National Statistics Office to cancel the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as appearing in the Registry of Marriages.

  4. The petition for Legal separation is dismissed for lack of merit.
There are no other issues in this case.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Registrars of Makati City and Paranaque City, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Paranaque City and the Office of the National Statistics Office (NSO).

SO ORDERED, (emphasis in the original)
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration but the trial court denied the motion in its Order17 dated August 23, 2012.

The Ruling of the CA

Upon review, the CA in the adverted Decision dated March 10, 2014 affirmed the trial court's findings that Josephine, indeed, suffers from psychological incapacity. Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,18 also known as the Molina case, in relation to Ngo Te v. Yu Te,19 the CA ruled that "Josephine was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the basic duties of marriage which was corroborated in material points by the conclusions of the clinical psychologist, x x x [T]he link between the acts that manifest incapacity and the psychological disorder itself was fully explained.20chanrobleslaw

The motion for the reconsideration of the adverted Decision was likewise denied by the CA in its Resolution dated August 26, 2014. Hence, this petition.

The OSG would have the Court set aside the appealed CA Decision in the submissions that the finding of psychological incapacity on the part of Danilo and Josephine is not in accordance with law and jurisprudence, and the petition filed by Danilo does not specifically allege the complete details of his own psychological incapacity as required by the governing rules.

The OSG contends that Danilo failed to prove that Josephine's psychological incapacity is a medically rooted psychological affliction that was incurable and.existing at the inception of their marriage. It further avers that the gravity, antecedence, root cause and incurability of Josephine's psychological incapacity were not established by the evidence of respondent21 in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court in Molina. The declaration of nullity of marriage is further assailed as the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, declared the nullity of the parties' marriage based on both of their psychological incapacities.

The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants, as the courts a quo determined, the declaration of nullity of Danilo and Josephine's marriage based on their psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The petition is meritorious.

"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental—not merely physical—incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.22chanrobleslaw

As declared by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals,23 psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Thereafter, in Molina24 the Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity cases, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.25cralawred
In sum, a person's psychological incapacity to comply with his or her essential obligations, as the case may be, in marriage must be rooted on a medically or clinically identifiable grave illness that is incurable and shown to have existed at the time of marriage, although the manifestations thereof may only be evident after marriage. Using the abovementioned standards in the present case, the Court finds that the totality of evidence presented is insufficient to establish Josephine and Danilo's psychological incapacity.

The totality of evidence presented
fails to establish the psychological
incapacity of the parties


In her Affidavit26 dated October 25, 2011, Dr. Dayan declared that there is sufficient basis to conclude that Josephine is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations since she is suffering from "301.81 Narcissitic Personality Disorder," as shown by her exaggerated sense of self-importance, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, arrogant and haughty behaviours, as well as beliefs of being superior and special; and that her psychological incapacity is rooted on a pre-existing personality disorder and shown to be grave, pervasive, incurable, and to have existed at the time of and even prior to the inception of marriage. Her personality disorder, Dr. Dayan surmises, had antecedents that were shown in her experiences of dysfunctional and chaotic family life while growing up. Dr. Dayan concludes that Josephine's personality disorder is shown to be grave, pervasive, and incurable, rendering her incapacitated to assume her marital obligations such as to observe love, respect, and render mutual support.

A careful reading of Dr. Dayan's testimony, however, reveals that it is replete with generalities and wanting in factual bases.

First, Dr. Dayan's findings as to the psychological incapacity of both parties were based on the psychological examination conducted on Danilo, as well as from information sourced from him, his sister, Emelie Pangasinan Gatus (Gatus), and the couple's son, Juan Carlo "Jay" Pangasinan (Jay). As pointed out by Josephine's counsel, Atty. Ferdinand Raymund Navarro, Dr. Dayan gave the following responses to the questions during her cross-examination as indicated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q:
You mentioned in your Psychological Report that the respondent has an exaggerated sense of self-importance?
 
A:

Yes, sir.

 
Q:
What specific instance or instances made you come to such a conclusion, madam witness?
 
A:
For the reason that during the marriage, she has always maintained a very dominant decision. She has always been arrogant and haughty, she was always contemptuous in her behavior towards the petitioner.
 
Q:
And these instances that you referred to, what was your source, madam witness?
 
A:
My sources are the petitioner, I also was able to interview other people, the daughter and sister of the petitioner. I was also able to interview the respondent, sir.
 
Q:
Did the respondent, during your interview, specifically state or referred to those instances you mentioned earlier?
 
A:
She maintained that she had difficulties in the marriage because both of them are not doing voluntary make up?
 
Q:
But did she refer to any instance showing what you maintain as exaggerated sense of self importance?
 
A:
She did not put it that way but she accepted that fact that she was feisty and she has problems relating with the petitioner, sir.
 
Q:
So, the source of your findings regarding these particular characteristics is only based on the manifestations of your other sources aside from the respondent?
 
A:
Yes, sir.27
While Dr. Dayan testified that she was able to interview Josephine, the said interview was conducted only through a phone call.28 No explanation was proffered as to how Dr. Dayan ascertained the identity of the interviewee nor as to the measures undertaken in ascertaining her identity. Thus, she could not have conclusively established that the person being interviewed was Josephine herself. This greatly undermines the credibility of the results of the psychological evaluation of Josephine. Dr. Dayan, in effect, relied only on the information given by Danilo, Gatus, and Jay. Dr. Dayan's testimony on Josephine's psychological profile did not prove the antecedence and root cause of her psychological incapacity.

It is true that in petitions for nullification of marriages, it is not necessary that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.29 However, the totality of evidence must still prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity.30 In addition to the foregoing, the psychological illness and its root cause must be proven to exist from the inception of the marriage.31chanrobleslaw

In this case, there is no such reliable and independent evidence establishing Josephine's psychological condition and its associations in her early life. Aside from what Danilo relayed to Dr. Dayan, no other evidence supports his claim and Dr. Dayan's finding that the root cause of Josephine's personality disorder antedated the marriage since Emelie and Jay's testimonies covered circumstances that transpired after the marriage.

Second, in view of the insufficiency of factual bases of and generalizations in her Psychological Evaluation Report, Dr. Dayan's testimony is inadequate to establish concretely the correlation between Josephine's personality and her inability to comply with her essential marital obligations to Danilo. Dr. Dayan merely made, as it were, a general assessment and conclusion as to the gravity and pervasiveness of Josephine's condition without sufficiently explaining how she arrived at such a conclusion:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q28. Can you please explain the nature of the Respondent's personality disorder?
   
A28. The nature is severe, as it is pervasive, affecting all areas of her life, x x x x
   
Q.31 You said that the Respondent's psychological incapacity is grave, what do you mean by that?
   
A31. It is so serious that the Respondent is unable to perform many, if not all, her marital obligations.32
The stringency by which the Court assesses the sufficiency of psychological evaluation reports is necessitated by the pronouncement in our Constitution that marriage is an inviolable institution protected by the State. It cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties, especially where the pieces of evidence presented are grossly deficient to show the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the condition of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated to assume and perform the essential marital duties.33 Any doubt should be resolved in favor of its existence and continuation and against its dissolution and nullity.34chanrobleslaw

Danilo's characterization of his wife, without more, is insufficient to constitute psychological incapacity. At most, it merely establishes that their personalities are different and that their frequent arguments and differences in handling finances and managing their business affairs were money-related. No less than Danilo's own sister, Gatus, narrated during her interview with Dr. Dayan that the couple's problems started when Danilo's business began to slow down and he began to have difficulty supporting his family at the same level they were used to.35 Thus, it appears that her "incapacity" surfaced only in the latter years of marriage when they experienced difficulties in their business ventures.

It has been held that mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" does not constitute psychological incapacity nor does failure of the'parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons.36 These differences do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring their marriage void. If at all, these are difficulties that couples ordinarily deal with in the course of their marriage.

In Marable v. Marable, this Court stressed that psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.37 The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.38 Josephine's insensitivity to Danilo's plight translates to a mere refusal on her part to perform her duties as his wife brought about by their arguments over their finances, and not an outright incapability to do so.

Danilo's psychological incapacity cannot be a basis of the
RTC's declaration of the invalidity of the marriage


Neither can the marriage be nullified on the basis of Danilo's supposed psychological incapacity. While Danilo was likewise diagnosed to be suffering from "301.9 Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, presenting symptoms of Passive-Aggressive and Avoidant Personality Disorder,"39 which the RTC considered in declaring the couple's marriage null and void, Danilo anchored his petition on the psychological incapacity of Josephine only. Section 2 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages specifically states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

(a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, (n)

(b) Where to file. - The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

(c) Imprescriptibility of action or defense. - An action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage shall not prescribe.

(d) What to allege. - A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.

The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but expert opinion need not be alleged, (Emphasis supplied)
Records show that Danilo's petition is hinged primarily on his allegation that Josephine is psychologically incapacitated to fulfil her marital obligations. Notably, Danilo's testimony and the information gathered from Dr. Dayan's interview with Gatus and Jay are inclined to prove Josephine's incapacity. As in Josephine's case, the records are bereft of any independent evidence nor allegation of facts pointing to the psychological incapacity of Danilo. Therefore, in addition to Danilo's failure to allege the complete facts showing his incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to Josephine, he likewise failed to prove his wife's incapacity by preponderance of evidence.

Finally, the Court notes the Compromise Agreement dated December 8, 2011 that Danilo and Josephine executed respecting the division of their properties and support of their common children. Considering that the parties may opt to divide their properties by judicial order under Art. 13440 of the Family Code, the Court upholds the validity of the Compromise Agreement. However, par. 341 thereof providing for the cessation of financial support in case the parties' marriage is declared null and void is inoperative since the marriage of the parties subsists.

The Court is not unmindful of the couple's marital predicament. Nevertheless, the Court has no choice but to apply the applicable law and jurisprudence accordingly, if it must be true to its mission under the rule of law. The Court's first and foremost duty is to apply the law no matter how harsh it may be.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99739 is SET ASIDE. The basic petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage commenced by Danilo A. Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 11-0205 is DENIED. The parties are enjoined to comply with the Compromise Agreement dated December 8, 2011, excluding paragraph 3 thereof which is declared to be inoperative and without legal force and effect.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Brion,* J., On Leave.
Peralta, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Additional Member per Raffle dated July 13, 2016.

1Rollo, pp. 36-43. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting.

2 Id. at 44.

3 Id. at 139-147.

4 Id. at 45-46, 57.

5 Id. at 75-76. (Report)

6 Id. at 80. (Emelie's interview)

7 Records, pp. 553, 559.

8Rollo, pp. 76-77.

9 CA rollo, pp. 51-52.

10 Records, p. 6.

11Rollo, p. 37.

12 Id. at 48.

13 Id. at 48-50.

14 Id. at 60-69.

15 Records, pp. 389-392.

16 Id. at 381-383.

17Rollo, pp. 148-151.

18 G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.

19 G.R. No. 161793, February 13,2009.

20Rollo, p. 40.

21 Id. at 102.

22Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014 (citations omitted).

23 G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20.

24 Supra note 18.

25cralawred Cited in Aurelio v. Aurelio, G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 201 1, 650 SCRA 571.

26 Records, pp. 270-278.

27 TSN, October 27, 2011, pp. 13-16.

28Rollo, p. 103.

29Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 755, 764.

30Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 123.

31Marable v. Marable, G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 557.

32 Records, p. 276, Affidavit dated October 25, 2011.

33Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010.

34Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 18.

35Rollo, p. 80.

36Paz v. Paz G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010 (citations omitted); Alcazar v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009; Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008 (citations omitted).

37 Supra note 31.

38Republic v. Cuison-Melgar, G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006; citing Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra note 23.

39Rollo, p. 68.

40 Art. 134. In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause.

41 "3. The parties agreed that once a decree of nullity of marriage is issued all marital obligations, including the giving of financial support for each other, shall cease following this approval by the court of the settlement/separation of property relations."



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.