Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > August 2016 Decisions > 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.:




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.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

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.

R E S O L U T I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, assails 1) the July 31, 2012 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125543, which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Helen Lorenzo Cunanan (Cunanan); and 2) its November 26, 2012 Resolution2 which denied her motion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

On January 27, 2009, private respondent Yolanda Mercado (Mercado) filed a petition3 for deallocation of a home lot originally awarded to Alejandro Lorenzo (Lorenzo), the father of Cunanan, with the Department of Agrarian Reform-Regional Office No. III (DAR-R03).

On April 8, 2010, the DAR-R03 issued the Order4 dismissing the petition of Mercado. The decretal portion of which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued DISMISSING the Petition of Yolanda Mercado for the reallocation, in her favor, of that 8oo square meters located at Barangay Maligaya, Tarlac City, previously embraced by TCT No. 150056 registered in the name of Alejandro Lorenzo, now in the name of Helen Lorenzo, under TCT No. 288509, for utter want of merit.

SO ORDERED.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On May 13, 2010, Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration,6 praying that the April 8, 2010 Order be reconsidered and set aside.

On October 13, 2010, the DAR-R03 issued the Order7granting Mercado's motion for reconsideration. It explained that she was able to show that Lorenzo and his heirs were absentee landlords. The dispositive portion of the said order reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued, as follows:
  1. SETTING ASIDE the Order, dated April 8, 2010; and cralawlawlibrary

  2. RECOMMENDING the cancellation of TCT No. 288509 issued in the name of Helen Lorenzo, involving the subject property with an area of Eight Hundred (800) square meters, more or less, located at Barangay Maligaya, Tarlac City.
This Office reserves the right to cancel or revoke this Order in case of misrepresentation, or violation of pertinent existing DAR policies, rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied]
On December 1, 2010, the DAR-R03 issued the Order of Finality8 declaring the October 13, 2010 Order final and executory.

Sometime in April 2011, Cunanan inquired with the DAR Provincial Office in Tarlac City regarding the status of the home lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 150056 (now TCT No. 288509). She was surprised to learn that an order of finality of the October 13, 2010 Order had already been issued.

On May 13, 2011, Cunanan filed with the DAR-R03 her Motion to Quash Order of Finality and Other Orders.9 She averred that she was neither informed of the proceedings before the DAR nor was furnished copies of any pleading or notice. Thus, according to her, the DAR never acquired jurisdiction over her person. She further asserted that such order deprived her of her property without due process of law in violation of her constitutional right which made all proceedings and orders null and void.

On June 13, 2011, without waiting for the resolution on the said motion, Cunanan filed her Petition for Relief from Judgment10 pertaining to the October 13, 2010 Order. She stated, among others, that she came to know of the decision, which was based solely on the evidence presented by Mercado, only on April 14, 2011; that she could not have possibly answered the subject petition for reallocation and gone to trial because she was not served the summons and notices or furnished copies of orders; that she had a good and substantial defense, and the property should not be reallocated; that she inherited the subject property from her father and never abandoned the same; and, that if given the opportunity, she would present proof in support of her position.

On June 14, 2011, Cunanan filed her Petition11 for Injunction and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction before the CA which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 120083. She again averred that she was the registered owner of the subject property; that she only came to know of the decision on April 14, 2011; and that she was not served summons or sent notices of hearing. To stress the importance of her petition, she claimed that the case was a matter of extreme urgency and she would suffer grave and irreparable injury or damage unless Mercado and the DAR were enjoined immediately from proceeding with the cancellation of TCT No. 288509 in her name and its transfer to Mercado.

On October 5, 2011, Cunanan received a copy of the September 26, 2011 Resolution,12 which dismissed her petition for injunction and prohibition with preliminary injunction for failing to comply with the rules. Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It appearing from the JRD report dated August 31, 2011 that petitioner failed to comply with Our Resolution dated July 8, 2011 requiring petitioner: (1) to pay the deficient amount of P150.00 as payment for docket and other legal fees; (2) to indicate the date of issuance of counsel for petitioner's MCLE Certificate of Compliance; and (3) to submit an affidavit of service and registry receipts issued by the mailing office as proof that copies of the pleading were sent to the other parties as required under Sec. 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, despite the fact that counsel for petitioner received on July 20, 2011 the aforesaid resolution per Registry Return Receipt No. 594, for failure to comply therewith, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
On February 8, 2012, Cunanan received the January 17, 2012 Entry of Judgment13 certifying that the September 26, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 120083 had become final and executory, and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.

Meanwhile, the DAR-R03 was furnished a copy of the CA resolution stating that its September 26, 2011 Resolution had attained finality on October 21, 2011. The CA also sent to the said office a copy of the Entry of Judgment reciting the dispositive part of the September 26, 2011 Resolution. Thereafter, the DAR-R03 issued the Order,14 dated March 9, 2012, dismissing the motion to quash order of finality and the petition for relief from judgment, filed by Cunanan, for being moot and academic.

Cunanan filed a motion for reconsideration15 of the March 9, 2012 Order of the DAR-R03 but the said motion was denied in its April 9, 2012 Order16 for lack of merit.

Aggrieved, Cunanan filed a petition for certiorari17 with the CA and prayed that the March 9, 2012 Order of the DAR-R03, which dismissed her motion to quash order of finality and her petition for relief from judgment, and its April 19, 2012 Order, which denied her motion for reconsideration, be set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. She also prayed that a decision be issued to annul and set aside the proceedings conducted by the DAR-R03 on Mercado's petition for reallocation of home lot awarded to Lorenzo for being violative of her right to due process. She stated that the DAR-R03 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its assailed March 9, 2012 and April 19, 2012 orders.

Cunanan disagreed with the position of the DAR-R03 that the issues she raised in her petition for injunction and prohibition before the CA, on one hand, and in her motion to quash and petition for relief of judgment before the DAR, on the other, were the same. Citing Strong vs.Castro,18 she argued that the petition for injunction and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction was filed to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice. Conversely, relying upon Bueno v. Patanao,19 she contended that the provisional remedy of injunction, a judicial weapon to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case could be heard, and which preceded the pending controversy, must be executed promptly and expeditiously to avert trouble or its recurrence. In fine, she sought for the CA to enjoin the DAR from awarding her property to Mercado without due process, as it was against what was ordained by the Constitution.20chanrobleslaw

In contrast, she continued, the motion to quash order of finality and the petition for relief from judgment were initiated for the DAR-R03 to annul and set aside all the proceedings and the judgment it rendered in Mercado's petition for reallocation, the same being null and void for violating her constitutional right to due process.

On July 31, 2012, the abovementioned petition for certiorari was dismissed by the CA. The latter stated in its resolution that because the subject orders were rendered by the DAR-R03 in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions and the petition involved questions of fact and law, the appropriate mode of appeal was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The period for the filing of a petition for review, however, had already lapsed. The assailed order was received on May 4, 2012, so the petition for review should have been filed on May 19, 2012. Moreover, the petition for certiorari was filed out of time on July 5, 2012 because it was due on July 3, 2012.

On August 31, 2012, Cunanan filed a motion for reconsideration21 pointing out that her petition for certiorari sought to annul and set aside the subject orders of the DAR-R03 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as it denied her the right to due process when she was not given an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings pertaining to Mercado's petition for reallocation. Cunanan also provided proof that the petition for certiorari was filed on time, by attaching documentary exhibits that showed that it was filed on July 3, 2012, and not on July 5, 2012.

On November 26, 2012, the CA denied her motion for reconsideration.22chanrobleslaw

Hence, this petition.
ISSUE

XXX WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSAILED JULY 31, 2012 RESOLUTION AND NOVEMBER 26, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 125543 DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ARE NULL AND VOID FOR HAVING BEEN RENDERED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND IN DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner Cunanan ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it denied her due process by summarily dismissing her petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 125543, and denying her consequent motion for reconsideration on procedural grounds.

Cunanan avers that she filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Regional Director of the DAR-R03 after the latter issued orders cancelling TCT No. 288509 issued in her name and denying the subsequent motion to quash order of finality and the petition for relief from judgment. She claims that she was never notified at any stage of the proceedings; and that she was not furnished a copy of the petition or sent notices of hearings and copies of orders. Thus, she stresses that she was denied due process.

She reiterates that contrary to the CA pronouncement, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper and appropriate mode of appeal as this petition was filed on the ground of denial of due process and grave abuse of discretion. Such denial results in the loss or lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal so that any decision rendered therein would be void.

Public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counter that a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 is a wrong remedy because it is limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, a petition for certiorari may only be resorted to in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as the two remedies are mutually exclusive. A petition for certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. Thus, they invoke the rule that "where the rules prescribe a particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy should be availed of."24chanrobleslaw

The OSG further avers that the assailed resolutions of the CA, which dismissed Cunanan's petition for certiorari, were final judgments as there was nothing more left to be done by the CA with respect to the said case. Thus, Cunanan should have filed an appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules.

Even assuming that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the correct remedy in the present case, the OSG argues that petitioner Cunanan failed to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. Aside from the sweeping allegation of grave abuse of discretion of the CA, nowhere in the petition was it shown that the abuse of discretion in the issuance of the assailed resolutions by the CA was so patent and gross that it would warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

The Court's Ruling

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court, or grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. This remedy can be availed of when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, on the other hand, is a mode of appeal available to a party desiring to raise only questions of law from a judgment or final order or resolution of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law.25cralawredchanrobleslaw

As can be gleaned from above, one of the essential requisites of a petition for certiorari is that there is neither appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the questioned proceeding. Thus, the respondents were correct in pointing out that it cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other particular remedy. Indeed, where the rules prescribe a particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy should be availed of.26chanrobleslaw

A petitioner must allege in his or her petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate.27 Where the existence of a remedy by appeal or some other plain, speedy and adequate remedy precludes the granting of the writ, a petitioner must allege facts showing that any existing remedy is impossible or unavailing. A petition for certiorari which does riot comply with the requirements of the Rules may be dismissed.28chanrobleslaw

In the present case, Cunanan had not shown that there was no other speedy and adequate remedy. She simply alleged that grave abuse of discretion was committed.

Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court is inclined to suspend the rules considering the circumstances of the case.

A review of the case discloses that when Cunanan learned that the DAR- R03 had cancelled TCT No. 288509 in her name and that it had issued an order of finality, she lost no time in questioning the order. As earlier pointed out, she averred that she was never notified of the proceedings or furnished copies of any pleadings. For said reason, she argues that the DAR-R03 never acquired jurisdiction over her person and that its assailed order deprived her of her property in violation of her constitutional right to due process, rendering all proceedings and orders null and void.

As the decision could be implemented anytime, she also filed a petition for injunction and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction.

Thereafter, as recited heretofore, Cunanan's quest to secure justice was frustrated in every stage and in every forum, in the DAR-R03 and the CA. As in every instance, her petitions and prayers were denied on technical grounds.

A review of the orders of the DAR-R03 and the resolutions of the CA discloses that neither of the two tackled the lament of Cunanan that she was denied her constitutional right to due process because she was never notified of the proceedings and furnished copies of the pleadings. The DAR-R03 and the CA took the shortcut by denying her pleas for justice on the ground of technicalities. Neither of the two stated that she was notified or that she was furnished copies of the pleadings. She was not even furnished a copy of the order cancelling TCT No. 288509 in her name. Doubtless, she was deprived of her property without due process of law.

The Court cannot rest easy if such a travesty of justice would be perpetuated and made permanent. It is simply unconscionable.

To correct an injustice, all the orders of the DAR-R03 and the resolutions of the CA should be vacated and set aside for being issued with grave abuse of discretion. The DAR-R03 and the CA might have correctly cited pertinent technical rules to justify their actions due to the ignorance or negligence of the petitioner's counsel but the bottom line is that Cunanan was deprived of her property in violation of her constitutional right to due process.

Cunanan should, thus, be allowed to present her position on the reallocation ordered in favor of Mercado. Whether or not she has a meritorious defense is immaterial. After all, the October 13, 2010 Order of the DAR-R03 was qualified as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This Office reserves the right to cancel or revoke this Order in case of misrepresentation, or violation of pertinent existing DAR policies, rules and regulations.
In rendering decisions, courts have always been conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from their operation.29chanrobleslaw

The Court has, time and again, reiterated the rationale behind the exercise of its power to relax, or even suspend, the application of the rules of procedure:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final xxx.

The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 31, 2012 and November 26, 2012 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125543 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, all the proceedings and orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Regional Office No. III, in Docket No. A-0306-MR-0522-09 (A.R. Case No. LSD-0167-10) are vacated and set aside for being void.

The records of the case are hereby ordered REMANDED to the Department of Agrarian Reform, Regional Office No. III, for appropriate proceedings. At all times, due process must be accorded to petitioner Helen Lorenzo Cunanan.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

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

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 34-35. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez.

2 Id. at 37-37a.

3 Id. at 39-41.

4 Id. at 45-46.

5 Id. at 46.

6 Id. at 47-48.

7 Id. at 49-51

8 Id. at 52.

9 Id. at 53-55.

10 Id. at 56-70.

11 Id. at 71-92.

12 Id. at 96-98.

13 Id. at 99-100.

14 Id. at 101-104.

15 Id. at 105-107.

16 Id. at 108-109.

17 Id. at 111-128.

18 221 Phil. 673, 679 (1985).

19 119 Phil. 106, 113 (1963).

20Rollo, p. 120.

21 Id. at 129-136.

22 Id. at37-37a.

23 Id. at 15.

24 Id. at 188-198.

25cralawred De Guzman v. Filinvest Development Corporation, G.R. No. 191710, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 65, 80.

26Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 716 Phil. 500, 512 (2013).

27Lee v. People, 483 Phil. 684, 699 (2004).

28Visca v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 255 Phil. 213, 217 (1989).

29Nala v. Judge Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003, 408 SCRA 529, 534.

30Dela Cruz v. CA, 539 Phil. 158 (2006), citing Barnes v. Padilla, G.R. No. 160753, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 533, 541.



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.