Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > January 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 174113, January 13, 2016 - PAZ CHENG Y CHU, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, THE Respondent.:




G.R. No. 174113, January 13, 2016 - PAZ CHENG Y CHU, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, THE Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 174113, January 13, 2016

PAZ CHENG Y CHU, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, THE Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 28, 2006 and the Resolution3 dated June 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 24871, which affirmed the conviction of petitioner Paz Cheng y Chu (Cheng) for three (3) counts of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Facts

The instant case arose from the filing of three (3) separate Informations4 charging Cheng of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 226 (RTC), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-98-75440, Q-98-75441, and Q-98-75442. According to the prosecution, private complainant Rowena Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and Cheng entered into an agreement whereby Rodriguez shall deliver pieces of jewelry to Cheng for the latter to sell on commission basis. After one month, Cheng is obliged to either: (a) remit the proceeds of the sold jewelry; or (b) return the unsold jewelry to the former. On different dates (i.e., July 12, 1997, July 16, 1997, and August 12, 1997), Rodriguez delivered various sets of jewelry to Cheng in the respective amounts of P18,000.00, P36,000.00, and P257,950.00. Upon delivery of the last batch of jewelry, Cheng issued a check worth P120,000.00 as foil security for the first two (2) deliveries and as partial security for the last. When Cheng failed to remit the proceeds or to return the unsold jewelry on due date, Rodriguez presented the check to the bank for encashment, but was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Upon assurance of Cheng, Rodriguez re-deposited the check, but again, the same was dishonored because the drawee account had been closed. Rodriguez then decided to confront Cheng, who then uttered "Akala mo, babayaran pa kita?" Thus, Rodriguez was constrained to file the instant charges.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In defense, Cheng denied receiving any jewelry from Rodriguez or signing any document purporting to be contracts of sale of jewelry, asserting that Rodriguez is a usurious moneylender. She then admitted having an unpaid loan with Rodriguez and that she issued a check to serve as security for the same, but was nevertheless surprised of her arrest due to the latter's filing of Estafa charges against her.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision7 dated December 7, 2000, the RTC found Cheng guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Estafa and, accordingly, sentenced her as follows: (a) for the first count, Cheng is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (maximum); (b) for the second count, Cheng is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years of prision correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (maximum); and (c) for the third count, Cheng is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correctional in its minimum and medium periods to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to five (5) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of prision correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (minimum).8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The RTC found that the prosecution has sufficiently proven through documentary and testimonial evidence that: (a) Rodriguez indeed gave Cheng several pieces of jewelry for the latter to either sell and remit the proceeds or to return said jewelry if unsold to the former; and (b) Cheng neither returned the jewelry nor remitted their proceeds to Rodriguez within the specified period despite the latter's demands. In contrast, Cheng failed to substantiate her claims through the documentary evidence she presented while her testimony was deemed to be incredible and not worthy of belief.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Aggrieved, Cheng appealed10 to the CA.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The CA Ruling

In a Decision11 dated March 28, 2006, the CA affirmed Cheng's conviction for three (3) counts of Estafa, with modification as to the penalties, as follows: (a) for the first count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P257,950.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (b) for the second count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P36,000.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and (c) for the third count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P18,000.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA agreed with the RTC's findings that the prosecution had sufficiently established Cheng's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, pointing out that Rodriguez's testimony was '"more candid, credible and straightforward' and that 'her demeanor in the witness stand is worthy of belief" as opposed to that of Cheng which is highly self-serving and uncorroborated.13 Further, the CA found that a modification of Cheng's penalties is in order to conform with prevailing law and jurisprudence on the matter.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Undaunted, Cheng moved for reconsideration15 but was denied in a Resolution16 dated June 26, 2006; hence, this petition.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Cheng's conviction for three counts of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC states:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be[.]

x x x x

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

x x x x

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property;

x x x x

The elements of Estafa under this provision are as follows: (1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.17 In the case of Pamintuan v. People,18 the Court had the opportunity to elucidate further on the essence of the aforesaid crime, as well as the proof needed to sustain a conviction for the same, to wit:

The essence of this kind of [E]stafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.19 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

In this case, a judicious review of the case records reveals that the elements of Estafa, as defined and penalized by the afore-cited provision, are present, considering that: (a) Rodriguez delivered the jewelry to Cheng for the purpose of selling them on commission basis; (b) Cheng was required to either remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the jewelry after one month from delivery; (c) Cheng failed to do what was required of her despite the lapse of the aforesaid period; (d) Rodriguez attempted to encash the check given by Cheng as security, but such check was dishonored twice for being drawn against insufficient funds and against a closed account; (e) Rodriguez demanded that Cheng comply with her undertaking, but the latter disregarded such demand; (f) Cheng's acts clearly prejudiced Rodriguez who lost the jewelry and/or its value.

In a desperate attempt to absolve herself from liability, Cheng insists that Rodriguez admitted in her own testimony that the transaction between them is not an agency on commission basis, but a plain sale of jewelry with Rodriguez as the seller and Cheng as the buyer. As such, Cheng's non­payment of the purchase price of the jewelry would only give rise to civil liability and not criminal liability.20 The pertinent portion of Rodriguez's testimony is as follows:

Q. After the delivery of these several items totaling P257,950.00, what happened next?

A. She issued a check worth P120,000.00.

Q. What check is that?

A. PDCP Bank, sir.

Q. What is this check for, Ms. Witness?

A. As payment for the first and second transactions, sir, for P18,000.00 and P36,000.00 and the excess amount is applied for the third transaction.

x x x x

Q. So, all in all, you have sixty (60) days period with respect to this item, and the first delivery expired I am referring to July 12, 1997 worth P18,000.00 which will mature on September 11, so, from September 11, what happened?

A. These were considered paid because she issued me a check for the period of August 13, so I was expecting that.21 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Essentially, Cheng posits that since Rodriguez "admitted" in her testimony that the check issued by the former in the amount of P120,000.00 constituted full payment for the first and second batch of jewelry and partial payment for the last batch, the transactions entered into by the parties should be deemed in the nature of a sale.

Cheng is sadly mistaken.

The foregoing "admission" on the part of Rodriguez did not change the fact that her transactions with Cheng should be properly deemed as an agency on a commission basis whereby Rodriguez, as the owner of the jewelry, is the principal, while Cheng is the agent who is tasked to sell the same on commission. In the eyes of the Court, Rodriguez merely accepted the check as full security for the first and second batches of jewelry and as partial security for the last batch. It was only when Cheng defaulted in her undertaking pursuant to their agreement that Rodriguez was constrained to treat the check as the former's remittance of the proceeds of the sale of jewelry - albeit deficient - by presenting it for encashment on October 20, 1997, or more than two (2) months after the delivery of the last batch of jewelry.22 However, the check was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds.23 This notwithstanding and with the assurance from Cheng that the check will be cleared, Rodriguez presented such check for the second time on November 4, 1997; but it was again dishonored - this time for being drawn against a closed account.24 As such, the fact that Rodriguez loosely used the words "payment" and "paid" should not be taken against her and should not in any way change the nature of her transactions with Rodriguez from an agency on a commission basis to a full-fledged sale. Moreover, even Cheng does not consider such check as payment for the jewelry, but rather, as security for the loan she allegedly obtained from Rodriguez.

Indisputably, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA as they have fully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and they have adequately explained the legal and evidentiary reasons in concluding that Cheng is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Estafa by misappropriation defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. It is settled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record,25 as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 28, 2006 and the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 24871 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Accordingly, petitioner Paz Cheng y Chu is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, and is SENTENCED as follows: (a) for the first count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P257,950.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (b) for the second count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P36,000.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and (c) for the third count of Estafa where the amount misappropriated is P18,000.00, Cheng is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ., concur.
Bersamin, J., I dissent.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 13-29.

2 Id. at 86-97. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Elvi John. S. Asuncion and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring.

3 Id. at 107-108.

4 Records, pp. 2-3, 8-9 and 14-15.

5 See rollo. pp. at 88-89.

6 See id. at 89-90.

7 Id. at 31-46. Penned by Judge Leah S. Domingo-Regala.

8 Id. at 45.

9 See id. at 40-45.

10 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated June 28, 2001; id. at 47-59.

11 Id. at 86-97.

12 See id. at 95-97.

13 See id. at 91-95.

14 See id. at 95-96.

15 See Motion for Reconsideration dated April 17, 2006; id at 98-101.

16 Id. at 107-108.

17Pamintuan v. People, 635 Phil. 514 527 (2010)

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 See rollo, pp. 22-27.

21 See id. at 36-37 and 111-112.

22 See PDCP Check amounting to P120,000.00 payable to Rowena R. Rodriguez; records, p. 62.

23 See id., including dorsal portion.

24 See id.

25Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014. 715 SCRA 384, 394-395.



chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:


I dissent. The State did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused for the crimes charged.

Based on the assailed decision of the CA, the following were the factual and procedural antecedents, viz.:

Accused-Appellant was charged with 3 counts of Estafa under Article 31 5. par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Similarly worded except as to the date of the commission of each estafa, the number of pieces of jewelry, and the amount involved, the 3 Informations charged as follows:

That on or about the___ day of___ , 1997 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud ROWENA RODRIGUEZ in the following manner, to wit: the said accused received in trust from said complainant _____ pieces of Jewelry worth P____ , Philippine Currency, for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis, under the express obligation on the part of said accused of turning over the proceeds of the sale to said complainant if sold, or of returning the same if unsold to said complainant, but the said accused, once in possession of the said items, far from complying with her obligation as aforesaid, with intent to defraud, unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to fulfill his aforesaid obligation despite repeated demands made upon her to do so and instead misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same or the value thereof, to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said ROWENA RODRIGUEZ in the aforesaid amount of _____ Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Private Complainant testified as follows:

Private Complainant and Accused-Appellant entered into various and numerous transactions. At times, Accused-Appellant acquired loans from Private Complainant or acted as the latter's sales agent.

On July 12, 1997, Private Complainant delivered 2 pieces of jewelry amounting to P18,000.00 for Accused-Appellant to sell on commission basis. Both agreed that Accused-Appellant shall remit to Private Complainant the proceeds of the sale, or return the jewelry if unsold alter 1 month. The parties entered into a similar transaction on July 16, 1997, but this time involving 3 pieces of jewelry valued at P36,000.00. The agreement on these transactions were written in one document.

On August 12, 1997, Private Complainant delivered another set of jewelry amounting to P257,950.00 reflected in a written agreement executed between the parties. Accused-Appellant likewise issued a check worth P120,000.00 as security for the first two deliveries and as partial payment for the last delivery.

When Accused-Appellant failed to return the unsold jewelries (sic) on due date, Private Complainant presented the check for encashment. However, the check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Consequently, Accused-Appellant promised to pay Private Complainant on the first week of November.

However, when Private Complainant re-deposited the check on November 4, 1997, the check was again dishonored because the account was closed. When confronted, Accused-appellant refused to pay Private Complainant and instead uttered: "AKALA MO, BABAYARAN PA KITA?"

Private Complainant filed criminal charges for estafa against the Accused-Appellant.

The Defense presented Accused-Appellant and Virginia Araneta, who testified as follows:

Accused-Appellant denied receiving any jewelry from Private Complainant or entering into any agreement for her to sell said jewelry on commission basis. Accused-Appellant denied signing the 2 written agreements presented by Private Complainant purporting to be contracts for the sale of jewelries. (Sic)

Accused-Appellant claimed that Private Complainant is a usurious money lender engaged in what is otherwise known as "5-6." It was Private Complainant who loaned her part of the capital for her vegetable business.

On one occasion, Virginia Araneta accompanied Accused-Appellant to borrow money from Private Complainant. Accused-Appellant pledged some pieces of jewelry as collateral for the loan and signed a written contract. Unfortunately, Accused-Appellant failed to ask a copy of the written contract from Private Complainant. Private Complainant also requested Accused-Appellant to issue a check to serve as a security for said loan but promised not to deposit the same on due date.

Accused-Appellant admitted that her loan with Private Complainant remained unpaid but she, nevertheless, was surprised of her arrest. It was only when she was at the Quezon City Jail that she was informed by Private Complainant that Estafa cases were filed against her.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 226, in Quezon City found and declared the petitioner guilty of three counts of estafa in Criminal Case No. Q-98-75440, Cnminal Case No. Q-98-75441 and Criminal Case No. Q-98-75442, all entitled People of the Philippines v. Paz Cheng y Chu, through the judgment rendered on December 7, 2000,1 decreeing thusly:

In view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 3 counts of estafa, defined and penalized under Art. 315, 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

On the first count, accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 6 years 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (maximum).

On the second count, accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 1 year 8 months and 20 days of prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods to 6 years 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (Maximum).

On the third count, accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6 months 1 day to 1 year 8 months and 20 days of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods to 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 5 years 5 months and 10 days of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (minimum).

The sentence shall be served successively; and the accused is ordered to indemnify the private complainant Rowena Rodriguez in the amount of P257,950.00, P36,000.00 and P18,000.00 and to pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.2chanrobleslaw

On appeal, the petitioner submitted that:

I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE VERSION OF THE DEFENSE.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE THREE (3) COUNTS OF ESTAFA.3chanrobleslaw

Nonetheless, the CA affirmed the conviction of the petitioner with modification of the penalties,4 to wit:

WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision, dated December 7, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 226, in Criminal Case No. Q98-75440-2, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
  1. On the first count, Accused-Appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of Prision Correccional, as MINIMUM, to 20 years as MAXIMUM;

  2. On the second count, Accused-Appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of Prision Correccional, as MINIMUM, to 9 years as MAXIMUM;

  3. On the third count, Accused-Appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of Prision Correccional, as MINIMUM, to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days, as MAXIMUM.
SO ORDERED.

The CA later denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on June 26, 2006.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In her present appeal, the petitioner urges the Court to consider and resolve the following issues, namely:

I

WHETHER THE PETITIONER COMMITTED THE CRIME OF ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

II

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE PETITIONER'S DEFENSE.6chanrobleslaw

In its comment,7 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the petitioner hereby seeks the review of the facts and the evidence; that the appeal should be rejected because it urges a departure from the general rule that the CA's findings of fact, which have affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, should be accorded great respect, even finality; that this case did not constitute an exception to warrant the re-evaluation of the unanimous findings of fact of the lower courts; that the Prosecution established the guilt of the petitioner by sufficiently showing the concurrence of all the essential elements of the offense charged; and that her bare denial, being negative in nature, did not prevail over the positive evidence presented against her.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Submission

I vote to acquit the petitioner on the ground that the State did not establish her guilt for estafa through misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt. I insist that in every criminal prosecution, the State must discharge the duty to establish the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

The felony of estafa through misappropriation is defined and penalized in Article 315, 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, viz:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

x x x x

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. (bold Emphasis supplied)

x x x x

The elements of estafa through misappropriation are: (a) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration or under any other circumstances involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond; (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it or a denial on her part that she received it; (c) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another; and (d) that there be demand for the return of the property.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

According to the CA, the Prosecution established the petitioner's commission of estafa through misappropriation, to wit:

All these elements were duly proven by the Prosecution.

The 2 written agreements stipulated that the pieces of jewelry were delivered to Accused-Appellant to be sold on commission basis or to be returned if unsold within 1 month. Clearly, the jewelry delivered to Accused-Appellant was for a specific purpose, that is, for Accused-Appellant to sell them, and in the event that it cannot be sold, to return the same to Private Complainant.

Accused-appellant, however, insisted that the Prosecution "failed to prove the existence of misappropriation" as there was no proof that the accused-appellant kept the proceeds of the sale."

We disagree.

The words '"convert" and "misappropriate" as used in Article 315 connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Failure to account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

Demand need not be formal. It may be verbal. A query as to the whereabouts of the money, such as the one proven in the case at bench, is tantamount to a demand. In this case, despite repeated demands from Private Complainant, Accused-Appellant still failed to return the jewelry or to remit the proceeds of the sale to the prejudice of Private Complainant. Accused-Appellant's failure to account for the jewelry entrusted to her by Private Complainant constitutes misappropriation. Accused-Appellant is, thus, liable for conversion under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

x x x x9chanrobleslaw

The Majority concur with the CA.

However, I cannot join my distinguished Brethren in the conclusion that the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of the petitioner. My assiduous and thorough review of the records of the trial convinces me that the real agreement between the parties was a sale of the items of jewelry, not the supposed agency to sell such items on commission basis as the RTC and the CA concluded.

It is conceded that the text of Exhibits A, Exhibit A-l and Exhibit A-2 - the documents evidencing the transactions - seemed to allude to the petitioner's obligation as one of agency to sell the items of jewelry on commission basis. Under ordinary circumstances, the literal terms of such documents would control and be regarded as the manifestation of the true intention of the parties. But to give outright credence to the interpretation of the evidence as the CA did would be to ignore and disregard what complainant Rowena Rodriguez had herself declared to be the true nature of the transactions with the petitioner.

Rodriguez testified as follows:

Q.
After the delivery of these several items totaling P257,950.00, what happened next?
A.
She issued a check worth P120,000.00.
Q.
What check is that?
A.
PDCP Bank, sir.
Q.
What is this check for, Ms. Witness?
A.
As payment for the first and second transactions, sir, for P18,000.00 and P36,000.00 and the excess amount is applied for the third transaction.<SUP STYLE="COLOR: RGB(255, 0, 0);">[10]</SUP>
x x x x
Q.
So, all in all, you have sixty (60) days period with respect to this item, and the first delivery expired. I am referring to July 12, 1997 worth P18,000.00 which will mature on September 11, so, from September 11, what happened?
A.
These were considered paid because she issued me a check for the period of August 13, so I was expecting that.<SUP STYLE="COLOR: RGB(255, 0, 0);">[11]</SUP>
x x x x

By stating that the check issued by the petitioner was "payment for the first and second transactions, sir, for P18,000.00 and P36,000.00 and the excess amount is applied for the third transaction," Rodriguez revealed that she had sold the pieces of jewelry to the latter. Thus, the petitioner was the buyer of Rodriguez, not an agent on commission basis.

The right to a commission only establishes the relation of principal and agent, with the agent coming under the obligation to turn over to the principal the amount collected minus such commission. If the agent should retain more than the commission, she would be guilty of estafa through misappropriation.12 Yet, because the transaction between Rodriguez and the petitioner was a sale, the former effectively transferred to the latter the possession and the ownership of the items of jewelry.13 Once the ownership of the jewelry became vested in the latter,14 she could not misappropriate the items of jewelry.

The foregoing excerpts of testimony further showed Rodriguez to have "considered [the items of jewelry] paid" by the petitioner. We should consider and regard such express declaration as a confirmation of the true nature of her agreement with the petitioner as a sale of the jewelry. The CA erroneously ignored the testimony despite its being a forthright judicial admission in the context of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Although Rodriguez had described the petitioner's PDCP Check No. 003626 for PI 20,000.00 (Exhibit B) as the security for the items of jewelry listed under Exhibits A and Exhibit A-l, and as the partial payment for the last delivery listed under Exhibits A-2, her presenting the check to the drawee bank for payment or collection of the entire amount of the check indicated that the check was always intended as payment. This finding is still consistent with holding the transactions as sales of the items of jewelry. Indeed, the presentment of the check to the drawee bank as the person primarily liable was antithetical to the notion of having the check serve as mere security.

Clearly, the CA had no basis to hold the written text of Exhibits A, Exhibit A-l and Exhibit A-2 as controlling. In contracts the intent of the parties always prevails over the written form.

Did the dishonor of PDCP Check No. 003626 affect the character of the transactions between the petitioner and Rodriguez as sales of the items of jewelry?

I submit that the dishonor did not alter the character of the transactions as sales but only rendered Rodriguez an unpaid seller. The relationship between them resulting from the dishonor was that of a creditor-and-debtor. In a purely debtor-and-creditor relationship, the debtor who merely refuses to pay or denies the indebtedness cannot be held liable for estafa by misappropriation. The reason is readily apparent. To convict a person of estafa under Article 315, par 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, the State must prove that she has the obligation to deliver or return the same money, goods or personal property received.16 Considering that the petitioner already became the owner of the pieces of jewelry, she could dispose of the same, and her disposal of them would not amount to the misappropriation thereof.17 In short, the petitioner did not thereby violate any trust or other obligation to account for the items of jewelry that she already owned.

Considering that the Prosecution did not establish the petitioner's guilt for the crimes of estafa through misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt, she was entitled to acquittal,18 for it is always indispensable for the valid conviction of the accused that the State shall prove the existence of all the essential elements of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. With less than all the elements of the offense charged having been established, it is unwarranted and unjust to still find her criminally liable.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 3 1-45; penned by Presiding Judge Leah S. Domingo-Regala.

2 Id. at 87-90.

3 Id. at 49.

4 Id. at 86-97, penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.

5 Id. at 107-108.

6 Id. at 21.

7 Id. at 130-147.

8Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals., G.R. No. 111656. March 20, 1996, 255 SCRA 202, 213; Saddul, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91041, December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 277, 286.

9 Rollo, pp. 94-95.

10 TSN, October 21,1998, p. 16.

11 Id. at 19.

12 Guevara, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, Fourth Ed., Revised and Enlarged, Filipino Book Dealers' Association, Manila, 1946, p. 646; 649-651.

14 According to Article 1458, Civil Code, by the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates herself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

15 Section 4 Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

16Tanzo v. Drilon, G.R. No. 106671, March 30, 2000, 329 SCRA 147, 155.

17Yam v. Malik, L-50550-52, October 31, 1979, 94 SCRA 30, 35.

18 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2 a)



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 201264, January 11, 2016 - FLORANTE VITUG, Petitioner, v. EVANGELINE A. ABUDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178110, January 12, 2016 - AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., Petitioners, v. SIMEONA CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN, AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SIMEONA CASTILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016 - ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016 - LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO, Petitioner, v. HON. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP AND REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016 - PEDRO LADINES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDWIN DE RAMON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209921, January 13, 2016 - EMMA H. QUIRO-QUIRO, Petitioner, v. BALAGTAS CREDIT COOPERATIVE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. NO. RTJ-16-2443 (FORMERLY OCA IPINO. 10-3521-RTJ), January 11, 2016 - ARMANDO M. BALANAY, Complainant, v. JUDGE JULIANA ADALEM WHITE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, EASTERN SAMAR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203882, January 11, 2016 - LORELEI O. ILADAN, Petitioner, v. LA SUERTE INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER AGENCY, INC., AND DEBBIE LAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198450, January 11, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA A.K.A. FERNANDO RANCHE ABANA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 197825, January 11, 2016 - CAMILO SIBAL, Petitioner, v. PEDRO BUQUEL, SANTIAGO BUQUEL, JR., ROSALINDA BUQUEL, REPRESENTED BY FRANCISCO BUQUEL, Respondents.

  • AC. No. 10912, January 19, 2016 - PAULINA T. YU, Complainant, v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180993, January 27, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. RAYMUNDO VIAJE, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218536, January 26, 2016 - ROLANDO P. TOLENTINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), ATTY. CRISTINA T. GUIAO-GARCIA, AND HENRY MANALO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016 - AMADO I. SARAUM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185746, January 20, 2016 - LUCITA TIOROSIO-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 11, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, DAVAO CITY, NICOLAS L. SUMAPIG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, DAVAO CITY AND NECEFERO JOVERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180434, January 20, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION (NOW TEAM ENERGY CORPORATION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204047, January 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEXANDER "SANDER" BANGSOY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 193140, January 11, 2016 - MILA GRACE PATACSIL PIOTROWSKI, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN- FACT, VENUS G. PATACSIL, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND GINA Q. DAPLIYAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205785, January 20, 2016 - HELEN B. LUKBAN, Petitioner, v. OPTIMUM DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213215, January 11, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN BARON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217948, January 12, 2016 - ALMA G. PARAISO-ABAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974], January 26, 2016 - GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196784, January 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MA. FE TORRES SOLINA A.K.A. MA. FE BAYLON GALLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 176549, January 20, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY & PABLO MENDOZA, Petitioners, v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206291, January 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN AND THREE (3) OTHER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANIONS, Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 173254-55 & 173263, January 13, 2016 - DIAMOND FARMS, INC., Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (SPFL)-WORKERS SOLIDARITY OF DARBMUPCO/DIAMOND-SPFL, DIAMOND FARMS AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (DARBMUPCO), VOLTER LOPEZ, RUEL ROMERO, PATRICK) CAPRECHO, REY DIMACALI, ELESIO EMANEL, VICTOR SINGSON, NILDA DIMACALI, PREMITIVO* DIAZ, RUDY VISTAL, ROGER MONTERO, JOSISIMO GOMEZ AND MANUEL MOSQUERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201310, January 11, 2016 - MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. REGINALD FUENTES ALIAS "REGIE," ROBERT CALILAN ALIAS "BOBBY," AND ALAIN DELON LINDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016 - REMEDIOS PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. BENITO BURGOS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016 - SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR STEWART ALLAN A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M. BARCELLANO AND ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR GERARD E. GAERLAN, Petitioners, v. MARIO JOEL T. REYES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198745, January 13, 2016 - BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC.), Petitioner, v. SUNNYSIDE HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016 - HIJO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EPIFANIO P. MEJARES, REMEGIO C. BALURAN, JR., DANTE SAYCON, AND CECILIO CUCHARO, REPRESENTED BY NAMABDJERA-HRC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201417, January 13, 2016 - ORIX METRO LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CARDLINE INC., MARY C. CALUBAD, SONY N. CALUBAD, AND NG BENG SHENG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208731, January 27, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 6, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173636, January 13, 2016 - HEIRS OF JOSE MA. GEPUELA, Petitioners, v. HERNITA MEÑEZ-ANDRES, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 173770 - HERNITA MEÑEZ-ANDRES AND NELIA MEÑEZ CAYETANO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR DULY-APPOINTED ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ANGELITO MEÑEZ, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF JOSE MA. GEPUELA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199440, January 18, 2016 - MARY LOU GETURBOS TORRES, Petitioner, v. CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS AND THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198627, January 13, 2016 - DST MOVERS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016 - NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191132, January 27, 2016 - APOSTOLIC VICAR OF TABUK, INC. REPRESENTED BY BISHOP PRUDENCIO ANDAYA, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ELIZABETH SISON AND VENANCIO WADAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202885, January 20, 2016 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., REGINALDO A. OBEN AND WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioners, v. EDWINITO V. QUILLAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217694, January 27, 2016 - FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ARTURO LOO PO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198594, January 25, 2016 - HELEN CALIMOSO, MARILYN P. CALIMOSO AND LIBY P. CALIMOSO, Petitioners, v. AXEL D. ROULLO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10910 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594], January 19, 2016 - ANTERO M. SISON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016 - SPOUSES ALEXANDER AND JULIE LAM, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "COLORKWIK LABORATORIES" AND "COLORKWIK PHOTO SUPPLY", Petitioners, v. KODAK PHILIPPINES, LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016 - MICHAEL C. GUY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206584, January 11, 2016 - MAE FLOR GALIDO, Petitioner, v. NELSON P. MAGRARE, EVANGELINE M. PALCAT, RODOLFO BAYOMBONG, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ANTIQUE, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016 - HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON @ "TISOY", Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-31-P (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-218-CA-P), January 12, 2016 - COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND SAFETY, COURT OF APPEALS, Complainant, v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY, JOVEN O. SORIANOSOS - SECURITY GUARD 3, AND ABELARDO P. CATBAGAN - SECURITY GUARD 3, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016 - REGULUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195477, January 15, 2016 - SPOUSES HERMINIO E. ERORITA AND EDITHA C. ERORITA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES LIGAYA DUMLAO AND ANTONIO DUMLAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016 - CARLOS BORROMEO, Petitioner, v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC. AND RAMON S. INSO, M.D., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202426, January 27, 2016 GINA ENDAYA, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO V. VILLAOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016 - ALLAN M. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU), NAMELY, EDUARDO B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, ELIZABETH COMETA, ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA, SOLEDAD YEBAN, LUIS RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO, TERESITA BOLO, ROGELIO BARBERO, JOSE CASAÑAS, ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO FERNANDEZ, ROSITA BUENAVENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO, ADELA IMANA, MARIO MANCENIDO, WILFREDO MANDILAG, ROLANDO MANLAPAZ, EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON PAGULAYAN, CARLOS VILLA, RIC BRIONES,AND CHITO BERNARDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169507, January 11, 2016 - AIR CANADA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016 - UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC., Petitioner, v. BANGKO SENTRAL PILIPINAS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 168078, January 13, 2016 - FABIO CAHAYAG AND CONRADO RIVERA, Petitioners, v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, LEONARDO B. ALEJANDRO; TERESITA T. QUA, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND ALFONSO MA. QUA; AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PINAS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT IV, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 168357 - DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JUANITO C. DULOS; AND MILAGROS E. ESCALONA, AND ILUMINADA D. BALDOZA, Petitioners, v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, LEONARDO B. ALEJANDRO; TERESITA T. QUA, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND ALFONSO MA. QUA; AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PINAS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT IV, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016 - ENRIQUE G. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPO3 PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219603, January 26, 2016 - MARY ELIZABETH TY-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND PHILIP ARREZA PICHAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215847, January 12, 2016 - GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CORNELIO P. ALDON, AND RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186635, January 27, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,; UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor, v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO, JOINED BY ZUELLGATE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016 - RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, FRANCISCO "DODONG" NEMENZO, JR., SR. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, PACIFICO A. AGABIN, ESTEBAN "STEVE" SALONGA, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., EVALYN G. URSUA, EDRE U. OLALIA, DR. CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, DR. ROLAND SIMBULAN, AND TEDDY CASINO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE PAQUITO N. DEPARTMENT DEFENSE VOLTAIRE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY OCHOA, JR., OF NATIONAL SECRETARY GAZMIN, OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, AND ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 212444 - BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES NERI J. COLMENARES AND CARLOS ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES LUZ ILAGAN AND EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDO HICAP, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TERRY RIDON, MAKABAYANG KOALISYON NG MAMAMAYAN (MAKABAYAN), REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO OCAMPO AND LIZA MAZA, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, RAFAEL MARIANO, SALVADOR FRANCE, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, AND CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY PIO LORENZO BATINO, AMBASSADOR LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE, AMBASSADOR J. EDUARDO MALAYA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDERSECRETARY FRANCISCO BARAAN III, AND DND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS RAYMUND JOSE QUILOP AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE NEGOTIATING PANEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES ON EDCA, Respondents.; KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER LABOG, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT FERDINAND GAITE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOSELITO USTAREZ, NENITA GONZAGA, VIOLETA ESPIRITU, VIRGINIA FLORES, AND ARMANDO TEODORO, JR., Petitioners-in-Intervention; RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., Petitioners-in-Intervention.

  • G.R. No. 191033, January 11, 2016 - THE ORCHARD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., EXEQUIEL D. ROBLES, CARLO R.H. MAGNO, CONRADO L. BENITEZ II, VICENTE R. SANTOS, HENRY CUA LOPING, MARIZA SANTOS-TAN, TOMAS B. CLEMENTE III, AND FRANCIS C. MONTALLANA, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO V. YU AND MANUEL C. YUHICO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FE ROA GIMENEZ AND IGNACIO B. GIMENEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211737, January 13, 2016 - SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY JOSEPH EMILIOI A. ABAYA, MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), THE PRE-QUALIFICATION, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (PBAC) FOR THE MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PROJECT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, UNDERSECRETARY JOSE PERPETUO M. LOTILLA, GMR INFRASTRUCTURE, LTD. AND MEGAWIDE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 214756 - BUSINESS FOR PROGRESS MOVEMENT AS REPRESENTED BY MEDARDO C. DEACOSTA, JR., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, GMR-MEGAWIDE CEBU AIRPORT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173137, January 11, 2016 - BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., Respondent.; G.R. NO. 173170 - NORTH LUZON RAILWAYS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201614, January 12, 2016 - SHERYL M. MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, 5th SHARI'A DISTRICT, COTABATO CITY, RASAD G. BALINDONG (ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE); 1st SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, 5th SHARI'A DISTRICT, COTABATO CITY, MONTANO K. KALIMPO (PRESIDING JUDGE); AND DR. JOHN O. MALIGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JERRY PEPINO Y RUERAS AND PRECIOSA GOMEZ Y CAMPOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197970, January 25, 2016 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FADCOR, INC. OR THE FLORENCIO CORPORATION, LETICIA D. FLORENCIO, RACHEL FLORENCIO-AGUSTIN, MA. MERCEDES FLORENCIO AND ROSENDO CESAR FLORENCIO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214241, January 13, 2016 - SPOUSES RAMON AND LIGAYA GONZALES, Petitioners, v. MARMAINE REALTY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MARIANO MANALO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194962, January 27, 2016 - CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173140, January 11, 2016 - MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY [MCIAA], Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GAVINA IJORDAN, NAMELY, JULIAN CUISON, FRANCISCA CUISON, DAMASTNA CUISON, PASTOR CUISON, ANGELINA CUISON, MANSUETO CUISON, BONIFACIA CUISON, BASILIO CUISON, MOISES CUISON, AND FLORENCIO CUISON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016 - ELIZABETH L. DIAZ, Petitioner, v. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO, ERNESTO G. TABUJARA, GEMINO H. ABAD AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 165223, January 11, 2016 - WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. MARIO I. MOLINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPRNES, Appellee, v. ANITA MIRANBA Y BELTRAN, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203642, January 18, 2016 - THOMASITES CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (TCIS), Petitioner, v. RUTH N. RODRIGUEZ, IRENE P. PADRIGON AND ARLYN B. RILLERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213863, January 27, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO L. SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS ASSIGNEE, ROMEO L. SANTOS, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 214021 - EDGARDO L. SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS ASSIGNEE, ROMEO L. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195666, January 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FE ABELLA Y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 172919, January 13, 2016 - TIMOTEO BACALSO AND DIOSDADA BACALSO, Petitioners, v. GREGORIA B. ACA-AC, EUTIQUIA B. AGUILA, JULIAN BACUS AND EVELYN SYCHANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198140, January 25, 2016 - IA1 ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT, Petitioner, v. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE -PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, AS REPRESENTED BY SI V ROMEO M. ENRIQUEZ AND DIRECTOR GENERAL DIONISIO R. SANTIAGO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLEN PIAD Y BORI, RENATO VILLAROSA Y PLATINO AND NILO DAVIS Y ARTIGA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207970, January 20, 2016 - FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206224, January 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN ASISLO Y MATIO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215995, January 19, 2016 - VICE-MAYOR MARCELINA S. ENGLE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND WINSTON B. MENZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174909, January 20, 2016 - MARCELINO M. FLORETE, JR., MARIA ELENA F. MUYCO AND RAUL A. MUYCO, Petitioners, v. ROGELIO M. FLORETE, IMELDA C. FLORETE, DIAMEL CORPORATION, ROGELIO C. FLORETE JR., AND MARGARET RUTH C. FLORETE, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 177275 - ROGELIO M. FLORETE SR., Petitioner, v. MARCELINO M. FLORETE, JR., MARIA ELENA F. MUYCO AND RAUL A. MUYCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213472, January 26, 2016 - ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, LEONARDO REY D. VASQUEZ, ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT-EMPLOYEES UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NOEL A. FABIAN, LOPE IRINGAN, ALEJO S. ROJAS, JR., EDWIN N. MAKASIAR, RODOLFO CARTAGENA, ROBERTO R. MENDOZA, GREGORIO R. MOLINA, ARNULFO A. ALFONSO, LUCENA R. BUSCAS, LUIS A. WEE, LEILA M. MONTEJO, FELECITA G. REBOLLOS, ERIC A. DELGADO, NORMA L. VILLAFRANCA, ABNER C. PADUA, SATURNINO M. ALVIAR, FELIPE S. SALCEDO, JULIUS P. CARPITANOS, HANLEY ALBANA, JOHNY D. DEMAYO, ARCHILES A. BRAULIO, ELIZA MAY R. BRAULIO, TEDILITO R. SARMIENTO, SUSANA C. BONGHANOY, LUZ A. BIADO, ERIC V. SALARITAN, RYAN ED C. ESTRADA, NOEL MASA KAWAGUCHI, TEOTIMO REYES, JR., EUGENE DOMINGO, AND ALEX ACOSTA, REPRESENTED BY LUIS A. WEE, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016 - UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW MERGED WITH NUTRI-ASIA, INC., WITH NUTRI-ASIA, INC. AS THE SURVIVING ENTITY), Petitioner, v. FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192914, January 28, 2016 - NAPOLEON D. SENIT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10952, January 26, 2016 - ENGEL PAUL ACA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10859 [Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2514], January 26, 2016 - MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192268, January 27, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Petitioner, v. DELFINA C. CASIBANG, ANGELINA C. CANAPI, ERLINDA C. BAJAN, LORNA G. GUMABAY, DION1SIA C. ALONZO, MARIA C. BANGAYAN AND DIGNA C. BINAYUG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180559, January 20, 2016 - ANECITA GREGORIO, Petitioner, v. MARIA CRISOLOGO VDA. DE CULIG, THRU HER ATTORN EY-IN-FACT ALFREDO CULIG, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198752, January 13, 2016 - ARTURO C. ALBA, JR., DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, ARNULFO B. ALBA AND ALEXANDER C. ALBA, Petitioner, v. RAYMUND D. MALAPAJO, RAMIL D. MALAPAJO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF ROXAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196140, January 27, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH MANALASTAS AND BEA CASTILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016 - GIRLIE M. QUISAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210454, January 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RONALDO CASACOP Y AMIL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187691, January 13, 2016 - OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC., Petitioner, v. ALLAN LAPASTORA AND IRENE UBALUBAO, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3344, January 13, 2016 - ANTONIO A. FERNANDEZ, Complainant, v. MILA A. ALERTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214092, January 11, 2016 - ECHO 2000 COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, EDWARD N. ENRIQUEZ, LEONORA K. BENEDICTO AND ATTY. GINA WENCESLAO, Petitioners, v. OBRERO FILIPINO-ECHO 2000 CHAPTER-CLO, ARLO C. CORTES AND DAVE SOMIDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197665, January 13, 2016 - P/S INSP. SAMSON B. BELMONTE, SPO1 FERMO R. GALLARDE, PO3 LLOYD F. SORIA, PO1 HOMER D. GENEROSO, PO1 SERGS DC. MACEREN, PO3 AVELINO L. GRAVADOR, PO2 FIDEL O. GUEREJERO, AND PO1 JEROME T. NOCHEFRANCA, JR., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188213, January 11, 2016 - NATIVIDAD C. CRUZ AND BENJAMIN DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. PANDACAN HIKER'S CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PRISCILAILAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170004, January 13, 2016 - ILONA HAPITAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JIMMY LAGRADILLA AND WARLILY LAGRADILLA AND ESMERALDA BLACER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174113, January 13, 2016 - PAZ CHENG Y CHU, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, THE Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176986, January 13, 2016 - NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LICA MANAGEMENT, INC. AND PROTON PILIPINAS, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 178501, January 11, 2016 - NILO S. RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO T. ALISANGCO, BENJAMIN T. ANG, VICENTE P. ANG, SILVESTRE D. ARROYO, RUDERICO C. BAQUIRAN, WILFREDO S. CRUZ, EDMUNDO M. DELOS REYES, JR., VIRGILIO V. ECARMA, ISMAEL F. GALISIM, TITO F. GARCIA, LIBERATO D. GUTIZA, GLADYS L. JADIE, LUISITO M. JOSE, PATERNO C. LABUGA, JR. NOEL Y. LASTIMOSO, DANILO C. MATIAS, BEN T. MATURAN, VIRGILIO N. OCHARAN, GABRIEL P. PIAMONTE, JR., ARTURO A. SABADO, MANUEL P. SANCHEZ, MARGOT A. CORPUS AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE DECEASED ARNOLD S. CORPUS, AND ESTHER VICTORIA A. ALCAÑESES AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE DECEASED EFREN S. ALCAÑESES, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 178510 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NILO S. RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO T. ALISANGCO, BENJAMIN T. ANG, VICENTE P. ANG, SILVESTRE D. ARROYO, RUDERICO C. BAQUIRAN, ARNOLD S. CORPUS, WILFREDO S. CRUZ, EDMUNDO M. DELOS REYES, JR., VIRGILIO V. ECARMA, ISMAEL F. GALISIM, TITO F. GARCIA, LIBERATO D. GUTIZA, GLADYS L. JADIE, LUISITO M. JOSE, PATERNO C. LABUGA, JR., NOEL Y. LASTIMOSO, DANILO C. MATIAS, BEN T. MATURAN, VIRGILIO N. OCHARAN, GABRIEL M. PIAMONTE, JR., RODOLFO O. POE, JR., ARTURO A. SABADO, MANUEL P. SANCHEZ, and ESTHER VICTORIA A. ALCAÑESES, AS THE SOLE HEIR OF THE DECEASED EFREN S. ALCAÑESES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190798, January 27, 2016 - RONALD IBAÑEZ, EMILIO IBAÑEZ, AND DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 198916-17, January 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NOS. 198920-21 - ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 198916-17, January 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NOS. 198920-21 - ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10868 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2041], January 26, 2016 - CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212070, January 20, 2016 - CEBU PEOPLE'S MULTI­PURPOSE COOPERATIVE AND MACARIO G. QUEVEDO, Petitioners, v. NICERATO E. CARBONILLA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160408, January 11, 2016 - SPOUSES ROBERTO AND ADELAIDA PEN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES SANTOS AND LINDA JULIAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180235, January 20, 2016 - ALTA VISTA GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, Petitioner, v. THE CITY OF CEBU, HON. MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF CEBU, AND TERESITA C. CAMARILLO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177680, January 13, 2016 - JENNIFER C. LAGAHIT, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC CONCORD CONTAINER LINES/MONETTE CUENCA (BRANCH MANAGER), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703), January 26, 2016 - ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016 - THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, MA. DALISAY P. DELA CHICA, MARVILON B. MILITANTE, DAVID Z. ATANACIO, JR., CARMINA C. RIVERA, MARIO T. FERMIN(T), ISABELO E. MOLO, RUSSEL M. PALMA, IMELDA G. HERNANDEZ, VICENTE M. LLACUNA, JOSEFINA A. ORTIGUERRO, MA. ASUNCION G. KIMSENG, MIGUEL R. SISON, RAUL P. GERONIMO, MARILOU E. CADENA, ANA N. TAMONTE, AVELINO Q. RELUCIO, JORALYN R. GONGORA, CORAZON E. ALBOS, ANABELLA J. GONZALES, MA. CORAZON Q. BALTAZAR, MARIA LUZ I. JIMENEZ, ELVIRA A. ORLINA, SAMUEL B. ELLARMA, ROSARIO A. FLORES, EDITHA L. BROQUEZA, REBECCA T. FAJARDO, MA. VICTORIA C. LUNA, MA. THERESA G. GALANG, BENIGNO V. AMION, GERARDO J. DE LEON, ROWENA T. OCAMPO, MALOU P. DIZON, RUBEN DE C. ATIENZA, MELO E. GABA, HERNAN B. CAMPOSANTO, NELIA D. M. DERIADA, LOLITO L. HILIS, GRACE C. MABUNAY, FE ESPERANZA C. GERONG, MANUEL E. HERRERA, JOSELITO J. GONZAGA, ULDARTCO D. PEDIDA, ROSALINA JULIET B. LOQUELLANO, MARCIAL F. GONZAGA, MERCEDES R. PAULE, JOSE TEODORO A. MOTUS, BLANCHE D. MOTUS, DAISY M. FAGUTAO, ANTONIO A. DEL ROSARIO, EMMANUEL JUSTIN S. GREY, FRANCISCA DEL MUNDO, JULIETA A. CRUZ, RODRIGO J. DURANO, CATALINA R. YEE, MENANDRO CALIGAGAN, MAIDA M. SACRO MILITANTE, LEONILA M. PEREZ, AND EMMA MATEO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211062, January 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL MACAL Y BOLASCO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 158622, January 27, 2016 - SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN L. AND NANCY LEE LIMSO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 169441 - DAVAO SUNRISE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN AND NANCY LIMSO, Petitioners, v. HON. JESUS V. QUITAIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 15 AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 172958 - DAVAO SUNRISE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ROBERT ALAN L. LIMSO, AND SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN AND NANCY LEE LIMSO, Petitioners, v. HON. JESUS V. QUITAIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 15 AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 173194 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. DAVAO SUNRISE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN LIMSO AND NANCY LEE LIMSO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 196958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. DAVAO SUNRISE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN L. LIMSO AND NANCY LEE LIMSO, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 197120 - DAVAO SUNRISE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES ROBERT ALAN AND NANCY LEE LIMSO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 205463 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION EX-PARTE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION UNDER LRC RECORD NO. 12973, 18031 AND LRC RECORD NO. 317, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,