Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > January 2016 Decisions > 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. 176986, January 13, 2016 - NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LICA MANAGEMENT, INC. AND PROTON PILIPINAS, INC., Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 176986, January 13, 2016

NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LICA MANAGEMENT, INC. AND PROTON PILIPINAS, INC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

JARDELEZA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Nissan Car Lease Philippines, Inc. (NCLPI) to assail the Decision2 and Resolution3 dated September 27, 2006 and March 8, 2007, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75985. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court dated June 7, 2002 and ruled that there was a valid extrajudicial rescission of the lease contract between NCLPI and Lica Management, Inc. (LMI). It also ordered NCLPI to pay its unpaid rentals and awarded damages in favor of LMI and third-party respondent Proton Pilipinas, Inc. (Proton).

The Facts

LMI is the absolute owner of a property located at 2326 Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati City with a total area of approximately 2,860 square meters.5 On June 24, 1994, it entered into a contract with NCLPI for the latter to lease the property for a term often (10) years (or from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 2004) with a monthly rental of P308,000.00 and an annual escalation rate often percent (10%).6 Sometime in September 1994, NCLPI, with LMFs consent, allowed its subsidiary Nissan Smartfix Corporation (NSC) to use the leased premises.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Subsequently, NCLPI became delinquent in paying the monthly rent, such that its total rental arrearages8 amounted to P1,741,520.85.9 In May 1996, Nissan and Lica verbally agreed to convert the arrearages into a debt to be covered by a promissory note and twelve (12) postdated checks, each amounting to P162,541.95 as monthly payments starting June 1996 until May 1997.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

While NCLPI was able to deliver the postdated checks per its verbal agreement with LMI, it failed to sign the promissory note and pay the checks for June to October 1996. Thus, in a letter dated October 16, 1996, which was sent on October 18, 1996 by registered mail, LMI informed NCLPI that it was terminating their Contract of Lease due to arrears in the payment of rentals. It also demanded that NCLPI (1) pay the amount of P2,651,570.39 for unpaid rentals11 and (2) vacate the premises within five (5) days from receipt of the notice.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the meantime, Proton sent NCLPI an undated request to use the premises as a temporary display center for "Audi" brand cars for a period of ten (10) days. In the same letter, Proton undertook "not to disturb [NCLPI and LMI's] lease agreement and ensure that [NCLPI] will not breach the same [by] lending the premises x x x without any consideration."13 NCLPI acceded to this request.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On October 11, 1996, NCLPI entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Proton whereby the former agreed to allow Proton "to immediately commence renovation work even prior to the execution of the Contract of Sublease x x x."15 In consideration, Proton agreed to transmit to NCLPI a check representing three (3) months of rental payments, to be deposited only upon the due execution of their Contract of Sublease.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In a letter dated October 24, 1996, NCLPI, through counsel, replied to LMI's letter of October 16, 1996 acknowledging the arrearages incurred by it under their Contract of Lease. Claiming, however, that it has no intention of abandoning the lease and citing efforts to negotiate a possible sublease of the property, NCLPI requested LMI to defer taking court action on the matter.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

LMI, on November 8, 1996, entered into a Contract of Lease with Proton over the subject premises.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On November 12, 1996, LMI filed a Complaint19 for sum of money with damages seeking to recover from NCLPI the amount of P2,696,639.97, equivalent to the balance of its unpaid rentals, with interest and penalties, as well as exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of litigation.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On November 20, 1996, NCLPI demanded Proton to vacate the leased premises.21 However, Proton replied that it was occupying the property based on a lease contract with LMI.22 In a letter of even date addressed to LMI, NCLPI asserted that its failure to pay rent does not automatically result in the termination of the Contract of Lease nor does it give LMI the right to terminate the same.23 NCLPI also informed LMI that since it was unlawfully ousted from the leased premises and was not deriving any benefit therefrom, it decided to stop payment of the checks issued to pay the rent.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In its Answer25 and Third-Party Complaint26 against Proton, NCLPI alleged that LMI and Proton "schemed" and "colluded" to unlawfully force NCLPI (and its subsidiary NSC) from the premises. Since it has not abandoned its leasehold right, NCLPI asserts that the lease contract between LMI and Proton is void for lack of a valid cause or consideration.27 It likewise prayed for the award of: (1) P3,000,000.00, an amount it anticipates to lose on account of LMI and Proton's deprivation of its right to use and occupy the premises; (2) P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (3) P500,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus P2,000.00 for every court appearance.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The trial court admitted29 the third-party complaint over LMI's opposition.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Subsequently, or on April 17, 1998, Proton filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim against NCLPl.31 According to Proton, the undated letter-request supposedly sent by Proton to NCLPl was actually prepared by the latter so as to keep from LMI its intention to sublease the premises to Proton until NCLPl is able to secure LMI's consent.32 Denying NCLPl's allegation that its use of the lease premises was made without any consideration, Proton claims that it "actually paid [NCLPl] rental of P200,000.00 for the use of subject property for 10 days x x x."33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Proton further asserted that NCLPl had vacated the premises as early as during the negotiations for the sublease and, in fact, authorized the former to enter the property and commence renovations.34 When NCLPl ultimately failed to obtain LMI's consent to the proposed sublease and its lease contract was terminated, Proton, having already incurred substantial expenses renovating the premises, was constrained to enter into a Contract of Lease with LMI. Thus, Proton prayed for the dismissal of the Third-Party Complaint, and asked, by way of counterclaim, that NCLPl be ordered to pay exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of litigation.35chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ruling of the Trial Court

On June 7, 2002, the trial court promulgated its Decision,36 the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered in plaintiff LICA MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED's favor. As a consequence of this, defendant NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILIPPINES, INC. is directed to pay plaintiff the following:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1.) [P]2,696,639.97 representing defendant's unpaid rentals inclusive of interest and penalties up to 12 November 1996, plus interest to be charged against said amount at the rate of twelve percent (12%) beginning said date until the amount is fully paid.

2.) Exemplary damages and attorney's fees amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]200,000.00) and litigation expenses amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P] 50,000.00).
The third party complaint filed by defendant is DENIED for lack of merit and in addition to the foregoing and as prayed for, defendant NISSAN is ordered to pay third party defendant PROTON PILIPINAS INC. the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]200,000.00) representing exemplary damages and attorney's fees due.

SO ORDERED.37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The trial court found that NCLPI purposely violated the terms of its contract with LMI when it failed to pay the required rentals and contracted to sublease the premises without the latter's consent.38 Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, LMI was therefore entitled to rescind the contract between the parties and seek payment of the unpaid rentals and damages.39 In addition, the trial court ruled that LMFs act of notifying NCLPI of the termination of their lease contract due to non-payment of rentals is expressly sanctioned under paragraphs 1640 and 1841 of their contract.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Contrary to NCLPI's claim that it was "fooled" into allowing Proton to occupy the premises for a limited period after which the latter unilaterally usurped the premises for itself, the trial court found that it was NCLPI "which misrepresented itself to [Proton] as being a lessee of good standing, so that it could induce the latter to occupy and renovate the premises when at that time the negotiations were underway the lease between [LMI] and [NCLPI] had already been terminated."43chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Aggrieved, NCLPI filed a Petition for Review with the CA. In its Appellant's Brief,44 it argued that the trial court erred in: (1) holding that there was a valid extrajudicial rescission of its lease contract with LMI; and (2) dismissing NCLPI's claim for damages against LMI and Proton while at the same time holding NCLP1 liable to them for exemplary damages and attorney's fees.45chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA denied NCLPI's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision with modification. The decretal portion of the CA's Decision46 reads:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated June 7, 2002 of the trial court is affirmed, subject to modification that:

(1) The award of exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each in favor of plaintiff-appellee and third-party defendant-appellee is reduced to P50,000.00 each;

(2) The award of attorney's fees of P100,000.00 each in favor of plaintiff-appellee and third-party defendant- appellee is reduced to P50,000.00 each;

(3) The amount of unpaid rentals is reduced from P2,696,639.97 to P2,365,569.61, exclusive of interest; and.

(4) Plaintiff-appellee is ordered to return the balance of the security deposit amounting to P883.253.72 to defendant-appellant.

The Decision dated June 7, 2002 is affirmed in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.47chanrobleslaw

NCLPI sought for a reconsideration48 of this decision. LMI, on the other hand, filed a motion to clarify whether the amount of P2,365,569.61 representing unpaid rentals was inclusive of interest.49 The CA resolved both motions, thus:

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration filed by defendant-appellant Nissan Car Lease is denied for lack of merit.

With respect to the motion for clarification filed by plaintiff-appellee Lica Management, Inc., paragraph (3) of the dispositive portion of the Decision is hereby clarified to read as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(3) The amount of unpaid rentals is reduced from P2,696,639.97 to P2,365,569.61, inclusive of interest and rjenajties up to November 12, 1996, plus interest to be charged against said amount at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) beginning said date until the amount is fully paid.
SO ORDERED.50chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence, this petition.

The Petition

NCLPl, in its Petition, raises the following questions:

1. May a contract be rescinded extrajudicially despite the absence of a special contractual stipulation therefor?

2. Do the prevailing facts warrant the dismissal of [LMI]'s claims and the award of NCLPI's claims?

3. How much interest should be paid in the delay of the release of a security deposit in a lease contract?51chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Court's Ruling

We deny the Petition for lack of merit.

Before going into the substantive merits of the case, however, we shall first resolve the technical issue raised by LMI in its Comment52 dated August 22, 2007.

According to LMI, NCLPI's petition must be denied outright on the ground that Luis Manuel T. Banson (Banson), who caused the preparation of the petition and signed the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, was not duly authorized to do so. His apparent authority was based, not by virtue of any NCLPl Board Resolution, but on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) signed only by NCLPI's Corporate Secretary Robel C. Lomibao.53chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As a rule, a corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its directors and officers and can only exercise its corporate powers through its board of directors. Following this rule, a verification and certification signed by an individual corporate officer is defective if done without authority From the corporation's board of directors.54chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The requirement of verification being a condition affecting only the form of the pleading,55 this Court has, in a number of cases, held that:

[T]he following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.

xxx [T]he determination of the sufficiency of the authority was done on a case to case basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign xxx, being "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition."56 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In this case, Banson was President of NCLPI at the time of the filing of the petition.57 Thus, and applying the foregoing ruling, he can sign the verification and certification against forum shopping in the petition without the need of a board resolution.58chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Having settled the technical issue, we shall now proceed to discuss the substantial issues.

Validity of Extrajudicial Rescission of
Lease Contract


It is clear from the records that NCLPI committed substantial breaches of its Contract of Lease with LMI.

Under Paragraph 2, NCLPI bound itself to pay a monthly rental of P308,000.00 not later than the first day of every month to which the rent corresponds. NCLPI, however, defaulted on its contractual obligation to timely and properly pay its rent, the arrearages of which, as of October 16, 1996, amounted to P2,651,570.39.59 This fact was acknowledged and admitted by NCLPI.60chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Aside from non-payment of rentals, it appears that NCLPI also breached its obligations under Paragraphs 461 and 562 of the Contract of Lease which prohibit it from subleasing the premises or introducing improvements or alterations thereon without LMI's prior written consent. The trial court found:

As revealed from the evidence presented by PROTON however, even before [NCLPI] represented that it would try to negotiate a possible sub-lease of the premises, it had, without any semblance of authority from [LMI,] already effectively subleased the subject premises to PROTON and allowed the latter not only to enter the premises but to renovate the same.

[NCLPI]'s assertion that they only allowed PROTON to utilize the premises for ten days as a display center for Audi cars on the occasion of the historic visit of Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany to the Philippines is belied by the evidence offered by PROTON that by virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement [NCLPI] had already permitted PROTON "to immediately commence renovation work even prior to the execution of the Contract of Sublease" and had accepted a check from PROTON representing the rental deposit under the yet to be executed Contract of Sublease, x x xchanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

x x x x

Besides, the court is not inclined lo show [NCLPl] any sympathy x x x because it came to court with unclean hands when it accused [LMI] and PROTON of being guilty parties when they supposedly connived with each other to oust [NCLPl] from the leased premises when in truth and in fact, [NCLPl]'s lease was already terminated when it pursued negotiations to sub-lease (he premises to PROTON then giving the latter the assurance they would be able lo obtain [LMI]'s consent to the sublease when this was very remote, in light of [NCLPI]'s failure to update its rental payments.63 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

This factual finding was affirmed by the CA:

There is no merit in [NCLPl]'s claim for damages allegedly arising from |LMl|'s failure to maintain it in peaceful possession of the leased premises. It was [NCLPl] who breached the lease contract by defaulting in the payment of lease rentals, entering into a sublease contract with [Proton] and allowing [Proton] to introduce renovations on the leased premises without the consent of [LMl].64 x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Factual findings of the CA are binding and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal. While the rule admits of certain exceptions,65 NCLPl failed to prove that any of the exceptions applies in this case.

The crux of the controversy rather revolves around the validity of LMI's act of extrajudicially rescinding its Contract of Lease with NCLPl.

NCLPl maintains that while a lessor has a right to eject a delinquent lessee from its property, such right must be exercised in accordance with law:

6.15. In this case, [LMI] did not comply with the requirement laid down in Section 2 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, in unceremoniously ejecting [NCLPl] from the property. The said Rule explicitly provides that the lessor shall serve a written notice of the demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate or post such notice on the premises if no person is found thereon, giving the lessee 15 days to comply with the demand. [LMI]'s demand letter dated 16 October 1996 provides only a period of five days for [NCLPI] to comply with such demand and, thus, defective.66 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

NCLPI's reliance on Section 2, Rule 7067 in this case is misplaced.

Rule 70 of the Rules of Court sets forth the procedure in relation to the filing of suits for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The action filed by LMI against NCLPI, however, is one for the recovery of a sum of money. Clearly, Section 2 of Rule 70 is not applicable.

In fact, it does not appear that it was even necessary for LMI to eject NCLPI from the leased premises. NCLPI had already vacated the same as early as October 11, 1996 when it surrendered possession of the premises to Proton, by virtue of their Memorandum of Agreement, so that the latter can commence renovations.68chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

NCLPI also maintains that LMI cannot unilaterally and extrajudicially rescind their Contract of Lease in the absence of an express provision in their Contract to that effect.69 According to NCLPI:

6.1. The power to rescind is judicial in nature x x x

6.2. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has allowed extrajudicial rescission if such remedy is specifically provided for in the contract. A provision granting the non- defaulting party merely a right to rescind would be superfluous because by law, it is inherent in such contract [see by analogy Villanueva, PHILIPPINE LAW ON SALES, P. 238(1998)].

x x x x

6.4. [Paragraph 16],70 however, cannot be construed as an authority for either party to unilaterally and extrajudicially rescind the Lease Contract in case of breach by the other party. All that [Paragraph] 16 affords the aggrieved party is merely the right to rescind the lease contract, which is the very same right already granted under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.71 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

It is true that NCLP1 and LMI's Contract of Lease does not contain a provision expressly authorizing extrajudicial rescission. LMI can nevertheless rescind the contract, without prior court approval, pursuant to Art. 1191 of the Civil Code.

Art. 1191 provides that the power to rescind is implied in reciprocal obligations, in cases where one of the obligors should fail to comply with what is incumbent upon him. Otherwise stated, an aggrieved party is not prevented from extrajudicially rescinding a contract to protect its interests, even in the absence of any provision expressly providing for such right.72 The rationale for this rule was explained in the case of University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles73 wherein this Court held:

[T]he law definitely does not require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file suit and wait for a judgment before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other's breach will have to passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own damages (Civil Code, Article 2203). (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

We are aware of this Court's previous rulings in Tan v. Court of Appeals,74Iringan v. Court of Appeals,75 and EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International, Inc.,76 for example, wherein we held that extrajudicial rescission of a contract is not possible without an express stipulation to that effect.77chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The seeming "conflict" between this and our previous rulings, however, is more apparent than real.

Whether a contract provides for it or not, the remedy of rescission is always available as a remedy against a defaulting party. When done without prior judicial imprimatur, however, it may still be subject to a possible court review. In Golden Valley Exploration, Inc. v. Pinkian Mining Company,78 we explained:

This notwithstanding, jurisprudence still indicates that an extrajudicial rescission based on grounds not specified in the contract would not preclude a party to treat the same as rescinded. The rescinding party, however, by such course of action, subjects himself to the risk of being held liable for damages when the extrajudicial rescission is questioned by the opposing party in court. This was made clear in the case of U.P. v. De los Angeles, wherein the Court held as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Of course, it must be understood that the act of a party in treating a contract as cancelled or resolved on account of infractions by the other contracting party must be made known to the other and is always provisional, being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. If the other party denies that rescission is justified, it is free to resort to judicial action in its own behalf, and bring the matter to court. Then, should the court, after due hearing, decide that the resolution of the contract was not warranted, the responsible party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution will be affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party prejudiced.

In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

The only practical effect of a contractual stipulation allowing extrajudicial rescission is "merely to transfer to the defaulter the initiative of instituting suit, instead of the rescinder."79chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In fact, the rule is the same even if the parties' contract expressly allows extrajudicial rescission. The other party denying the rescission may still seek judicial intervention to determine whether or not the rescission was proper.80chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Having established that LMl can extrajudicially rescind its contract with NCLPI even absent an express contractual stipulation to that effect, the question now to be resolved is whether this extrajudicial rescission was proper under the circumstances.

As earlier discussed, NCLPI's non-payment of rentals and unauthorized sublease of the leased premises were both clearly proven by the records. We thus confirm LMFs rescission of its contract with NCLPI on account of the latter's breach of its obligations.

Rental Arrearages and Interest

Having upheld LMI's extrajudicial rescission of its Contract of Lease, we hold that NCLPI is required to pay all rental arrearages owing to LMI, computed by the CA as follows:

In its appellant's brief, [NCLPI] admitted that it had rental arrears of P1,300,335.60 as of May 1996. Additionally, the statement of account submitted by [LMI] showed that from June 1996 to October 1996 the rental arrears of [NCLPI] amounted to P1,065,234.01. Hence, the total of said rental arrears not disputed by the parties is P2,365,569.61 x x x.81 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Contract of Lease shows that the parties did not stipulate an applicable interest rate in case of default in the payment of rentals. Thus, and following this Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,82 the foregoing amount of rental arrearages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from October 18, 1996, the date of LMI's extrajudicial demand,83 until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from such finality of judgment until its satisfaction.

Security Deposit

NCLPI also argues that, assuming LMI could validly rescind their Contract of Lease, the security deposit must be returned, with interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the obligation to return being in the nature of a forbearance of money.84chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

NCLPI is partly correct.

Paragraph 385 of the Contract of Lease provides that, in case of termination of the lease, the balance of the security deposit must be returned to NCLPI within seven (7) days. Since "there is no question that [LMI] is retaining the security deposit" in the amount of P883,253.72 (after deduction of the expenses for water and telephone services),86 LMI must return the same to NCLPI, with interest.

Considering, however, that the Contract of Lease does not stipulate an applicable interest rate, again following our ruling in Nacar, the rate shall be six percent (6%) from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand. The records of this case show that the first time NCLPI raised the issue on the security deposit was in its Brief dated March 25, 2003 filed with the CA.87 Thus, the interest should be computed starting only on said date until the finality of this Decision, after which the total amount shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) from the finality of this Decision until satisfaction by LMI.88chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Improvements

In its Petition, NCLPI also prayed for the return of "all the equipment installed and the other improvements on the property, or their value, pursuant to the mandate of mutual restitution."89chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

NCLPI errs.

Under Paragraph 5 of the Contract of Lease, NCLPI is entitled only to the return of those improvements introduced by it which can be removed without causing damage to the leased premises.90 Considering, however, that the issue of ownership of the improvements within the premises appears to be subject of another case initiated by NCLITs subsidiary, NSC,91 this Court will not rule on the same.

Denial of NCLPI's claim and award
of damages in favor of LMI and
Proton proper


Both the trial court and CA found that NCLPI breached the Contract of Lease. In sustaining the denial of NCLPI's claim for damages, the CA held:

There is no merit in [NCLPIf s claim for damages allegedly arising from [LMIJ's failure to maintain it in peaceful possession of the leased premises. It was [NCLPI] who breached the lease contract x x x Moreover, the lease contract between [LMI] and [Proton] was entered into only on November 8, 1996 x x x after the lease contract between [LMI] and [NCLPI] had been terminated. As aptly noted by the trial court:

x x x x

In other words, while in its responsive pleading [NCLPI] claims |that| it was fooled into allowing [Proton] to occupy the subject premises for a limited period, alter which the latter, in alleged collusion with [LMI] unilaterally usurped the premises for itself, the evidence shows thai it was |IMCLPI| which misrepresented itself to PROTON as being a lessee of good standing, so that it could induce the latter to occupy and renovate the premises when at that time the negotiations were underway, the lease between [LMI] and [NCLPI] had already been terminated.92 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Contrary to NCLPI's claims of an unlawful "scheme" devised by LMI and Proton to force it out of the leased premises, we find that it was NCLPI who was in bad faith and itself provided the bases for the cancellation of its Contract of Lease with LMI and its eventual ejectment from the leased premises. Accordingly, we affirm (1) the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees in favor of LMI and Proton and (2) the denial of NCLPI's claim for damages.93chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 27, 2006 and the Resolution dated March 8, 2007 rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 75985 are, however, MODIFIED as follows:

(1) NCLPI is ordered to pay LMI and Proton exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and attorney's fees of P50,000.00, each;

(2) NCLPI is ordered to pay the amount of P2,365,569.6I unpaid rentals, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from October 18, 1996 until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until its satisfaction;

(3) LMI is ordered to return to NCLPI the balance of the security deposit amounting to P883,253.72, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) starting March 25, 2003 until the finality of this Decision, after which the total amount shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) from the finality of this Decision until satisfaction by LMI.94chanrobleslaw

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin,* Villarama, Jr., and Mendoza,** JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Designated additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.

** Designated additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated November 11, 2015.

1Rollo, pp. I 1-35.

2 Id. at 30-52. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes, now a member of this Court, and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal concurring.

3Id. at 54-58.

4Id. at 144-168. Penned by Judge Marissa Macaraig-Guillen.

5 Id. at 60, 65.

6 Id. at 65-7 I.

7 Id. at 60. 72.

8 As of May 1996, id. at 60.

9Rollo, p. 60.

10 Id. at 61.

11 Covering a portion of July 1996 up to and including October 1996. Id. at 73.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 102-103.

14 Id. at 104.

15 Id. at 142-143.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 74-75. See also id. at 61-62.

18 Id. at 139.

19 Docketed as Civil Case No. 96-1840 before the RTC, Branch 60 of Makati City. Id. at 59-64.

20 Id. at 63.

21 Id. at 105-106.

22 Id. at 109.

23 Id. at 107.

24 Id. at 108.

25 Id. at 84-94.

26 Id. at 111-118.

27 Id. at 88.

28 Id. at 88-89.

29 Id. at 136.

30 Id. at 76-83.

31 Id. at 137-143.

32 Id. at 137.

33 Id. at 137.

34 Id. at 139.

35 Id. at 139-140.

36 Id. at 144-168.

37 Id. at 168.

38  Id. at. 166.

39 Id.

40 Id. at 69. This paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
16. BREACH OR DEFAULT - Any breach or default by either party of any of the terms and conditions of this Contract shall be sufficient ground for the aggrieved party to rescind the same.
41 Id. This paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
18. DAMAGES - It is hereby mutually agreed and covenanted that non-compliance by either party with any of the provisions of this Contract to be performed by it and which may be the basis of a suit by the other shall entitle the injured party to collect such damages it may sustain.
42 Id. at 65-71, 162.

43 Id. at 164.

44 Id. at. 169-206

45 Id. at 171.

46 Id. at 39-52.

47 Id. at 51-52.

48 CA rollo, pp.

49 Id. at 205-268.

50Rollo, pp. 54-58.

51 Id. at 11.

52 Id. at 312-327.

53 Id. at 315.

54 Swedish Match Philippines Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 428, 434.

55 Id., citing Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 334, 345-346.

56PCI Travel Corporation v. National Lahor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154379, October 31, 2008, 570 SCRA 315, 321, citing Cagayun Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 15 1413, February 13. 2008, 545 SCRA 10, 18-19. See also University of the East v. Pepanio, G.R. No. 193897, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 250, 258.

57Rollo, p. 35.

58 See also PCI Travel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.

59 Id. at 73.

60 Id. at 23, 74-75.

61 Id. at 66-67. This paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
4. USE OF LEASED PREMISES - The LESSEE shall use and allow the use of the Leased Premises exclusively for legitimate business, industrial and commercial purposes and for such purposes as the premises are presently devoted and shall not divert the same or allow the diversion thereof to other uses or purposes without the written consent of the LESSOR. The LESSOR shall provide the LESSEE with written notice requesting that the LESSEE cease any operations and activities which the LESSOR deems to be non[-]acceptable use of the premises.

The LESSEE shall not sublease the premises to other parties without the prior written consent of the LESSOR[.]
62 Id. at 67. This paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
5. IMPROVEMENTS - The LESSEE may not introduce any structural changes, improvements or alterations to the Leased Premises without the LESSOR'S prior written consent, however, any such improvements or alterations shall upon the expiration or termination of this Contract inure to the benefit of the Leased Premises and become the LESSOR'S property, without any obligation on the latter's part to pay or refund the LESSEE for its cost or value, except those improvements which can be removed without causing damage to the Leased Premises.
63Rollo, pp. 163-164, 167.

64 Id. at 48.

65Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, G.R. No. 137147, November 18, 2003, 416 SCRA 15, 18, citing Vicente v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 136112, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 282, 290.

66Rollo, p. 23.

67 RULES OR COURT, Rule 70, Sec. 2 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. - Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land, or live (5) days in the case of buildings.
68Rollo, pp. 139, 142.

69 Id. at 17-20.

70 Id. at 124. This Paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
16. BREACH OR DEFAULT - Any breach or default by either party of any of the terms and conditions of this Contract shall be sufficients wound for the party to rescind the same. (Emphasis supplied)
71 Id at 185-186, 188.

72 Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ant Security & Surveillance Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 154852, October 21, 2004, 441 SCRA 126. 135; Casino, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133803, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 57, 67-68. Sec also University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, G.R. No. L-28602, September 29, 1970, 35 SCRA 102, 107; and the Concurring Opinion of Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen in EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International. Inc., G.R. No. 162802, October 9. 2013, 707 SCRA 1 3.3. 147-148.

73 Supra.

74 G.R. No. 80479, July 28, 1989, 175 SCRA 656.

75 G.R. No. 129107, September 26, 2001, 366 SCRA 41, 48.

76 Supra at 143, citing Iringan v. Court of Appeals, id.

77  Alcaraz v. Tangga-an, G.R. No. 128568, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 84, 92, Sec also Tan v. Court of Appeals, supra at 662.

78 G.R. No. 190080, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 259, 273-274.

79University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles, supra at 108.

80Golden Valley Exploration, Inc. v. Pinkian Mining Company, supra at 272. 274, citing De Luna v. Abrigo, G.R. No. L-57455, January 18, 1990, 181 SCRA 150, 158. See also Olympic Mines and Development Corp. v. Platinum Group Metals Corporation, G.R. No. 178188, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 314; Pangilman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83588. September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 590.

81 Rollo, p. 50.

82 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 457-459.

83Rollo, p. 73, See also Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 189563, April 7, 2014, 720 SCRA 726. 741.

84Rollo, p. 3 I.

85 Id. at 121. This Paragraph reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
3. SECURITY DEPOSIT - During the effectivity of this Contract, the LESSEE shall ensure that there is on deposit at all time with the LESSOR an amount equivalent to three (3) months rental payments which shall answer for water, gas[,] electricity, telephone, garbage fees, or damages to the premises aside from ordinary wear and tear, the liabilities for which shall be deducted from the deposit and the balance, if any, shall he refunded to the LESSEE not later than seven (7) days from the termination of this lease. The security deposit cannot be applied against unpaid rental payments, x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
86 Id. at 51.

84 Id. at 202-203.

88Nacar v. Gallery Frames, supra.

89Rollo, p. 31. Emphasis supplied.

90 Id. at 122. Paragraph 5 of the Contract of Lease stales:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
5. IMPROVEMENTS The LESSEE may not introduce any structural changes, improvements or alterations to the Leased Premises without the LESSOR'S prior written consent, however any such improvements or alterations shall upon the expiration or termination of this Contract inure to the benefit of the Leased Premises and become the LESSOR'S property, without the obligation on the latter's pail to pay or refund the LESSEE for its cost or value, except those improvements which can be removed without causing damage to the Leased Premises.

(Underscoring supplied)
91 Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-595. See RTC records. Vol. I. pp. 302-303.

92 Rollo, pp. 48-40.

93 Id. at 48-50.

94Nacar v. Gallery Frame's, supra.



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 HOFILEŅA-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 MEŅEZ-ANDRES, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. No. 173770 - HERNITA MEŅEZ-ANDRES AND NELIA MEŅEZ CAYETANO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR DULY-APPOINTED ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ANGELITO MEŅEZ, 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 CASAŅAS, 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. TAŅADA, 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. OSMEŅA 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. ALCAŅESES AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE DECEASED EFREN S. ALCAŅESES, 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. ALCAŅESES, AS THE SOLE HEIR OF THE DECEASED EFREN S. ALCAŅESES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190798, January 27, 2016 - RONALD IBAŅEZ, EMILIO IBAŅEZ, AND DANIEL "BOBOT" IBAŅEZ, 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. OSMEŅA, 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,