Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > January 2016 Decisions > 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. 212623, January 11, 2016 - ENRIQUE G. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPO3 PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016

ENRIQUE G. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPO3 PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the November 14, 2013 Decision1 and the May 20, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35390, which affirmed the September 28, 2012 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila (RTC), sustaining the conviction of accused Enrique De Leon (De Leon) for Grave Oral Defamation by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila (MeTC).

Records show that De Leon was charged with Grave Oral Defamation in the Information filed before the MeTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 453376-CR, the accusatory portion of which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That, on or about April 17, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with the deliberate intent to besmirch the honor and reputation of one SPO3 PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, did and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously publicly proffer against the latter slanderous words and expressions such as "WALANGHIYA KANG MANGONGOTONG NA PULIS KA, ANG YABANG YABANG MO NOON. PATAY KA SA AKIN MAMAYA [,]" and other words and expressions of similar import, thereby bringing the said SPO3 PEDRITO L. LEONARDO into public contempt, discredit and ridicule.

Contrary to law.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary

Upon arraignment, De Leon entered a plea of not guilty. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Circular No. 20-2002, De Leon and private respondent SPO3 Pedrito Leonardo (SPO3 Leonardo) appeared before the Philippine Mediation Center to settle the civil aspect of the case. The conciliation meeting, however, bogged down. Hence, the proceedings before the lower court continued. During the pre-trial, the parties pre-marked their respective exhibits and moved for the trial to commence.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: private respondent SPO3 Leonardo, Carlito Principe (Principe) and Jennifer Malupeng (Malupeng). Their combined testimonies narrated that De Leon and his son, John Christopher De Leon (John), filed a complaint for Grave Misconduct against SPO3 Leonardo before the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), docketed as Administrative Case Nos. 06-02-060 (291) II and 06-02-061 (292)11.

The first hearing was scheduled on April 17, 2006 at the PLEB office on the 5th Floor of the Manila City Hall; At around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, while waiting outside the PLEB office on the 5th floor of the Manila City Hall, SPO3 Leonardo noticed De Leon and several of his companions approaching. Before entering the PLEB office, De Leon uttered these words to SPO3 Leonardo, "Walanghiya kang mangongotong na pulis ka, ang yabang yabang mo noon. Patay ka sa akin ngayon."

The words uttered by De Leon caused SPO3 Leonardo embarrassment because there were several persons present at the PLEB premises. He could have arrested De Leon but he did not want to make a scene. Afterwards, De Leon's wife, Concepcion, emerged from the said office and apologized to Leonardo for her husband's actuations. SPO3 Leonardo calmly proceeded to the Special Operations Group of the Philippine National Police (PNP) located at the Manila City Hall to have the incident entered in its blotter. On the same day, SPO3 Leonardo filed his complaint at the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) together with Principe.5

Version of the Defense

The defense presented Fernando Manalo (Manalo), Ruperto Molera (Molera), Concepcion De Leon (Concepcion) and the accused himself as witnesses.

From their testimonies, the defense claimed that there was a prior incident that took place on the morning of February 27, 2006 when De Leon, with his son John, while having breakfast with their fellow joggers at the Philippine National Railroad-Tutuban Station, were approached by SPO3 Leonardo who arrived on his scooter. With his gun drawn, SPO3 Leonardo walked fast towards the group and at a distance of two meters, more or less, he said, "Putang ina mo, tapos ka na Ricky Boy, referring to De Leon." He pressed the trigger but the gun did not fire, when he was to strike again, De Leon was able to escape with the help of John.6

Consequently, De Leon and John filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against SPO3 Leonardo before the PLEB and the first hearing was set on April 17, 2006. In his Sinumpaang Salaysay sa Paghahabla filed before the PLEB, De Leon narrated that he and SPO3 Leonardo were former jogging buddies and that the latter wanted to borrow money from the former in the amount of P150,000.00, but he declined. SPO3 Leonardo became upset with him, culminating in the gun-pointing incident.7

On April 17, 2006, at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, De Leon, in the company of his wife Concepcion, Manalo, Molera, and several others went to the PLEB office to attend the hearing. When De Leon and his companions arrived at the PLEB, they saw SPO3 Leonardo seated on the bench alone; that they were about to pass when SPO3 Leonardo stood up, badmouthed and threatened De Leon by uttering the words, "Putang-ina mong mayabang ka, pag di mo inurong demanda mo sa akin, papatayin kita."

Moments later, they caused the incident to be entered in the police blotter. From there, they returned to the PLEB office where they were advised to file charges against SPO3 Leonardo in Camp Crame. Malupeng and Principe were not seen at the PLEB office premises. Molera even tried to pacify SPO3 Leonardo by saying, "Itok (referring to SPO3 Leonardo), ano ka ba naman andito na tayo sa husgado, ayaw mo pang tigilan ang kamumura kay Ricky, referring to De Leon." De Leon did not do anything, he simply entered the PLEB office and sat down there because he got nervous. He also denied apologizing to SPO3 Leonardo.

Also on April 17, 2006, De Leon utilized the police blotter to file a case against SPO3 Leonardo in Camp Crame. He filed the said case only after he received the subpoena from the OCP for the case filed against him by SPO3 Leonardo. Although he was with his lawyer when he went to Camp Crame, the latter did not advise him to file a complaint in the OCP right away. According to De Leon, he also saw SPO3 Leonardo deposit his service firearm while at the PLEB office.8

The Ruling of the MeTC

In its Decision,9 dated April 15, 2011, the MeTC found De Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Oral Defamation. The trial court considered SPO3 Leonardo's police blotter as prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. His actuations on the day of the incident were spontaneous. As borne by the records, he immediately reported the incident and filed his complaint on that very same day. Considering the animosity between him and De Leon, it was contrary to human experience to expect him to arrest the latter right there and then when his motives would necessarily be met with doubt later on. Neither was there any ill-motive on the part of witness Principe whose testimony was given great probative consequence.10 The MeTC found De Leon's defense as only an afterthought and self-serving as he merely filed the counter-charges against Leonardo after he had received the subpoena from the OCP. The dispositive portion of the MeTC decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Enrique De Leon y Garcia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum penalty, to 1 year, 1 month and 11 days of prision correccional in its minimum period, as maximum penalty.

On the civil aspect ex delicto, the accused is ORDERED to pay the private complainant P10,000 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary

The verdict being unacceptable to him, De Leon filed his Notice of Appeal,12 dated April 18, 2011.

On May 4, 2011, the RTC issued the Order13 directing De Leon to file his appeal memorandum. De Leon, however, failed to comply. For his failure to file the same, the RTC issued another Order,14 dated December 28, 2011, dismissing his appeal. De Leon then filed a motion for reconsideration15 on January 30, 2012, which was granted by the RTC in its Order,16 dated May 22, 2012.

On June 15, 2012, De Leon filed his appeal memorandum17 and argued, among others, that the MeTC decision lacked the necessary constitutional and procedural requirements of a valid decision.

The Ruling of the RTC

On September 28, 2012, the RTC rendered its decision affirming in toto the ruling of the MeTC. It opined that where the issue was the extent of credence properly given to the declarations made by witnesses, the findings of the trial court were accorded great weight and respect. In appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the RTC observed that the MeTC properly discussed in seriatim how it arrived at De Leon's conviction. Thus, contrary to his contentions, the findings of the MeTC were clearly elucidated.18

On October 30, 2012, De Leon filed his motion for reconsideration,19 but it was denied by the RTC in its November 27, 2012 Order.

Aggrieved, De Leon filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the imposed penalty. The CA stated that the issue of credibility was already raised with the RTC and was resolved against De Leon. The CA found that he had not shown any sufficient reason to justify a departure from the factual findings of the MeTC, which were affirmed by the RTC.20

According to the CA, to call SPO3 Leonardo a "walanghiya," "mayabang" and "mangongotong" in public unquestionably constituted grave oral defamation. These words seriously attacked SPO3 Leonardo's character. The term "mangongotong" actually imputed a crime that was dishonorable to him as a police authority. There having been no provocation on the part of SPO3 Leonardo and that the utterances complained of were not made in the heat of unrestrained anger or obfuscation, the RTC did not err in upholding the judgment against De Leon for the crime of grave oral defamation.21 The decretal portion of the CA decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED except that the minimum sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that the penalty to be served shall be: four (4) months as minimum [minus the one (1) day] to a maximum of one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days, (as imposed by the trial court).

IT IS SO ORDERED.22cralawlawlibrary

De Leon moved for partial reconsideration of the CA decision but to no avail.

Hence, this petition, where De Leon raises matters in question that can be summarized as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

ISSUES

  1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE MeTC FAILED TO INCLUDE THE FACTS AND THE LAW UPON WHICH THE DECISION WAS BASED

  2. WHETHER DE LEON'S GUILT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
cralawlawlibrary

In his Petition for Review,23 De Leon again argues that the MeTC decision suffers from constitutional infirmity. The lower court should have decided the case on the basis of the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense. Also, the conviction was based simply on De Leon's conduct during trial and not on the merits of the case.24

In its Comment,25 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the testimonies of SPO3 Leonardo and Principe were credible and competent. Further, in the absence of clear and convincing extrinsic evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality on the part of MeTC Judge Teresa Soriaso (Judge Soriaso), the presumption of regularity in the performance of the judge's function will stand.26

In his Reply,27 however, De Leon insisted that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The intent on his part to diminish the esteem, goodwill or confidence of SPO3 Leonardo or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinion of others against him was lacking as his testimony was made in good faith, without malice. He also reiterated his stand that there was no finding of clear and distinct facts and law to serve as a basis for its conclusion of convicting him for the crime charged and that the MeTC decision was not based on the merits, rather on the personal sentiments harbored by Judge Soriaso against him.28

The Court's Ruling


The MeTC Decision clearly
stated the facts and the law
on which it was based


Under Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court provides that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him and filed with the clerk of the court.

Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.

More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in arriving at a judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit.29

The standard "expected of the judiciary" is that the decision rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any rigid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.30

It is understandable that courts, with heavy dockets and time constraints, often find themselves with little to spare in the preparation of decisions to the extent most desirable. Judges might learn to synthesize and to simplify their pronouncements. Nevertheless, concisely written such as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly express, at least in minimum essence, its factual and legal bases.31

In this case, there was no breach of the constitutional mandate that decisions must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based. The CA correctly stated that the MeTC clearly emphasized in its decision, the factual findings, as well as the credibility and the probative weight of the evidence for the defense vis-a-vis the evidence of the prosecution. The MeTC presented both the version of the prosecution and that of the defense. De Leon was not left in the dark. He was fully aware of the alleged errors of the MeTC. The RTC, as an appellate court, found no reason to reverse the decision of the MeTC.

Likewise, when it comes to credibility of witnesses, this Court accords the highest respect, even finality, to the evaluation by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before it.32

Although De Leon claims that the testimony of Principe is incredible, the MeTC, the RTC and the CA perceived it otherwise. First, there was no ill motive on the part of Principe for him to weave a tale of lies against De Leon. Second, Judge Soriaso was able to observe Principe's demeanor during trial. He was observed to be candid and composed and his conduct on the witness stand did not mirror that of an insincere or false witness.

No bias and partiality on
the part of Judge Soriaso


Unless there is concrete proof that a judge has a personal interest in the proceedings and that his bias stems from an extra-judicial source, this Court shall always presume that a magistrate shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded vision of its facts.33 Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed, in light especially of a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice with impartiality. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge; mere suspicion of partiality is not enough.34

De Leon posits that Judge Soriaso harbored ill feelings towards him which eventually resulted in his conviction. No evidence, however, was ever adduced to justify such allegation. Thus, such argument must also fail.

The crime committed is only
Slight Oral Defamation


Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood."35 The elements of oral defamation are: (1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature.

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement must be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.36 It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.37

In this case, the Court agrees that the words uttered by De Leon were defamatory in nature. It is, however, of the view that the same only constituted simple oral defamation.

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended party.38 "The gravity depends upon: (1) the expressions used; (2) the personal relations of the accused and the offended party; and (3) the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony."39

There are cases where the Court considered the circumstances of the concerned parties and held that the defamation was grave serious in nature.

In U.S. v. Tolosa,40 where a woman of violent temper hurled offensive and scurrilous epithets including words imputing unchastity against a respectable married lady and tending to injure the character of her young daughters, the Court ruled that the crime committed was grave slander. In Balite v. People,41 the accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation as the scurrilous words he imputed to the offended party constituted the crime of estafa.

In some cases, the Court has declared that the defamatory utterances were not grave on the basis of the peculiar situations obtaining.

In the case of People v. Arcand,42 a priest called the offended party a gangster in the middle of the sermon. The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for slight slander as there was no imputation of a crime, a vice or immorality. In Pader v. People,43 the Court ruled that the crime committed was only slight oral defamation as it considered the expression, "putang ina mo," as expression to convey anger or displeasure. Such utterance was found not seriously insulting considering that he was drunk when he uttered those words and his anger was instigated by what the private complainant did when the former's father died. Also in Jamilano v. Court of Appeals,44 where calling someone "yabang" (boastful or arrogant) was found not defamatory, the complainant's subsequent recourse to the law on oral defamation was not sustained by the Court.

Considering the factual backdrop of this case, the Court is convinced that the crime committed by De Leon was only slight oral defamation for the following reasons:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

First, as to the relationship of the parties, they were obviously acquainted with each other as they were former jogging buddies. Prior to the purported gun-pointing incident, there was no reason for De Leon to harbor ill feelings towards SPO3 Leonardo.

Second, as to the timing of the utterance, this was made during the first hearing on the administrative case, shortly after the alleged gun-pointing incident. The gap between the gun-pointing incident and the first hearing was relatively short, a span of time within which the wounded feelings could not have been healed. The utterance made by De Leon was but a mere product of emotional outburst, kept inside his system and unleashed during their encounter.

Third, such words taken as a whole were not uttered with evident intent to strike deep into the character of SPO3 Leonardo as the animosity between the parties should have been considered. It was because of the purported gun-pointing incident that De Leon hurled those words. There was no intention to ridicule or humiliate SPO3 Leonardo because De Leon's utterance could simply be construed as his expression of dismay towards his actions as his friend and member of the community.

The defamatory remarks were
not in connection with the
public officer's duty


Finally, the Court finds that even though SPO3 Leonardo was a police officer by profession, his complaint against De Leon for oral defamation must still prosper. It has been held that a public officer should not be too onion-skinned and should be tolerant of criticism. The doctrine, nevertheless, would only apply if the defamatory statement was uttered in connection with the public officer's duty. The following cases are illustrative:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In the case of Evangelista v. Sepulveda,45 petitioner lawyer made the follow ing statements in his appeal brief:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

THIS BLUNDER of the TRIAL COURT, AT ONCE SHOCKING AND UNPARDONABLE, BETRAYS BOTTOMLESS IGNORANCE OF LEGAL FUNDAMENTALS AND IS A BLACK REFLECTION ON THE COMPETENCE OF ITS INCUMBENT. IT COULD BE A GROUND FOR PROSECUTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.

This shocking, colossal blunder deserves condemnation no end and cries for immediate relief in order to avoid repetitions of miscarriages of justice.cralawlawlibrary

Appalled by the contents of the brief, the trial court judge charged the petitioner for indirect contempt. In absolving the latter, this Court recognized that lawyers sometimes get carried away and forget themselves especially if they act as their own counsel. Hence, if the judge had felt insulted, he should have sought redress by other means as it was not seemly for him to be a judge of his own cause.

In Yabut v. Ombudsman46 petitioner vice mayor was directing traffic as he was concurrently the commander of the Traffic Management Division at that time. On board his vehicle was private respondent Doran, who was impatient about the traffic. Angry words turned into an exchange of punches and Doran stuck a dirty finger at petitioner. Charged with an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner vice mayor was suspended. The attendant circumstances served no excuse for the mauling incidents that followed. Though the acts of Doran were no less than "an act of spite, degradation and mockery," it did not justify an equally abhorrent reaction from petitioner. This Court wrote that public officers, especially those who were elected, should not be too onion-skinned as they are always looked upon to set the example how public officials should correctly conduct themselves even in the face of extreme provocation.

In both cases, the criticisms directed towards the public officer were made in connection with the dissatisfaction of the performance of their respective duties. Here, however, the malicious imputations were directed towards the public officer with respect to their past strained personal relationship. To note, De Leon's displeasure towards SPO3 Leonardo could be traced to a gun-pointing incident where the latter was angered when the former failed to grant him a private loan transaction in the amount of P150,000.00.

One of man's most prized possessions is his integrity. There lies a thin line between criticism and outright defamation. When one makes commentaries about the other's performance of official duties, the criticism is considered constructive, then aimed for the betterment of his or her service to the public. It is thus, a continuing duty on the part of the public officer to make room for improvement on the basis of this constructive criticism in as much as it is imperative on the part of the general public to make the necessary commentaries should they see any lapses on the part of the public officer. In this case, however, the criticism was more destructive than constructive and, worse, it was directed towards the personal relations of the parties.

To reiterate, their altercation and De Leon's subsequent defamation were not in connection with SPO3 Leonardo's public duties. Taking into account the circumstances of the incident, calling him "walanghiya" and "mangongotong na pulis" was evidently geared towards his reputation as a private individual of the community. Thus, the defamation committed by De Leon, while only slight in character, must not go unpunished.

Accordingly, De Leon should be meted out only the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 pesos, for committing slight oral defamation as prescribed under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

April 15, 2011 Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila, is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding Enrique De Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight Oral Defamation, the Court hereby sentences him to pay a fine of P200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

On the civil aspect ex delicto, the accused is ordered to pay the private complainant P5,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:


1Rollo pp. 49-63, penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia Salvador and Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.

2 Id. at 65-66.

3 Id. at 219-224, penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.

4 Id. at 77.

5 Id. at 78-80.

6 Id. at 206-207.

7 Id. at 143-144.

8 Id. at 81-84.

9 Id. at 77-89.

10 Id. at 86.

11 Id. at 88-89.

12 Id. at 90-91.

13 Id, at 165.

14 Id. at 96.

15 Id. at 98-106.

16 Id. at 176-177.

17 Id. at 178-205.

18 Id. at 224.

19 Id. at 225-232.

20 Id. at 59,

21 Id. at 61.

22 Id. at 63.

23 Id. at 3-41.

24 Id. at 27.

25 Id. at 265-287.

26 Id. at 282.

27 Id. at 297-312.

28 Id. at 300-309.

29Dela Peha v. Court of Appeals, 598 Phil. 862, 975 (2009).

30Bernabe v. Geraldez, 160 Phil. 102, 104 (1975).

31Chung v. Mondragon, G.R. No. 179754, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 112.

32 Lumanog v. People, 644 Phil. 296, 395 (2010).

33Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 439 (2003).

34Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 319.

35Villanueva v. People, 521 Phil. 191, 200 (2006).

36Lopez v. People, 658 Phil. 20, 31 (2011).

37 MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da 'wah Council of the Phil, 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2003).

38 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book 2, 2008 Ed., p. 1020.

39 Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, 689 Phil. 11, 28 (2012).

40 37 Phil. 166(1917).

41 124 Phil. 868(1956).

42 68 Phil. 601 (1939).

43 381 Phil. 932-937 (2000).

44 140 Phil. 524-532(1969).

45 206 Phil. 598 (1983).

46 G.R No. 111304, June 17, 1994, 233 SCRA 310.cralawlawlibrary





DISSENTING OPINION


LEONEN, J.:


I vote to grant the Petition. Petitioner should be acquitted of the crime of oral defamation.

The Decision downgrades petitioner's liability from grave oral defamation to slight oral defamation. This is due to the following circumstances: firstly, petitioner and SPO3 Pedrito L. Leonardo (SPO3 Leonardo) had been acquaintances and jogging buddies prior to their dispute. Petitioner allegedly had no reason to harbor ill feelings towards SPO3 Leonardo before the gun-pointing incident.1 Secondly, the alleged defamation occurred during the first administrative hearing of SPO3 Leonardo's Grave Misconduct case. At that time, petitioner's emotions, brought about by the gun-pointing incident, could have still been in a heightened state and could have led to the utterances.2 Lastly, petitioner's words could not be considered as having been driven by the intent to ridicule or humiliate, but were a mere expression of his disappointment over SPO3 Leonardo's actions as a police officer.3

In Victorio v. Court of Appeals,4 oral defamation or slander was defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory words [that] tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood[.]5 In Sazon v. Court of Appeals,6 which involved a libel case, this court discussed the test to determine whether the words chosen by an accused are defamatory:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the following manner, viz:
"Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule[.]"7 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
cralawlawlibrary

Petitioner should be absolved of any criminal liability. The words he allegedly used against SPO3 Leonardo were "walanghiya," "mangongotong na pulis," and "ang yabang[-]yabang."8 These utterances must be assessed against the following context: the backdrop of SPO3 Leonardo being a public servant, and that the incident allegedly happened as the parties were about to enter the People's Law Enforcement Board for SPO3 Leonardo's administrative hearing. The words chosen by petitioner could hardly be considered to ascribe to SPO3 Leonardo anything seriously offensive, much less to impute a vice that would put to question the police officer's morality or professionalism. As a public servant, SPO3 Leonardo cannot be thin-skinned, as criticism is a natural consequence of being a person clothed with authority. Petitioner's choice of words could hardly be considered "personal," especially in light of the heightened emotions brought about by the gun-pointing incident. That the incident allegedly happened just before the parties entered the People's Law Enforcement Board's office also diminishes any claim that the utterances were made to publicly embarrass SPO3 Leonardo.

It is my position that the standard for oral defamation, especially in cases involving persons of authority, should be subject to a re-evaluation. In Chavez v. Court of Appeals,9 the objective of libel laws was explained, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Libel stands as an exception to one of the most cherished constitutional rights, that of free expression. While libel laws ensure a modicum of responsibility in one's own speech or expression, a prescribed legal standard that conveniences the easy proliferation of libel suits fosters an atmosphere that inhibits the right to speak freely. When such a prescribed standard is submitted for affirmation before this Court, as is done in this petition, it must receive the highest possible scrutiny, as it may interfere with the most basic of democratic rights.10 (Emphasis supplied)
 
A police officer, who is a public servant cloaked with authority, should be prepared to take criticism especially in instances where emotions are running high and there is no apparent intent to malign his or her person. Being "sensitive" has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public. In a democratic country like ours, the protection of free expression is primordial as it is tantamount to upholding the sovereignty of the People. The People should be allowed to express themselves without the threat of government reprisal over the slightest feeling of offense.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.

Endnotes:


1 Ponencia, p. 11.

2 Id. at 2 and 11-12.

3 Id. at 12.

4 255 Phil. 630 (1989) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].

5 Id. at 636. It is noted that the case referred to American jurisprudence for this definition.

6 325 Phil. 1053 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division].

7 Id. at 1063-1064.

8 Ponencia, p. 2. The Ponencia quotes the Information in Criminal Case No. 453376-CR for Grave Oral Defamation.

9 543 Phil. 262 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

10 Id. at 274.



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,