Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > July 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.:




G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016

SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, C.J.:

The case before this Court concerns the availability of the remedy of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court1 in challenging the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)2 to resolve a case by way of a summary judgment. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed3 the appeal outright in light of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The provision directs the dismissal of appeals filed through Rule 41 if they merely raise pure questions of law. Spouses Augusto and Nora Navarro now come before this Court arguing that their appeal should not have been dismissed, since the issues they raised included questions of fact.

FACTS

This petition stems from the complaint for a sum of money filed by the Rural Bank of Tarlac, Inc., against Spouses Navarro. It is undisputed that petitioners obtained a bank loan in the amount of P558,000 for the purchase of a motor vehicle, and that they were unable to complete the agreed monthly installments. It is also uncontested that they surrendered their vehicle (a 1998 Kia Advantage van) to the bank, so that the latter could sell it and apply the proceeds of the sale to their obligations.4 The parties, however, disagreed as to the effect of the surrender of the vehicle under that circumstance.

According to the bank, petitioners still had an unpaid balance of P315,677.80 excluding interests, penalties, and liquidated damages even after the sale of the van.5 It claimed that their monthly installments amounted to only P92,322.20,6 while it was able to sell the vehicle for only P150,000.00.7 Thus, it alleged that it could only credit the total amount of P242,322.20 in their favor.8chanrobleslaw

Spouses Navarro did not deny that they had executed a Promissory Note in favor of the bank, and that the terms were correctly reflected in the note.9 They claim, however, that when they surrendered the vehicle, they understood that it would serve as complete satisfaction of their remaining loan obligation by way of a dacion en pago.

In view of the spouses' Answer, the bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.10 It alleged that the only issue before the trial court was whether the selling price of the vehicle was enough to satisfy the unpaid balance, interest, and other charges. It argued that a summary judgment was proper, since there was no more genuine issue relating to any material fact, and that the matter before the court was merely the computation of the remaining balance. To support its motion, the bank presented the Promissory Note executed by the spouses for the amount of P558,000,11 as well as the receipts for the sale of the vehicle to a certain Corazon Quesada for P150,000;12 and acknowledged the spouses' total monthly installments of P92,322.20.13 Based on its own accounting,14 the total payments amounted to P242,322.20, while their total running balance was P315,677.80 excluding interests, penalties, and liquidated damages.

Spouses Navarro opposed the motion.15 While they did not assail the amount for which the van was sold, they nevertheless asserted that by surrendering the vehicle, their remaining obligation must be deemed to have been fully paid. To prove their assertion, they presented an acknowledgment receipt, which stated that the bank had "[r]eceived x x x one unit KIA ADVANTAGE VAN, in good and running condition."16 They argued that there still existed a question of fact, since there must be a proper accounting of their correct balance. In the alternative, they averred that the deductible amount for the sale of the van must be based on its value at the time they surrendered it to the bank. They also claimed that their monthly installments had already amounted to P161,137.69. The spouses, however, did not attach receipts or any other kind of evidence to support this contention.

By way of a summary judgment, the RTC rendered a Decision17 in favor of the bank. It explained that Spouses Navarro remained obligated to pay the remaining principal loan amount of P315,677.80 plus legal interest and attorney's fees.18 The trial court ruled:19
Defendants claimed they had paid the sum of P161,137.69 as of March 18, 2002, and had in fact surrendered one Kia Van by way of "dacion en pago" thereby extinguishing the obligation.

If the intention of parties is to consider the surrender of the Kia Van as full payment, a receipt to that effect should have been signed or acknowledged by the bank. There was none. Further, it is the burden of defendants to prove that their payments to the bank amounted to P161,137.69 as of March 18, 2002, which should be evidenced by receipts of payment to the bank.

Thus, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment is proper. The Court agrees that the obligation of the defendants or the principal balance is P315,677.80. However, the interest of 32% per annum, the 12% penalty and 12% liquidated damages, all totaling 56% plus 25% attorney's fees may be [unconscionable], as the charges amounted to 81% of the principal balance. The Court has to [reduce] this x x x. The legal rate of 12% per annum should be applied in this case, which should be computed from December 7, 2002 on the balance of the principal amount which was P315,677.80. The computation should be -

P315,677.80 x 1% (per month) x eight months from December 2002 up to July, 2003

= total interest due or P25,244.16

Thus, the total amount to be paid is computed in this manner ---
Plus
P 315,677.80
 
25,244.16
 
 
P 340,921.96
 
Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, there being a stipulation in the contract.
Petitioners assailed the trial court's Decision by filing an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court20 and assigning the following errors:21
  1. The lower court erred in finding that summary judgment is proper.

  2. The lower court erred in rendering summary judgment when there existed genuine triable issues.

  3. The lower court erred in not conducting a hearing to find out that defendant's obligation had already been extinguished.

  4. The lower court erred in awarding to plaintiff attorney's fees and costs.
Spouses Navarro claimed22 that a factual controversy still existed concerning their remaining indebtedness. They maintained that the conveyance of their motor vehicle already served to offset the claims of the bank by means of dacion en pago. In any event, they averred that it could have simply made a deficiency claim against them if the amount derived from the sale of the vehicle was found insufficient. Consequently, they insisted that the RTC should not have granted the bank's Motion for Summary Judgment, since there was still a need to hold a trial to ascertain the amount of the unpaid balance. With regard to the last issue, petitioners argued that the RTC erred in ordering them to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit. They pointed out that there was no basis for the grant, since there was no trial.

The CA dismissed the appeal outright, because petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy. It held that the supposed errors of the RTC revolved around the propriety of resolving the case through a summary judgment.23 According to the appellate court, since these issues involved pure questions of law, the proper remedy to assail the judgment was to file a petition under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, instead of an ordinary appeal under Section 2, Rule 41 thereof.

Spouses Navarro are now before this Court through a Petition for Review under Rule 45. They insist24 that the CA needed to resolve issues involving questions of fact, and that the determination of whether their obligations have already been extinguished requires a full-blown trial. They also argue that the issue relating to the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit involves questions of fact.

ISSUE

The issue to be resolved by the Court is whether Spouses Navarro resorted to the wrong remedy of filing an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, instead of a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, when they questioned the correctness of the decision of the RTC to resolve the dispute through a summary judgment before the CA.

RULING

The petition is unmeritorious.

Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, clearly mandates the outright dismissal of appeals made under Rule 41 thereof, if they only raise pure questions of law.25cralawred The pertinent provision of Rule 50 reads as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. — An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.

An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (Emphases supplied)
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or an evaluation of the truth or falsity of the facts admitted.26 Here, the doubt revolves around the correct application of law and jurisprudence on a certain set of facts or circumstances.27 The test for ascertaining whether a question is one of law is to determine if the appellate court can resolve the issues without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.28 Where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is considered a question of law.29 Conversely, there is a question of fact when doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged information or facts; the credibility of the witnesses; or the relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other.30chanrobleslaw

Applying the above definition and test to the instant case, it is apparent that petitioners raised pure questions of law in their ordinary appeal under Rule 41. From the Appellants' Brief31 filed by Spouses Navarro - vis­-a-vis their Answer with Counterclaim32 and Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment33 before the RTC - and even from their Petition for Review on Certiorari34 before this Court, it is clear that the crux of their appeal to the CA is the supposed erroneous conclusions drawn by the trial court from the already uncontested facts before the latter. These uncontested or uncontroverted facts are as follows:
  1. Petitioners obtained a loan from the bank in the amount of F5 5 8,000, and the terms of the loan were accurately reflected in the Promissory Note attached to respondent's complaint.35chanrobleslaw

  2. The bank admitted that petitioners had already paid P92,322.20 as loan amortization.36chanrobleslaw

  3. Petitioners surrendered the vehicle to the bank, so that the latter would be able to sell it and apply the proceeds to their loan obligation.

  4. The only written agreement pertaining to the surrender of the vehicle was the acknowledgment receipt, which stated that the bank "[r]eceived from MR. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO of Barangay Sto. Domingo II Capas, Tarlac (1) one unit KIA ADVANTAGE VAN, in good and running condition."37chanrobleslaw

  5. The van was sold for only P150,000 three months after it was surrendered.38
It may appear that there is still a factual issue concerning the total amount of installment payments made by petitioners. However, they have already been given numerous opportunities to present evidence that they actually paid P161,137.69, or P68,815.49 more than the amount the bank admitted receiving. We stress that their assertion of the amount paid is an affirmative defense under Section 5(b), Rule 6 of the Rules of Court,39 which they have the burden to substantiate.40 In turn, Section 7, Rule 8 thereof, provides that whenever a "defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading x x x."

We have perused the records of this case and found nothing attached or referenced that would evidence additional payment in the amount of P68,815.49. Spouses Navarro failed to take advantage of the clear opportunities to prove payment in their Answer with Counterclaim41 and Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment42 before the RTC; their Appellants' Brief43 and Motion for Reconsideration44 before the CA; and even their Petition for Review on Certiorari,45 Reply to Comment,46 and Memorandum47 before this Court. Consequently, the CA cannot be deemed to have committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC decision to uphold the interest of judicial economy and render a summary judgment, especially in the face of petitioners' bare allegations.

We also note that petitioners did not seek to present any additional piece of evidence that would substantiate their claim of a dacion en pago agreement with respect to the surrender of the Kia Advantage van. Neither did they present before the RTC any basis for their assertion that a different valuation must be used for the sale of the van. Instead, they eventually asked the trial court to consider the conveyance of the vehicle as full payment of their loan obligation or, in the alternative, that it order the bank to render an accounting to establish the correct loan balances.48 They argued before the CA in this wise:49
An examination of the pleadings, documents and affidavits on file immediately reveal that there is controversy as to the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants are still indebted to it for the sum of P315,677.80, plus interests, penalty charge, liquidated damages and attorney's fees when the obligation has already been fully extinguished with a Dacion En Pago over a motor vehicle conveyed to the plaintiff. And even assuming, but without admitting that defendant still owed the plaintiff, the same would just be one for deficiency claim with the total payments made and actual value of the motor vehicle conveyed set off against total bank claims, so that, in such case, an accounting is first needed to establish the correct balances thereon and the lack or absence thereof necessarily renders plaintiffs action premature. These contentious issues necessarily entail the presentation of evidence.

Moreover, the Answer specifically denied the material allegations of the complaint on defendants' default, refusal to pay their obligation that included interest, penalty charges, liquidated damages and attorney's fees.

The only way to ascertain the truth is obviously through the presentation of evidence by the parties. Summary judgment is not proper where the defendant presented defenses tendering factual issues which call for the presentation of evidence as where the defendant specifically denied the material allegations in the complaint.

Thus, there are issues of facts pleaded and disputed rendering the case unripe for a summary judgment. The Honorable Court should try the case on the merits. Until such time as the trial on the merits of the case is done, it would be PREMATURE on the part of the Court to render judgment on the case without 1 earing the parties on the merits of their respective sides.

The lower court said in its decision that "if the intention of the parties is to consider the surrender of the Kia Van as full payment, a receipt to that effect should have been signed or acknowledged by the bank. There was none." It must be noted that the Answer alleges "bad faith" and abuse of rights against the plaintiff ["in filing this case for collection when defendants' obligation with it had already been extinguished"50]. It should hear and try the case because by the testimony and other evidences to be presented, the court would be informed of the reason why there was no such receipt and why the entire obligation has already been extinguished.

Defendant Augusto Navarro declared in his Affidavit that they "were compelled to surrender the financed Kia Van upon an agreement forged with us by the bank that the surrender of said vehicle (will) fully pay and extinguish our obligation"; that "in consideration of our said agreement, the bank made us to sign IN BLANK a deed of sale over the same motor vehicle to leave to the bank full authority and control to dictate the price thereof; which price, were made to believe and understand, will apply to the full payment and extinguishment of our said obligation".

To support this claim of defendant Augusto Navarro is plaintiffs own exhibit which appears to be the "Deed of Sale" mentioned by said defendant.

Now, would the court be truly justified in rendering a summary judgment when by the appearance of what is before it, it is bound by the dictates of justice and fair play to look into the transaction so it could inform itself as to who among the plaintiff and the defendants are telling the truth? From where we stand, it is very clear that, contrary to the finding of the lower court, the rendition of a summary judgment in this case is not proper. There should be a trial to ferret out the truth.

Besides the lower court itself stated that "it is the burden of defendants to prove that their payments to the bank amounted to P161,137.69 as of March 18, 2002, which would be evidenced by receipts of payments to the bank". Verily, if one party has the burden of proof, necessarily he is under obligation to present such proof. So how can one present the proof required of him when he is denied the opportunity to present the same? In effect, such denial is a negation of one's right to be heard and to due process. Under our Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

From the circumstances availing, there is really a very serious doubt as to the propriety of the summary judgment. In case of such doubt, the doubt shall be resolved against the moving party. The court should take that view of evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed and give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences. (Citations omitted, emphases supplied)
Clearly, these matters do not entail a review of the facts or an evaluation of the probative value of the evidence. The CA was only required to examine if the admitted facts in the pleadings and the affidavits filed by the movant warranted the trial court's conclusions on the applicable law. The only factual issue petitioners attempted to tender was the claim that they paid more than what the bank claimed as total monthly installments. But even on this point, they failed to introduce any acceptable evidentiary reference.

The same reasoning applies to the question relating to the payment of attorney's fees and costs of suit. Petitioners' own arguments show that this question is, in the first place, dependent on the resolution of the issue of the propriety of a summary judgment. It is undisputed that the loan agreement between the parties provided for the award of attorney's fees in favor of the bank, in case it would be forced to file a collection suit.51 On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that the payment of the costs of suit "shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course."52 Therefore, the CA only needed to determine if the lower court properly applied the provisions of the loan agreement, the law, the Rules of Court, and jurisprudence to the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit.

Indeed, it is a settled rule53 that the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or of both law and fact is best left to the CA, and that all doubts as to the correctness of its conclusions shall be resolved in its favor. We have nevertheless reviewed its determination and found no reason to disturb its finding that petitioners only raised pure questions of law in their ordinary appeal before it. The CA did not commit any reversible error when it dismissed Spouses Navarro's appeal outright.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 27 December 2006 and Resolution dated 3 October 2007, which outrightly dismissed the ordinary appeal taken by petitioners in CA-G.R. CV No. 80041, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1 Petition for Review on Certiorari, pp. 9-10, rollo, pp. 16-17.

2 The Tarlac City (Br. 63) Regional Trial Court Decision in Civil Case No. 9381 was penned by Judge Arsenio P. Adriano. RTC Decision, CA rollo, pp. 19-21.

3 The Court of Appeals Decision dated 27 December 2006 and Resolution dated 03 October 2007 in CA- G.R. CV No. 80041 were penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid. See CA Decision, rollo, pp. 20-31; CA Resolution, rollo, pp. 32-33.

4See Petition for Review on Certiorari, pp. 2-3, rollo, pp. 9-10; Appellants' Brief, p. 2, CA rollo, p. 11; Answer with Counterclaim of Spouses Navarro, RTC Records, pp. 17-19; Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC Records, pp. 20-27.

5 Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, pp. 20-27. According to the bank, petitioners' obligation would amount to P494,707.66 if interests, penalties, and liquidated damages are computed.

6 Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, pp. 20-27. See RTC Decision, p. 1; CA rollo, p. 19.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Answer with Counterclaim of Spouses Navarro, RTC records, pp. 17-19.

10 Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, pp. 20-27.

11 Annex "A" of the Complaint of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, p. 4.

12 Receipts, Annexes "B" and "B-1" attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, p. 25.

13 Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC Records, pp. 20-27. See RTC Decision, p. 1, CA rollo, p. 19.

14 Annex "C" of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC Records, p. 26.

15 Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, RTC Records, pp. 31-34.

16 Receipt dated 20 May 2002, Annex "1" of Spouses Navarro's Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, RTC Records, p. 34.

17 The Decision dated 03 July 2003 issued by the Tarlac City Regional Trial Court (Br. 63) in Civil Case No. 9381 was penned by Judge Arsenio P. Adriano. CA rollo, pp. 19-21.

18 CA Decision, pp. 3-4, rollo, pp. 22-23.

19 RTC Decision, CA rollo, pp. 19-21.

20See Motion for Reconsideration of Petitioner before the CA, CA rollo, pp. 59-63.

21 CA Decision, p. 5, rollo, p. 24; Appellants' Brief, p. 1, CA rollo, p. 10.

22 Appellants' Brief, CA rollo, pp. 7-17.

23Rollo, pp. 24-25.

24 Reply to Comment, pp. 1-2, rollo, pp. 52-53.

25cralawred See Heirs ofCabigas v. Limbaco, 670 Phil. 274 (2011).

26Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, 670 Phil. 274 (2011); St. Mary of the Woods School. Inc. v. Office of the Registiy of Deeds of Makati City, 596 Phil. 778 (2009); National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, 586 Phil. 587 (2008); First Bancorp, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 525 Phil. 309 (2006); China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 590 (2000).

27Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes, G.R. No. 194247, 19 June 2013, 699 SCRA 217.

28 Id.; Rivera v. United Laboratories, Inc., 604 Phil. 184 (2009); Central Bank of the Philippines v. Castro, 514 Phil. 425 (2005); Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 254, 265 (2004); China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26.

29Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes, supra; Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 254 (2004).

30Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes, supra; Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, supra note 26; St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. v. Office of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, supra note 26; National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, supra note 26; First Bancorp, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26; China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26.

31 Appellants' Brief, CA rollo, pp. 7-17.

32 RTC Records, pp. 17-19.

33 Id. at 31-32.

34 Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, pp. 8-19.

35 Answer with Counterclaim of Spouses Navarro, RTC Records, p. 17.

36 Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, pp. 20-27. See RTC Decision, p. 1; CA rollo, p. 19.

37 Receipt dated 20 May 2002, Annex "1" of Spouses Navarro's Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, RTC Records, p. 34.

38 Receipts, Annexes "B" and "B-1" attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Rural Bank of Tarlac, RTC records, p. 25.

39 According to this provision, "An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance."

40Phil. Commercial International Bank v. Franco, G.R. No. 180069, 5 March 2014; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Royeca, 581 Phil. 188 (2008); Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 89 (1996).

41 RTC Records, pp. 17-19.

42 RTC Records, pp. 31-34.

43 Appellants' Brief, CA rollo, pp. 7-17.

44 Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration, CA rollo, pp. 59-63.

45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, pp. 8-19.

46 Reply to Comment, rollo, pp. 52-55.

47 Memorandum, rollo, pp. 62-72.

48 Spouses Navarro's Comment/Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, RTC Records, p. 32.

49 Appellants' Brief, CA rollo, pp. 13-15.

50 Answer with Counterclaim of Spouses Navarro, RTC Records, p. 18.

51 RTC Decision, p. 3, CA rollo, p. 21; Promissory Note, Annex "A" of Complaint, RTC Records, p. 8. See CIVIL CODE, Art. 2208.

52See also: Star Electric Corp. v. R & G Construction Development and Trading, Inc., G.R. No. 212058, 07 December 2015; Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, 18 June 2014, 726 SCRA 505; F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. v. HR Construction Corp., 684 Phil. 330 (2012); Land Bank of the Phils. v. Rivera, 649 Phil. 575 (2010).

53Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, supra note 26; St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. v. Office of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, supra note 26; National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, supra note 26, First Bancorp, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26; China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26; Philippine National Bank v. Romillo, 223 Phil. 533 (1985).



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





July-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 210878, July 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONALYN ABENES Y PASCUA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202015, July 13, 2016 - ANTONIO VALEROSO AND ALLAN LEGATONA, Petitioners, v. SKYCABLE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204620, July 11, 2016 - ROWENA A. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. INTEGRATED PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. AND KATHERYN TANTIANSU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204750, July 11, 2016 - SUSAN D. CAPILI, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205753, July 04, 2016 - ROSA PAMARAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, ROSEMARY P. BERNABE, Petitioners, v. BANK OF COMMERCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200042, July 07, 2016 - FELIZARDO T. GUNTALILIB, Petitioner, v. AURELIO Y. DELA CRUZ AND SALOME V. DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016 - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondents.; G.R. No. 220953 - BENIGNO B. AGUAS, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205951, July 04, 2016 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213660, July 05, 2016 - DR. WENIFREDO T. OŅATE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3213 [Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-91-RTC], July 12, 2016 - ACCREDITED LOCAL PUBLISHERS: THE WEEKLY ILOCANDIA INQUIRER, THE NORLUZONIAN COURIER, THE AMIANAN TRIBUNE, THE WEEKLY CITY BULLETIN, THE NORTHERN STAR, THE WEEKLY BANAT, THE NORTH LUZON HEADLINE, THE REGIONAL DIARYO, AND HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL ILOCANDIA, Complainants, v. SAMUEL L. DEL ROSARIO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BAUANG, LA UNION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193584, July 12, 2016 - HAMBRE J. MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. GRACE BELGADO-SAQUETON, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212206, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABBY CONCEPCION Y NIMENDA AND TOTO MORALES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213847, July 12, 2016 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213568, July 05, 2016 - ALICIA P. LOGARTA, Petitioner, v. CATALINO M. MANGAHIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209264, July 05, 2016 - DAMASO T. AMBRAY AND CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA A. TSOUROUS, CARMENCITA AMBRAY-LAUREL, HEDY AMBRAY-AZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAY-YATCO, NANCY AMBRAY-ESCUDERO, MARISTELA AMBRAY-ILAGAN, ELIZABETH AMBRAY-SORIANO, MA. LUISA FE AMBRAY-ARCILLA, AND CRISTINA AMBRAY-LABIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208353, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE SIATON Y BATE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212337, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BELTRAN FUENTES, JR. Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220978, July 05, 2016 - CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN J. BABIANO AND EMMA B. CONCEPCION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203179, July 04, 2016 - TECHNO DEVELOPMENT & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VIKING METAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205728, July 05, 2016 - THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204693, July 13, 2016 - GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES, Petitioner, v. GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES FACULTY LABOR UNION AND GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES NON-TEACHING AND MAINTENANCE LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213279, July 11, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., BLUE OCEAN SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., AND/OR WILLIAM S. MALALUAN, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM C. ALIVIO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1869, July 27, 2016 - MARIE CHRISTINE D. BANCIL, Complainant, v. HONORABLE RONALDO B. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF SAN JUAN CITY, BRANCH 58, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220449, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RUSGIE GARRUCHO Y SERRANO, Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 10631, July 27, 2016 - ERNESTO B. BALBURIAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. AMOR MIA J. FRANCISCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208264, July 27, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. RICO C. MANALASTAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206649, July 20, 2016 - FOREST HELLS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY RAINIER L. MADRID, IN A DERIVATIVE CAPACITY AS SHAREHOLDER AND CLUB MEMBER, Petitioner, v. FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., AND FIL-ESTATE GOLF DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016 - AILEEN ANGELA S. ALFORNON, Petitioner, v. RODULFO DELOS SANTOS AND EDSEL A. GALEOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206690, July 11, 2016 - BARRIO FIESTA RESTAURANT, LIBERTY ILAGAN, SUNSHINE ONGPAUCO-IKEDA AND MARICO CRISTOBAL, Petitioners, v. HELEN C. BERONIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189878, July 11, 2016 - WILSON FENIX, REZ CORTEZ AND ANGELITO SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181375, July 13, 2016 - PHIL-NIPPON KYOEI, CORP., Petitioner, v. ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN CHRISTY MAE T. GUDELOSAO AND ROSE ELDEN T. GUDELOSAO, CARMEN TANCONTIAN, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN CAMELA B. TANCONTIAN, BEVERLY B. TANCONTIAN, AND ACE B. TANCONTIAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016 - FLORENCIO MORALES, JR., Petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, ATTY. AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ATTY. MIGUEL NOEL T. OCAMPO, ATTY. JOYCE MARTINEZ-BARUT, ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, AND ATTY. EDIZER J. RESURRECION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204873, July 27, 2016 - ESTHER PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204899, July 27, 2016 - HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN, NAMELY, KALIPA B. GUIAMBANGAN, SAYA GUIAMBANGAN DARUS, NENENG P. GUIAMBANGAN, AND EDGAR P. GUIAMBANGAN, Petitioners, v. MUNICIPALITY OF KALAMANSIG, SULTAN KUDARAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR ROLANDO P. GARCIA, MEMBERS OF ITS SANGGUNIANG BAYAN, AND ITS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205010, July 18, 2016 - PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTALGAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. ELENA LAO, IMELDA LAO, POMPIDOU GOLANGCO, JEREMY WILSON GOLANGCO, CARMEN CASTILLO, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF BAGUIO GAS CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016 - TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. AND BENJAMIN P. MANALASTAS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF BMT TRUCKING SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200352, July 20, 2016 - MARY JUNE CELIZ, Petitioner, v. CORD CHEMICALS, INC., LEONOR G. SANZ, AND MARIAN ONTANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUSTICO YGOT Y REPUELA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016 - LAND BANK PHILIPPINES, OF THE Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF MANUEL BOLAŅOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189312, July 28, 2016 - FE B. SAGUINSIN, Petitioner, v. AGAPITO LIBAN, CESARIO LIBAN, EDDIE TANGUILAN, PACENCIA MACANANG, ISIDRO NATIVIDAD, TIMMY SIBBALUCA AND ISIDRO SIBBALUCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201436, July 11, 2016 - SPOUSES MAMERTO AND ADELIA* TIMADO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JOSE, INC., TEDDY MONASTERIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ITS PRESIDENT/MANAGER, AND ATTY. AVELINO SALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198925, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES ARCHIBAL LATOJA AND CHARITO LATOJA, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE ELVIE LIM, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ATTY. JESUS APELADO, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ALVARO CAPITO, AS SHERIFF, BRANCH 2, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, AND TERESITA CABE, REPRESENTED BY ADELINA ZAMORA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195641, July 11, 2016 - TARCISIO S. CALILUNG, Petitioner, v. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RP TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., RENATO L. PUNZALAN AND JOSE MANALO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212346, July 07, 2016 - RICHARD V. FUNK, Petitioner, v. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., FEDERICO O. ESCALER, JOSE M. ZARAGOZA, DOMINGO L. MAPA, ERNESTO C. PEREZ AND ARISTON ESTRADA, SR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195147, July 11, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G. R. No. 188283, July 20, 2016 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ARNULFO AND EVELYN FUENTEBELLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219627, July 04, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187400, July 13, 2016 - FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES DANILO AND GENEROSA VITUG- LIGON, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ISAAC AND CONCEPCION RONULO Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11078, July 19, 2016 - VERLITA V. MERCULLO AND RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211028, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN ARCILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191442, July 27, 2016 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO LISTA, IFUGAO, REPRESENTED BY CHARLES L. CATTILING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR AND ESTRELLA S. ALIGUYON, IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FORMER SIXTH DIVISION AND SN ABOITIZ POWER-MAGAT, INC.., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206927, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARIUS RENIEDO Y CAUILAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016 - LUZ S. ALMEDA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 205963-64, July 07, 2016 - AMANDO A. INOCENTES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. ROLAND B. JURADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON, SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AS COMPLAINANT; AND HON. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), IN ITS CAPACITY AS COUNSEL FOR THE PEOPLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205839, July 07, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205840 - MA. LORENA FLORES AND ALEXANDER CRUZ, Petitioners, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206888, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARITESS CAYAS Y CALITIS @ "TETET", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204222, July 04, 2016 - NEPTUNE METAL SCRAP RECYCLING, INC., Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191492, July 04, 2016 - PATRICIA SIBAYAN REPRESENTED BY TEODICIO SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO COSTALES, SUSANA ISIDRO, RODOLFO ISIDRO, ANNO ISIDRO AND ROBERTO CERANE., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3907-RTJ], July 26, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.; A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3736-RTJ] - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. JOSE ROBERTO F. PO, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016 - ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, July 26, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO G. ROSARIO.

  • G.R. No. 200537, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO QUITOLAY BALMONTE, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183934, July 20, 2016 - ERNESTO GALANG AND MA. OLGA JASMIN CHAN, Petitioners, v. BOIE TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. AND/OR KAZUHIKO NOMURA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183645, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF GAMALIEL ALBANO, REPRESENTED BY ALEXANDER ALBANO AND ALL OTHER PERSON LIVING WITH THEM IN THE SUBJECT PREMISES, Petitioners, v. SPS. MENA C. RAVANES AND ROBERTO RA VANES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212426, July 26, 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 CASIŅO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT 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., Petitioner-In-Intervention.

  • G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDO BACERO Y CASABON, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016 - BENJIE B. GEORG REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN C. BELARMINO, JR., Petitioner, v. HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215764, July 13, 2016 - RICHARD K. TOM, Petitioner, v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10944, July 12, 2016 - NORMA M. GUTIERREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEANOR A. MARAVILLA-ONA. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND HON. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 - PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MINNIE TUMULAK Y CUENCA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206906, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FLORDILINA RAMOS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217999, July 26, 2016 - TERESITA P. DE GUZMAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS FORMER GENERAL MANAGER; BERNADETTE B. VELASQUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS FINANCE MANAGER; ATTY. RODOLFO T. TABANGIN, ATTY. ANTONIO A. ESPIRITU, ATTY. MOISES P. CATING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BAGNIO WATER DISTRICT (BWD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND SONIA A. DAOAS AND ENGR. FELINO D. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CENTRAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI MENDOZA, AND NILDA B. PLARAS, DIRECTOR IV, COMMISSION SECRETARY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213598, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCELITA1 ARENAS Y BONZO @ MERLY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDILBERTO PUSING Y TAMOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3471 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-197-RTC), July 26, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHN REVEL B. PEDRIŅA, CLERK III, BRANCH 200, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIŅAS CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199151-56, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, LT. GEN. LEOPOLDO S. ACOT, B/GEN. ILDEFONSO N. DULINAYAN, LT. COL. SANTIAGO B. RAMIREZ, LT. COL. CESAR M. CARINO, MAJ. PROCESO T. SABADO, MAJ. PACQUITO L. CUENCA, 1LT. MARCELINO M. MORALES, M/SGT. ATULFO D. TAMPOLINO, REMEDIOS "REMY" DIAZ, JOSE GADIN, JR., GLENN ORQUIOLA, HERMINIGILDA LLAVE, GLORIA BAYONA AND RAMON BAYONA JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190158, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS AND RURAL BANK OF AGOO, LA UNION, Petitioners, v. LA TONDEŅA INCORPORADA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208837, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA RIVERA Y DUMO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210801, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN CENIDO Y PICONES AND REMEDIOS CONTRERAS Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO ARELLANO, AND SENIOR DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE M. VILLANUEVA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 150, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), ARTURO F. LUY, GERTRUDES K. LUY, ANNABELLE LUY-REARIO, AND BENHUR K. LUY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLORIA CAIZ Y TALVO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016 - ANNA MARIE L. GUMABON, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016 - MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210606, July 27, 2016 - GRACE PARK* INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND WOODLINK REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION, SECURITY BANKING CORPORATION, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION TRUST DIVISION, EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, EDRIC C. ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016 - SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO, KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199180, July 27, 2016 - THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON AND ARMI SIOSON, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181335, July 27, 2016 - MARIO SALUTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016 - JUTTA KRURSEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218665, July 20, 2016 - JULIUS BAUTTSTA, ARSENIO LARANANG, REYNALDO BALDEMOR, MANAYAN, NORMA FLORES, CONSUELO ESTIGOY, CARMELITA VALMONTE, SIMEON MARTIN, MAGDALENA GADIAN, JOSE GINNO DELA MERCED, JOVEN SILAN, JR., JULIO DIAZ, GIDEON ACOSTA, AND WENCESLA BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. LT. COL. BENITO DONIEGO, JR., LT. COL. ALFREDO PATARATA, AND MAJOR GENERAL GREGORIO PIO CATAPANG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9492, July 11, 2016 - PLUTARCO E. VAZQUEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. DAVID LIM QUECO KHO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6387 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3001], July 19, 2016 - GABINO V. TOLENTINO AND FLORDELIZA C. TOLENTINO, Complainants, v. ATTY. HENRY B. SO AND ATTY. FERDINAND L. ANCHETA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016 - DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, A.K.A. "DOREEN GRACE MEDINA KOIKE," Petitioner, v. MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016 - JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners, v. LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213601, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANKIE GERERO, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, CHRISTOPHER GERERO, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, ACCUSED, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 217381, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE R. SALVADOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 7072, July 27, 2016 - VIRGILIO D. MAGAWAY AND CESARIO M. MAGAWAY, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIANO A. AVECILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016 - LEODEGARIO A. LABAO, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUDOVICO L, MARTELINO, JR., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 212989 - SHARON GRACE MARTINEZ-MARTELINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VICE MAYOR JOSE O. ALBA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 194763-64, July 20, 2016 - WILFRED GACUS YAMSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, REY CAŅETE CHAVEZ, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ARNOLD DOMINGO NAVALES, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ROSINDO JAPAY ALMONTE, DIVISION MANAGER C, ALFONSO EDEN LAID, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, AND WILLIAM V. GUILLEN, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, (ALL OF) DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, BAJADA, DAVAO CITY, Petitioners, v. DANILO C. CASTRO AND GEORGE F. INVENTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016 - INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY, MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209276 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND THE FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR, ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA HI, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209301 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAŅOS FOUNDATION, INC.,. Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209430 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAŅOS, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOROY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND PROMULGATED: EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, July 26, 2016 - RE: LETTER OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; A.M. NO. 12-9-5-SC - RE: COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ANGELITA A, GACUTAN; A.M. NO. 13-02-07-SC - RE: REQUEST OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR- FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE AND AS COMELEC COMMISSIONER BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HER JUDICIAL SERVICE AND INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION/ADJUSTMENT OF HER LONGEVITY PAY., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202050, July 25, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY AND PNOC DOCKYARD & ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210991, July 12, 2016 - DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (FORMERLY DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES) DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LORENZO C. FORMOSO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON AND HON. HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016 - IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent.