Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > March 2016 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO, Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.:




A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO, Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016

FLORANTE A. MIANO, Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The instant administrative case arose from a Verified Complaint1 dated September 10, 2013 filed by complainant Atty. Florante A. Miano (complainant) before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar (respondent), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70 (RTC-Burgos), with ignorance of the rules on inhibition and gross inefficiency relative to several pending cases in her sala.

The Facts

Complainant alleged that he filed motions for inhibition in several cases raffled to the sala of respondent, specifically Civil Case No. 173-B,2 entitled "Florante A. Miano and Bernadette Atienza v. Romeo Migano" (Migano case), and Criminal Case No. B-685,3 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Nelson Mores y Madarang" (Madarang case), which respondent granted.4 In the Migano case, complainant alleged5 as grounds for respondent's inhibition his being a "personal friend" of the latter, as in fact complainant - whom respondent called "Florams," a nickname only used by close and intimate friends - would often have dinners and/or lunches together with a common friend at respondent's house in Quezon City. Moreover, prior to respondent's appointment to the judiciary, one of her colleagues at the City Legal Office of Olongapo City, a certain Leonardo M. Miano, is a first cousin of complainant.6 The OCA was furnished a copy of the Order of Inhibition dated September 11, 2007.7

Subsequently, however, respondent issued an Order8 dated October 11, 2007 (October 11, 2007 Order) in the Migano case directing that the proceedings therein be held in abeyance "until such time that a new Presiding Judge will be appointed by the Court Administrator to hear and decide this case."9 Complainant asserted that this constitutes ignorance of the rules on inhibition on the part of respondent because according to Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 03-8-02-SC,10 where the judge in a single-branch RTC, such as RTC-Burgos where respondent presides, is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits from hearing a case, the Order of Inhibition shall be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall then hear and decide the case.11 Likewise, complainant contended that due to the issuance of the October 11, 2007 Order, the proceedings in the Migano case did not move from the time respondent inhibited therefrom in 2007 up to the filing of the present administrative complaint.12

Further, complainant accused respondent of gross inefficiency, citing various instances where the latter failed to resolve motions for inhibition within the 90-day period prescribed by law. Finally, he averred that respondent - surprisingly - denied his motions for inhibition in cases where the opposing counsel is a certain Atty. Sancho Abasta, Jr. (Atty. Abasta), who hails from the same province as her. In this regard, complainant claimed that respondent showed bias as she would usually grant motions for inhibition that he files before her court, except for the said cases handled by Atty. Abasta.13

In her comment,14 respondent countered that: (a) she is aware of the rules on inhibition set forth in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC and that the October 11, 2007 Order in the Migano case was only intended to inform the OCA of her inhibition therefrom; (b) her Branch Clerk of Court failed to transmit the records of the said case to the Executive Judge of the multi-sala court of RTC-Alaminos City, Pangasinan (RTC-Alaminos City), resulting in the delay in the proceedings therein; (c) her failure to resolve the motions filed by complainant within the 90-day period was due to heavy workload, especially considering that, aside from being the presiding judge of RTC-Burgos, she was also serving as acting presiding judge in RTC-Alaminos City, Branch 54 in behalf of Judge Benjamin Abella who already retired from service; and (d) complainant's motions for inhibition in cases where the opposing counsel is Atty. Abasta were pro forma, for which reason she denied the same, and the mere fact that she and Atty. Abasta hail from the same province is not enough justification for her inhibition.15

The OCA's Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation16 dated August 20, 2014, the OCA found respondent guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure, Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases, and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case. Accordingly, the OCA recommended that she be meted the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.17

The OCA found that respondent was indeed ignorant of the rules on inhibition, especially Section 8, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which provides that the Order of Inhibition should be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall be the one to hear and decide the case. Her ignorance of such rules was highlighted when she violated the same by issuing the October 11, 2007 Order in the Migano case which was not solely intended to inform the OCA of her inhibition therefrom, but also "to hold the case in abeyance until such time that a new Presiding Judge will be appointed by the Court Administrator."18 Worse, she caused undue delay in transmitting the records of the said case to the appropriate pairing court as such transmittal was effected only six (6) years after her inhibition therefrom.19

Anent the issue of respondent's failure to resolve motions for inhibition within the prescribed period, the OCA found that while her caseload was indeed heavy during the time she failed to resolve said motions, she made no effort to seek for an extension of time to resolve them. In this relation, the OCA pointed out that in such instances, all that respondent needed to do was to request and justify an extension of time to decide the cases and the Court would have granted such request, but she failed to do so.20

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not grounds exist to dismiss respondent from service, as recommended by the OCA.

The Court's Ruling

The Court concurs with the OCA in finding respondent guilty of Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, but differs from its finding that respondent should likewise be held guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure.

To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. Judges are also expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith. They are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, and discharge their duties in accordance therewith.21

Corollary thereto, the Court has ruled that when a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. However, gross ignorance of the law is more than an erroneous application of legal provisions.22 Not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice.23 To constitute gross ignorance of the law and for administrative liability to attach, it is not enough that the decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence. It must also be proven that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption or had committed an error so egregious that it amounted to bad faith.24

Section 8, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states in part:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 8. Raffle and re-assignment of cases in ordinary courts where judge is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself from hearing case. - x x x.

x x x x

(c) Where the judge in a single-branch RTC is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself, the Order of Inhibition shall be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall then hear and decide the case. The determination of the pairing judge shall be in accordance with Annex "A" hereof.

x x x x
In this case, respondent maintains that she is aware of the foregoing rules on inhibition. Nonetheless, she still issued the October 11, 2007 Order and directed that the proceedings in the Migano case be held in abeyance until such time that a new judge shall have been appointed by the Court Administrator, and failed to directly and immediately transmit the records of the case to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos City for further proceedings. Unfortunately, the transmittal was made only on July 25, 2013, and the case did not progress during the six-year interim period. As a result, the Migano case was left pending in her court for a long period of time.

Under the foregoing circumstances, therefore, respondent was clearly remiss in her duty of familiarizing herself with the rules on inhibition set forth in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC. However, the Court finds that such error cannot be categorized as gross ignorance of the law and/or procedure as records are devoid of evidence to show that respondent was motivated by bad faith, fraud, corruption, dishonesty, or egregious error in issuing the October 11, 2007 Order.

Respondent had already clarified that she issued the said Order merely to inform the OCA of her inhibition from the subject case, and while it is true that there was no necessity therefor, respondent's act in itself is not indicative of bad faith. Moreover, she explained that she had instructed her Branch Clerk to transmit the records of the Migano case to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos City, only to discover later on that the transmittal letter was not properly attached to the records, resulting in the delay in its transmittal. Hence, while it may be inferred under the circumstances that respondent was careless and did not exercise diligence in ensuring that the records of the Migano case were immediately transmitted to the pairing judge of RTC-Alaminos City for proper disposition, records are bereft of evidence to show that the resulting delay was deliberately or maliciously caused as to amount to bad faith. Instead, what is evident in this case is that the delay was caused by inadvertence and negligence.

As such, while it may be considered an unfortunate error on respondent's part to hold in abeyance the proceedings in the Migano case and to fail to promptly transmit the records thereof to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos City, such error does not appear to have been tainted with or impelled by bad faith. Bad faith cannot be presumed25 and the Court cannot conclude that bad faith attended respondent's acts when none has been shown in this case. Consequently, respondent need not be subjected to administrative sanction in this respect.26

With regard, however, to the delay in the resolution of pending motions for inhibition within the prescribed period, records are bereft of evidence to show that respondent filed any request for an extension of time within which to resolve them, which the Court could have granted. As such, even if the Court were to accept her excuse that her combined caseload in RTC-Alaminos City, as well as in RTC-Burgos, the courts where she was concurrently presiding, was indeed heavy, she could have requested an extension of time within which to decide and dispose of pending cases and justified the same. The Court is not unmindful of the circumstances that may delay the speedy disposition of cases assigned to judges, thus, the Court allows extensions of time within which pending cases may be disposed of, upon a seasonable filing of a request therefor and sufficient justification.27 For failing to do so, respondent cannot evade administrative liability.

The rules and jurisprudence are clear on the matter of delay. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.28 Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.29

In light of all the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent is administratively liable for Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, which are classified as less serious charges under Section 9,30 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court that merit the penalty of (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.31 Considering the circumstances of this case and the fact that this is not the first time that respondent has been held administratively liable,32 the Court finds it appropriate to impose the penalty of suspension for a period of three (3) months against respondent.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, GUILTY of Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, and is hereby SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for a period of three (3) months, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 1-5.

2 See id. at 6.

3 See id. at 14.

4 See Orders dated September 11, 2007 (id. at 12) and February 21, 2012 (id. at 14).

5 See Motion for Inhibition dated August 31, 2007; id. at 6-11.

6 See id. at 8-9.

7 See Order dated October 11, 2007; id. at 13

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Entitled "GUIDELINES ON THE SELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND DEFINING THEIR POWERS, PREROGATIVES AND DUTIES" (February 15, 2004).

11 Section 8, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 8. Raffle and re-assignment of cases in ordinary courts where judge is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself from hearing case. - x x x.

x x x x

(c) Where the judge in a single-branch RTC is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself, the Order of Inhibition shall be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall then hear and decide the case. The determination of the pairing judge shall be in accordance with Annex "A" hereof.

x x x x
12 See rollo, pp. 2 and 66.

13 Id. at 2-3 and 67.

14 Dated October 24, 2013. Id. at 46-53.

15 See id. at 47-52 and 67-68.

16 Id. at 66-71. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva, and OCA Chief of Legal Office Wilhelmina D. Geronga.

17 Id. at 71.

18 Id. at 69.

19 See id. at 68-69.

20 See id. at 69-70.

21Re: Anonymous Letter dated August 12, 2010 complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles Ciy, Pampanga, 696 Phil. 21, 26 (2012), citing Cabatingan, Sr. v. Arcueno, 436 Phil. 341, 347 (2002).

22Barredo-Fuentes v. Albarracin, 496 Phil. 31, 38 (2005).

23Sps. Lago v. Abul, Jr., 681 Phil. 255, 260 (2012).

24 See Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 319, 339, citing Sps. Lago v. Judge Abul, Jr., id.cralawred

25 See Gatmaitan v. Gonzales, 525 Phil. 658. 671 (2006), citing Fernando v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 112309, July 28, 1994, 234 SCRA 546, 552.

26 See Abanado v. Bayona, 692 Phil. 13, 27 (2012).cralawred

27 See Sps. Umale v. Fadul, Jr., 538 Phil. 518, 524-526 (2006); and Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and to Resolve Pending Motions in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 9, 2013, 700 SCRA 806, 811-812.

28 See OCA v. Santos, 697 Phil. 292, 299-301 (2012); Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Meliton G. Emuslan, Former Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, 630 Phil. 269, 272-273 (2010); and Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, 468 Phil. 338, 345 (2004).

29Angelia v. Grageda, 656 Phil. 570, 574 (2011).

30 Section 9. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges include:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

x x x x
31 See Section 11 (B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

32 In OCA v. Judge Aguilar (666 Phil. 11 [2011]), respondent was found guilty of dishonesty and was suspended from service for a period of six (6) months without pay.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208071, March 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO PEREZ Y ALAVADO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016 - BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, AS CHAIRMAN OF BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016 - TABUK MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners, v. MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016 - SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016 - SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BPI/MS INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioners, v. YOLANDA LAINGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184251, March 09, 2016 - ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTAŅEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTAŅEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTAŅEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTAŅEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016 - FE P. ZALDIVAR, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER ZALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016 - MILAGROSA JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016 - INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B. ARRIOLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEŅA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016 - MILAGROS DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND TERESITA PUNZALAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016 - IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)

  • A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3121], March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND CARIDAD ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY. REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218072, March 08, 2016 - METROPOLITAN NAGA WATER DISTRICT, VIRGINIA I. NERO, JEREMIAS P. ABAN JR., AND EMMA A. CUYO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016 - BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR METALS INC. (SRMI), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9684, March 16, 2016 - MARY ROSE A. BOTO, Complainant, v. SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR VINCENT L. VILLENA, CITY PROSECUTOR ARCHIMEDES V. MANABAT AND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR PATRICK NOEL P. DE DIOS., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193134, March 02, 2016 - RAFAEL NADYAHAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191079, March 02, 2016 - JOEL CARDENAS, HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. ALCANTARA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, JR., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SIMPLICIA P. AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR AND ATTY. NORMAN R. BUENO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016 - RAMON PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON, EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON, LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES, LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO, Complainants, v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016 - WIGBERTO "TOBY" R. TAŅADA, JR., Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S. TAŅADA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9831, March 09, 2016 - CHAN SHUN KUEN, Complainant, v. COMMISSIONERS LOURDES B. COLOMA-JAVIER, GREGORIO O. BILOG III, RAUL TAGLE AQUINO AND ATTY. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217121, March 16, 2016 - SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016 - NELSON TEŅIDO Y SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016 - SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v. TEODORA F. CAMPO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016 - ERNIE IDANAN, NANLY DEL BARRIO AND MARLON PLOPENIO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 170746-47, March 07, 2016 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES PETROLEUM, CO., INC., CALTEX SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX OCEANIC LIMITED, CALTEX INVESTMENT AND TRADING LIMITED, CALTEX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTRAPORT (FAR EAST) COMPANY, CALTEX TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CALTEX SERVICES CORPORATION, AMERICAN OVERSEAS PETROLEUM LIMITED, P.T. CALTEX PACIFIC INDONESIA, CALTEX PETROLEUM INC., CALTEX ASIA, LIMITED, CALIFORNIA TEXAS OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (DELAWARE), CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (NEW YORK), CALTEX OIL PRODUCT COMPANY, CALTEX (OVERSEAS) LIMITED, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORP., Petitioners, v. MA. FLOR A. SINGZON AGUIRRE, ERNEST SINGZON, CESAR SINGZON AND ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS- INTERVENORS IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 91-59592,91-59658, AND 92-61026 PENDING BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 39, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE JOSE CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C. ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND BALBINO JOSE CAMPA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185757, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL. AND LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJAO AND ANASTACIA Z. BAJAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS, AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO, Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 - SISON OLAŅO, SERGIO T. ONG, MARILYN O. GO, AND JAP FUK HAI, Petitioners, v. LIM ENG CO, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 212593-94, March 15, 2016 - JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.; G.R.Nos. 213163-78 - JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213540-41 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213542-43 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 215880-94 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213475-76 - JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016 - DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3905-P), March 01, 2016 - AIREEN A. MAHUSAY, Complainant, v. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174747, March 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA, DOMINGO REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE, AND BIENVENIDO FELINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 - TRAVEL & TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND VIRGINIA MUŅOZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NILDA B. TAMPUS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204965, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES ROMULO H. ESPIRITU AND EVELYN ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND ANNALIZA G. SAZON, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 - THE CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 201871 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES), Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016 - ROGER ALLEN BIGLER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 202647-50, March 09, 2016 - CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, THE HONORABLE RAMON M. BATO, JR., AND THE HONORABLE EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA AND LUIS MANUEL GATMAITAN, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 205921-24 - CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LUIS MANUEL L. GATMAITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016 - CITA C. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. FIDEL D. AQUINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218399, March 02, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO COMBOY Y CRONICO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214430, March 09, 2016 - FELICITO M. MEJORADO, Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 - NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016 - TUNG HUI CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, Petitioners, v. SHIH CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2793 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2406-P), March 08, 2016 - SIMPLECIO A. MARSADA, Complainant, v. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214752, March 09, 2016 - EQUITABLE SAVINGS BANK, (NOW KNOWN AS THE MERGED ENTITY "BDO UNIBANK, INC.") Petitioner, v. ROSALINDA C. PALCES, Respondent.

  • DECISION - PEREZ, J. - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • SERENO, C.J.: - CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • CARPIO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • BRION, J. - DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • CAGUIOA, J.: SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • DEL CASTILLO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • JARDELEZA, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • VELASCO, JR., J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • LEONEN, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.