ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016 - MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. ZALAMEA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA, QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW FIRM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204419, November 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. EDMAR P. CASTILLO, SR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, APARRI, CAGAYAN AND JEOFREY JIL RABINO Y TALOZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217956, November 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), Petitioner, v. LIMBONHAI AND SONS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212008, November 16, 2016 - WILLIAM ENRIQUEZ AND NELIA-VELA ENRIQUEZ, Petitioners, v. ISAROG LINE TRANSPORT, INC. AND VICTOR SEDENIO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11059, November 09, 2016 - JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT, Complainant, v. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES AND ATTY. TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215198, November 09, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JHUN VILLALON Y ORDONO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213221, November 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIYAN MOHAMMAD Y ASDORI A.K.A. "BONG BIYAN" AND MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, ACCUSED, MINA LADJAHASAN Y TOMBREO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016 - MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA L. CABAL, Petitioners, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA, GENERAL MANAGER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208090, November 09, 2016 - FERDINAND V. TOMAS, Petitioner, v. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (CIDG) - ANTI-ORGANIZED CRIME DIVISION (AOCD) (CIDG-AOCD) AND MYRNA UY TOMAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016 - HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioners, v. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI, HON. MA. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S. SANDOVAL, HON. WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON. MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, AND HON. VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016 - MAYOR AMADO CORPUZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190385, November 16, 2016 - UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, v. HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209303, November 14, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BENGUET, THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BENGUET, THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF ITOGON, BENGUET AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF ITOGON, BENGUET, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 209415-17, November 15, 2016 - JOCELYN "JOY" LIM-BUNGCARAS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND RICO RENTUZA, Respondents.; HERMENEGILDO S. CASTIL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND RACHEL B. AVENDULA, Respondents.; JESUS AVENDULA, JR., DOMINGO RAMADA, JR. AND VICTOR RAMADA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), MANUEL O. CALAPRE, SATURNINO V. CINCO, FERNAN V. SALAS, ANTONIO DALUGDUGAN, FEDERICO C. JAPON, SANTIAGO M. SANTIAGO, JACINTA O. MALUBAY AND BELEN G. BUNGCAG, Respondents.; G.R. No. 210002 - ALDRIN B. PAMAOS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL O. CALAPRE, SATURNINO V. CINCO, FERNAN V. SALAS, ANTONIO DALUGDUGAN, FEDERICO C. JAPON, SANTIAGO M. SANTIAGO, JACINTA O. MALUBAY AND BELEN G. BUNGCAG, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 16-02-01-CTA, November 15, 2016 - MA. ROSARIO R. ESCAÑO, CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, HUMAN RESOURCE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCE SERVICES, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Complainant, v. ADRIAN P. MANAOIS, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, HUMAN RESOURCE DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3386 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-07-227-RTC), November 15, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT VI MELVIN C. DEQUITO AND CASH CLERK ABNER C. ARO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN PABLO CITY, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208350, November 14, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES TOMASA ESTACIO AND EULALIO OCOL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188751, November 16, 2016 - BONIFACIO NIEVA Y MONTERO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225973, November 08, 2016 - SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD H. REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG EX­DETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON AT ARESTO (SELDA), REPRESENTED BY DIONITO CABILLAS, CARMENCITA M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL ROSARIO, FELIX C. DALISAY, AND DANILO M. DELAFUENTE,* Petitioners, v. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVIST AND RETIREE AFFAIRS, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), THE GRAVE SERVICES UNIT (PHILIPPINE ARMY), AND GENERAL RICARDO R. VISAYA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, Respondents.; RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., RENE A.C. SAGUISAG III, Intervenors.; G.R. No. 225984 - REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND AS THE HONORARY CHAIRPERSON OF THE FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE (FIND); FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE (FIND), REPRESENTED BY ITS CO­CHAIRPERSON, NILDA L. SEVILLA; REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.; REP. TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP. EDGAR R. ERICE; AND REP. EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA; AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ; AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, Respondents.; G.R. No. 226097 - LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOS­MARANAN, JO-ANN Q. MAGLIPON, ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE B. MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P. BAWAGAN, MILA D. AGUILAR, MINERVA G. GONZALES, MA. CRISTINA V. RODRIGUEZ, LOUIE G. CRISMO, FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO, JR., LIWAYWAY D. ARCE, AND ABDULMARI DE LEON IMAO, JR., Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA (RET.), Respondents.; G.R. No. 226116 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, FRANCIS X. MANGLAPUS, EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, BELINDA O. CUNANAN, CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX DEGRACIA LORES, SR., ARNOLD MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL, EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P. OLIVARES, NOEL F. TRINIDAD, JESUS DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M. QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN, SVD, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA, AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR., AND JULIA KRISTINA P. LEGASTO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) OF THE DND, Respondents.; G.R. No. 226117 - ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN ARVIN BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL MAGALANG, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF RICARDO R. VISAYA, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ERNESTO G. CAROLINA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 226120 - ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA (RET.), IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO), Respondents.; G.R. No. 226294 - LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC AND AS TAXPAYER, Petitioner, v. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G. CAROLINA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR AND B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. AGUILAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHRINE CURATOR AND CHIEF VETERANS MEMORIAL AND HISTORICAL DIVISION AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND EDRALIN MARCOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189026, November 09, 2016 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH TELEPHONE CORP., Petitioner, v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192369, November 09, 2016 - MARIA VICTORIA TOLENTINO-PRIETO, Petitioner, v. ROBERT S. ELVAS, Respondent.; G.R. No. 193685 - ROBERT S. ELVAS, Petitioner, v. INNSBRUCK INTERNATIONAL TRADING AND/OR MARIVIC TOLENTINO (A.K.A. MARIA VICTORIA TOLENTINO-PRIETO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222730, November 07, 2016 - BUENAFLOR CAR SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. CEZAR DURUMPILI DAVID, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190203, November 07, 2016 - POWERHOUSE STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMELIA REY, LIZA CABAD, EVANGELINE NICMIC, EVA LAMEYRA, ROSARIO ABORDAJE, LILYBETH MAGALANG, VENIA BUYAG, JAYNALYN NOLLEDO, IREN NICOLAS, AILEEN SAMALEA, SUSAN YBAÑEZ; CHERYL ANN ORIA, MA. LIZA SERASPI, KATHERINE ORACION, AND JEJ INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 223290, November 07, 2016 - WOODROW B. CAMASO, Petitioner, v. TSM SHIPPING (PHILS), INC., UTKILEN, AND/OR JONES TULOD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215047, November 23, 2016 - UNIVERSAL CANNING INC., MS. MA. LOURDES A. LOSARIA, PERSONNEL OFFICER, AND ENGR. ROGELIO A. DESOSA, PLANT MANAGER, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANTE SAROSAL, FRANCISCO DUMAGAL, JR., NELSON E. FRANCISCO, ELMER C. SAROMINES AND SAMUEL D. CORONEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219430, November 07, 2016 - JINKY S. STA. ISABEL, Petitioner, v. PERLA COMPAÑIA* DE SEGUROS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221897, November 07, 2016 - ISIDRO QUEBRAL, ALBERTO ESQUILLO, RENANTE SALINSAN, JEROME MACANDOG, EDGARDO GAYORGOR, JIM ROBERT PERFECTO, NOEL PERFECTO, DENNIS PAGAYON, AND HERCULANO MACANDOG Petitioners, v. ANGBUS CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND ANGELO BUSTAMANTE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 221465, November 16, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LOPEZ Y CAPULI, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 160864, November 16, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Respondent.; G.R. No. 160897 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Respondent.

  • I.P.I. No. 15-227-CA-J, November 29, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED 17 NOVEMBER 2014 OF DOLORA CADIZ KHANNA AGAINST HON. EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS, HON. MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP AND HON. JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE RONALD H. EXMUNDO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, KALIBO, AKLAN, JUDGE FRICIA C. GOMEZ-GUILLEN, BRANCH 15, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA AND JUAN S. APOLINAR, SHERIFF III, BRANCH 17, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA.

  • G.R. No. 202114, November 09, 2016 - ELMER A. APINES, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AND/OR DANILO F. VENIDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181007, November 21, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM SINGSON AND TRITON SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213488, November 07, 2016 - TOYOTA PASIG, INC., Petitioner, v. VILMA S. DE PERALTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190667, November 07, 2016 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE R. BERNARDO AND LILIBETH R. BERNARDO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "JOLLY BEVERAGE ENTERPRISES," Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194417, November 23, 2016 - HEIRS OF TEODORO CADELIÑA, REPRESENTED BY SOLEDAD CADIZ VDA. DE CADELIÑA, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO CADIZ, CELESTINO DELA CRUZ, ANTONIO VICTORIA, HEIRS OF TELESFORO VILLAR REPRESENTED BY SAMUEL VILLAR, FRANCISCO VICTORIA AND MAGNO GANTE, Respondents; HON. JOSE C. REYES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUSTICE, HON. NORMANDIE PIZARRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEMBER, AND HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FORMER THIRD DIVISION, Public Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214772, November 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELSON SANTUILLE @ "BORDADO" @ ELTON SANTUILLE @ "BORDADO," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 185082, November 28, 2016 - MANDAUE REALTY & RESOURCES CORPORATION AND MANDAUE CITY REGISTER OF DEEDS, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 161425, November 23, 2016 - ANIANO DESIERTO (SUBSTITUTED BY SIMEON V. MARCELO) AND MAUCENCIA ORDONEZ, Petitioners, v. RUTH EPISTOLA AND RODOLFO GAMIDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215759, November 28, 2016 - HEIRS OF ANDRES NAYA: TERESITA B. NAYA, NORMA N. ORBISO, CARMENCITA N. FERNAN, AND NARCISO P. NAYA, Petitioners, v. ORLANDO P. NAYA AND SPOUSES HONESIMO C. RUIZ AND GLORIA S. RUIZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200726, November 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MATEO LAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188047, November 28, 2016 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. BIENVENIDO R. ALVAREZ, CARLOS S. VELASCO, ASCENCION A. GARGALICANO, MARLON E. AGUINALDO, PETRONILO T. LEGASPI, BONIFACIO A. ESTOPIA, ANDRE A. DELA MERCED, JOSE NOVIER D. BAYOT, ROLANDO AMAZONA AND MARLINO HERRERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197634, November 28, 2016 - JULIUS B. CAMPOL, Petitioner, v. MAYOR RONALD S. BALAO-AS AND VICE-MAYOR DOMINADOR I. SIANEN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215640, November 28, 2016 - NESTOR CABRERA, Petitioner, v. ARNEL CLARIN AND WIFE; MILAGROS BARRIOS AND HUSBAND; AURORA SERAFIN AND HUSBAND; AND BONIFACIO MORENO AND WIFE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215341, November 28, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON MANSON Y RESULTAY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213453, November 29, 2016 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA. GRACIA PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON; AND JANET D. NACION, DIRECTOR IV, Respondents.

  • I.P.I. No. 16-241-CA-J, November 29, 2016 - CLEMENTE F. ATOC, Complainant, v. EDGARDO A. CAMELLO, OSCAR V. BADELLES AND PERPETUA T. ATAL-PAÑO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY. Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210316, November 28, 2016 - THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) CHAIRPERSON TERESITA J. HERBOSA, COMMISSIONER MA. JUANITA E. CUETO, COMMISIONER RAUL J. PALABRICA, COMMISSIONER MANUEL HUBERTO B. GAITE, COMMISIONER ELADIO M. JALA, AND THE SEC ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT, Petitioners, v. CJH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CJH SUITES CORPORATION, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ALFREDO R. YÑIGUEZ III, Respondents.

  • Decisions / Signed Resolutions

  • G.R. No. 217379, November 23, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO MARMOL Y BAUSO, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 182201, November 14, 2016 - UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (BVI) LIMITED, Petitioner, v. RAY BURTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. No. 185815, November 14, 2016 - UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (BVI) LIMITED, Petitioner, v. RAY BURTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210588, November 29, 2016 - SECRETARY OF FINANCE CESAR B. PURISIMA AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE KIM S. JACINTO-­HENARES, Petitioners, v. REPRESENTATIVE CARMELO F. LAZATIN AND ECOZONE PLASTIC ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201883, November 16, 2016 - SPOUSES DESIDERIO AND TERESA DOMINGO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES EMMANUEL AND TITA MANZANO, FRANKLIN ESTABILLO, AND CARMELITA AQUINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209098, November 14, 2016 - JUAN B. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., MYKONOS SHIPPING CO., LTD., AND ELEAZAR DIAZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194412, November 16, 2016 - SAMSODEN PANGCATAN, Petitioner, v. ALEXANDRO "DODONG" MAGHUYOP AND BELINDO BANKIAO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 194566, November 16, 2016 - ALEXANDRO "DODONG" MAGHUYOP AND BELINDO BANKIAO, Petitioners, v. SAMSODEN PANGCATAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195834, November 09, 2016 - GUILLERMO SALVADOR, REMEDIOS CASTRO, REPRESENTED BY PAZ "CHIT" CASTRO, LEONILA GUEVARRA, FELIPE MARIANO, RICARDO DE GUZMAN, VIRGILIO JIMENEZ, REPRESENTED BY JOSIE JIMENEZ, ASUNCION JUAMIZ, ROLANDO BATANG, CARMENCITA SAMSON, AUGUSTO TORTOSA, REPRESENTED BY FERNANDO TORTOSA, SUSANA MORANTE, LUZVIMINDA BULARAN, LUZ OROZCO, JOSE SAPICO, LEONARDO PALAD, ABEL BAKING, REPRESENTED BY ABELINA BAKING, GRACIANO ARNALDO, REPRESENTED BY LUDY ARNALDO, JUDITH HIDALGO, AND IGMIDIO JUSTINIANO, CIRIACO MIJARES, REPRESENTED BY FREDEZWINDA MIJARES, JENNIFER MORANTE, TERESITA DIALA, AND ANITA P. SALAR, Petitioners, v. PATRICIA, INC., RESPONDENT. THE CITY OF MANILA AND CIRIACO C. MIJARES, Intervenors-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016 - ALBERTO GARONG Y VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200150, November 07, 2016 - CATHERINE CHING, LORENZO CHING, LAURENCE CHING, AND CHRISTINE CHING, Petitioners, v. QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB, INC.; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY: ANTONIO T. CHUA, MARGARET MARY A. RODAS, ALEJANDRO G. YABUT, JR., ROBERT C. GAW, EDGARDO A. HO, ROMULO D. SALES, BIENVENIDO ALANO, AUGUSTO E. OROSA, AND THE FINANCE MANAGER, LOURDES RUTH M. LOPEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 221770, November 16, 2016 - NANITO Z. EVANGELISTA* (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEOVIGILDA C. EVANGELISTA), Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NEREO V. ANDOLONG III AND ERLINDA T. ANDOLONG** AND RINO AMUSEMENT INNOVATORS, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217210, November 07, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAPITAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, ROMEO ROXAS, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF LA UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216064, November 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO DACANAY Y TUMALABCAB, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207246, November 22, 2016 - JOSE M. ROY III, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON TERESITA HERBOSA,THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND PHILILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondents.; WILSON C. GAMBOA, JR., DANIEL V. CARTAGENA, JOHN WARREN P. GABINETE, ANTONIO V. PESINA, JR., MODESTO MARTIN Y. MAMON III, AND GERARDO C. EREBAREN, Petitioners-in-Intervention; PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., Respondent-in-Intervention; SHAREHOLDERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent-in-Intervention.

  • Decisions / Signed Resolutions

  • G.R. No. 211072, November 07, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE. LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205035, November 16, 2016 - SPOUSES GEMINO C. MIANO, JR. AND JULIET MIANO, Petitioners, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY [MERALCO], Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-METC), November 22, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; A.M. No. 12-1-09-METC - RE: LETTER DATED 21 JULY 2011 OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO AND THREE (3) OTHER JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, FOR THE SUSPENSION OR DETAIL TO ANOTHER STATION OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, SAME COURT.; A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 (FORMERLY A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC) - RE: LETTER DATED MAY 2, 2011 OF HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY.; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815 (FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 11-2401-MTJ) - LEILANI A. TEJERO-LOPEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ - JOSEFINA G. LABID, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ - AMOR V. ABAD, FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS, ROMER H. AVILES, EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL, NORMAN D.S. GARCIA, MAXIMA SAYO AND DENNIS ECHEGOYEN, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ - EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. JUDGE CATHERINE P. MANODON, MIGUEL C. INFANTE (CLERK OF COURT IV, OCC-METC), RACQUEL C. DIANO (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 45), EMMA ANNIE D. ARAFILES (ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT, OCC-METC), PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, JR. (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 44), LYDIA T. CASAS (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 46), ELEANOR N. BAYOG (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 45), LEILANIE A. TEJERO ( LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA MARIA V. FRANCISCO (CASHIER I, OCC­ METC), SOLEDAD J. BASSIG (CLERK III, OCC-METC), MARISSA MASHHOOR RASTGOOY (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC-METC), MARIE LUZ M. OBIDA (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OCC-METC), VIRGINIA D. GALANG (RECORDS OFFICER I, OCC-METC), AUXENCIO JOSEPH CLEMENTE (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 48), EVELYN P. DEPALOBOS (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 44), MA. CECILIA GERTRUDES R. SALVADOR (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 48), JOSEPH B. PAMATMAT (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ZENAIDA N. GERONIMO (COURT STENOGRAPHER, OCC-METC), BENJIE V. ORE (PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), FORTUNATO E. DIEZMO (PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), NOMER B. VILLANUEVA (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC), ELSA D. GARNET (CLERK III, OCC­ METC), FATIMA V. ROJAS (CLERK III, OCC-METC), EDUARDO E. EBREO (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 45), RONALYN T. ALMARVEZ (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), MA. VICTORIA C. OCAMPO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), ELIZABETH LIPURA (CLERK III METC, BRANCH 45), MARY ANN J. CAYANAN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 45), MANOLO MANUEL E. GARCIA (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45), EDWINA A. JUROK (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC), ARMINA B. ALMONTE (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ELIZABETH G. VILLANUEVA (RECORDS OFFICER, METC, BRANCH 44), ERWIN RUSS B. RAGASA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 44), BIEN T. CAMBA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), MARLON M. SULIGAN (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), CHANDA B. TOLENTINO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), FERDINAND R. MOLINA (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 44), PETRONILO C. PRIMACIO, JR. (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45), EDWARD ERIC SANTOS (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), EMILIO P. DOMINE (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), ARNOLD P. OBIAL (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 44), RICARDO E. LAMPITOC (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 46), JEROME H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA LEA M. ESTACIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), LANIE F. AGUINALDO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), JASMINE L. LINDAIN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), RONALDO S. QUIJANO (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 44), DOMINGO H. HOCOSOL (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 48), EDWIN P. UBANA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 48), MARVIN O. BALICUATRO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), MA. LUZ D. DIONISIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), MARIBEL A. MOLINA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), CRISTINA E. LAMPITOC (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), MELANIE DC BEGASA (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), EVANGELINE M. CHING (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), LAWRENCE D. PEREZ (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 46), EDMUNDO VERGARA (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 46), AMOR V. ABAD (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 47), ROMER H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), MAXIMA C. SAYO (PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 47), SEVILLA B. DEL CASTILLO (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 48), AIDA JOSEFINA IGNACIO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), BENIGNO A. MARZAN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), KARLA MAE R. PACUNAYEN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), IGNACIO M. GONZALES (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 48), EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC, DETAILED AT BRANCH 47), DENNIS M. ECHEGOYEN (SHERIFF III, OCC-METC), NORMAN GARCIA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 47), NOEL G. LABID (UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH 47), Complainant, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ - JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. AND CLERK OF COURT MIGUEL C. INFANTE, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821 - JUDGE EMILY L. SAN GASPAR-GITO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, MANILA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219510, November 04, 2016 - MARLON CURAMMENG Y PABLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207315, November 23, 2016 - INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK PHILIPPINES, INC., BERNARDINO G. BANTEGUI, JR. AND SONIA J. GRANDEA, Petitioners, v. REBECCA F. SIMBILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204422, November 21, 2016 - JESUS B. VILLAMOR, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [ECC] AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215943, November 16, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RANDY CLOMA Y CABANA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204280, November 09, 2016 - EVELYN V. RUIZ, Petitioner, v. BERNARDO F. DIMAILIG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193816, November 21, 2016 - ERSON ANG LEE DOING BUSINESS AS "SUPER LAMINATION SERVICES," Petitioner, v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION (SMSLS­-NAFLU-KMU), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184841, November 21, 2016 - GERINO YUKIT, DANILO REYES, RODRIGO S. SUMILANG, LEODEGARIO O. ROSALES, MARIO MELARPIS,1 MARCELO R. OCAN, DENNIS V. BATHAN, BERNARDO S. MAGNAYE, LORENZO U. MARTINEZ, ANTONIO M. LADERES, SOFIO DE LOS REYES BAON, MARIO R. MIGUEL, RODOLFO S. LEOPANDO, EDGARDO N. MACALLA, JR., MARIANO REYES, ALEJANDRO CUETO, VIRGILIO RINGOR AND JASON R. BARTE, Petitioner, v. TRITRAN, INC., JOSE C. ALVAREZ, JEHU C. SEBASTIAN, AND JAM TRANSIT INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169967, November 23, 2016 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., EMMANUEL CURA, ANGEL LABAO, ALMEDO LOPEZ, AND RUSTOM ALEJANDRINO, Petitioners, v. IBM LOCAL I, REGNER SANGALANG AND ROLANDO NACPIL, Respondents.; G.R. No. 176074, November 23, 2016 - REGNER A. SANGALANG AND ROLANDO V. NACPIL, Petitioners, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (CCBPI), EMMANUEL CURA, ANGEL LABAO, AND RUSTOM ALEJANDRINO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 176205, November 23, 2016 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., EMMANUEL CURA, ANGEL LABAO, AND RUSTOM ALEJANDRINO, Petitioners, v. REGNER A. SANGALANG AND ROLANDO NACPIL, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3368 [Formerly A.M. No. 15-04-39-MTC], November 08, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EVANGELINE E. PANGANIBAN, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC), BALAYAN, BATANGAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202639, November 09, 2016 - FEDERATED LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. MA. CRISTINA L. DEL ROSARIO, CELSO E.ESCOBIDO II, SHIELA M. ESCOBIDO, AND RESTY P. CAPILI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182944, November 09, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), REPRESENTED BY SEC. HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR, AND METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BAYANI F. FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. CITY ADVERTISING VENTURES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY DEXTER Y. LIM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203284, November 14, 2016 - NICOLAS S. MATUDAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARILYN** B. MATUDAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203770, November 23, 2016 - MANUELA AZUCENA MAYOR, Petitioner, v. EDWIN TIU AND DAMIANA CHARITO MARTY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9880, November 28, 2016 - WILSON CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177250, November 28, 2016 - ROSITA B. LIM, ON HER BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HER (THEN) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY, JENNIFER, LYSANDER AND BEVERLIE, Petitioners, v. LUIS TAN, ALFONSO TAN, EUSEBIO TAN, WILLIAM TAN, VICENTE TAN, JOAQUIN TAN, ANG TIAT CHUAN, Respondents.; G.R. No. 177422 - LUIS TAN, ALFONSO TAN, EUSEBIO TAN, WILLIAM TAN, VICENTE TAN, JOAQUIN TAN, ANG TIAT CHUAN, Petitioners, v. ROSITA B. LIM, ON HER BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HER (THEN) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY, JENNIFER, LYSANDER AND BEVERLIE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 177676 - ANG TIAT CHUAN, Petitioner, v. ROSITA B. LIM, ON HER BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HER (THEN) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY, JENNIFER, LYSANDER AND BEVERLIE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220629, November 23, 2016 - GENARO G. CALIMLIM, Petitioner, v. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., WALLEM GMBH & CO. KG AND MR. REGINALDO OBEN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222407, November 23, 2016 - WHITE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GRANDWOOD FURNITURE & WOODWORK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204736, November 28, 2016 - MANULIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioners, v. HERMENEGILDA YBAÑEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205972, November 09, 2016 - CATERPILLAR, INC., Petitioner, v. MANOLO P. SAMSON, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 164352, November 09, 2016 - CATERPILLAR, INC., Petitioner, v. MANOLO P. SAMSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223625, November 22, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) AND COA CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016 - ANTONIO GAMBOA Y DELOS SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016 - RAMON M. ALFONSO, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197191, November 21, 2016 - OASIS PARK HOTEL, Petitioner, v. LESLEE G. NAVALUNA, AMIE M. TUBELLEJA, JOAN REODIQUE, JOCELYN ORENCIADA, ELLAINE B. VILLAGOMEZ, OLIVIA E. AMASOLA AND JONA MAE COSTELO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198664, November 23, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN AND BEATRIZ B. CAGALINGAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 227146, November 14, 2016 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO T. NOLASCO AND REYNALDO T. NOLASCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218980, November 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AUTO COMPONENTS, INC., Petitioner, v. RONNIE B. JUMADLA, ROY A. ARIZ AND ROY T. CONEJOS, Respondents.; G.R. No. 219124 - RONNIE B. JUMADLA, ROY A. ARIZ AND ROY T. CONEJOS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AUTO COMPONENTS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189077, November 16, 2016 - LINA M. BERNARDO, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215937, November 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENER VILLAR Y POJA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207500, November 14, 2016 - EFREN S. QUESADA, PETER CHUA, ARTURO B. PEREJAS, ERLINDA ESCOTA, CRISANTO H. LIM, VASQUEZ BUILDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION, LION GRANITE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CORPORATION, NELLIE M. MARIVELES, ALEJANDRO V. VARDELEON III, ANGELITA P. ROQUE, DAVID LU, J.A.O. BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. BONANZA RESTAURANTS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205148, November 16, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RAMIL PRUDENCIO Y BAJAMONDE, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203293, November 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARDAN AMERIL, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177387, November 09, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, AND PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215957, November 09, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. FITNESS BY DESIGN, INC., Respondent

  • G.R. No. 216600, November 21, 2016 - FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION AND RHICKE S. JENNINGS, Petitioners, v. AIRFREIGHT 2100, INC. AND ALBERTO D. LINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193618, November 28, 2016 - HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO DELFIN AND SOLEDAD DELFIN, NAMELY EMELITA D. FABRIGAR AND LEONILO C. DELFIN, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204197, November 23, 2016 - FRUEHAUF ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONICS ASSEMBLY AND MANAGEMENT PACIFIC CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223506, November 28, 2016 - GARRY V. INACAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196596, November 09, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 198841 - DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Respondent.; G.R. No. 198941 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., Respondent.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016 - MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA L. CABAL, Petitioners, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA, GENERAL MANAGER, Respondents.

      G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016 - MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA L. CABAL, Petitioners, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA, GENERAL MANAGER, Respondents.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016

    MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA L. CABAL, Petitioners, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA, GENERAL MANAGER, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    PERALTA,** J.:

    Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks the reversal of the Resolution2 dated July 31, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125798. The CA affirmed the Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Special Third Division, in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-10-15467-09 reversing, on reconsideration, the Decision4 of the NLRC Third Division which held that, while there was illegal dismissal of petitioners contrary to the Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), the case has been mooted due to the reinstatement of petitioners.

    Petitioners were regular employees of ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO II) occupying managerial and rank-and-file positions. They filed a case for illegal dismissal from employment claiming that they were mere victims of a power struggle between the two (2) factions fighting to control the management of ZAMECO II.

    The Factual Antecedents relating to ZAMECO II:

    On November 21, 2002, Castillejos Consumers Associations, Inc. (CASCONA), an organization of electric consumers from the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales under the coverage area of ZAMECO II and represented by Engr. Dominador Gallardo, filed a letter-complaint with the National Electrification Administration (NEA). The complaint sought to remove the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II headed by the Board President, Jose S. Dominguez, for mismanagement of funds and expiration of their term of office.6chanrobleslaw

    On November 24, 2004, the NEA issued a Resolution removing from office all the members of the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II with perpetual disqualification to run for the same position in any future district elections of the cooperative, and ordered the immediate conduct of district elections. On December 21, 2004, the NEA issued an Office Order designating Engr. Paulino T. Lopez as Project Supervisor of ZAMECO II who was tasked to perform his duty until such time that a new set of Board of Directors shall have been constituted.7chanrobleslaw

    The Board of Directors headed by Dominguez appealed to the CA on the ground that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136, or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), abrogated the regulatory and disciplinary power of the NEA over electric cooperatives.8chanrobleslaw

    On February 7, 2005, the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) valid for sixty (60) days enjoining the NEA and CASCONA from enforcing or implementing the aforementioned NEA Resolution and Office Order. On April 5, 2005, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the CA. On October 4, 2006, the CA upheld the authority of the NEA in the supervision of electric cooperatives such as ZAMECO II, and the power to undertake preventive and/or disciplinary directors, measures against the board of directors, officers and employees of electric cooperatives.9chanrobleslaw

    On March 22, 2007, the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II headed by Dominguez appealed the CA Decision with this Court. They manifested that they had registered ZAMECO II as a cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), and, thus, it was the CDA which had regulatory powers over ZAMECO II.10chanrobleslaw

    Meanwhile, by virtue of the aforesaid NEA Resolution dated November 24, 2004, NEA installed an Interim Board of Directors led by Gallardo as Interim President to function within an un-extendible period of 100 days beginning November 10, 2008 until February 18, 2009.11chanrobleslaw

    On March 13, 2009, this Court promulgated its Decision (G.R. No. 176935-36)12 which held that the passage of the EPIRA did not affect the power of the NEA particularly over administrative cases involving the board of directors, officers and employees of electric cooperatives.13 This Court further ruled that there was substantial evidence to justify the penalty of removal from office imposed by NEA against the incumbent Board of Directors of ZAMECO II.14chanrobleslaw

    With respect to the issue of ZAMECO II being under the regulatory powers of the CDA in view of its registration, this Court declared that the matter could not then be adjudicated yet. This Court stated that the EPIRA provides that an electric cooperative must first convert into either a stock cooperative or stock corporation before it could register under the CDA. This Court further stated that whether ZAMECO II complied with the provisions particularly on the conduct of a referendum and obtainment of a simple majority vote prior to its conversion into a stock cooperative, was a question of fact which this Court could not then review. The evidence on record did not afford this Court sufficient basis to make a ruling on the matter. Thus, this Court remanded the case to the CA. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in order to determine whether the procedure outlined in Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative into a stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority had been complied with. The Court of Appeals is directed to raffle this case immediately upon receipt of this Decision and to proceed accordingly with all deliberate dispatch. Thereafter, it is directed to forthwith transmit its findings to this Court for final adjudication. No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    On March 22, 2009, Republic Act No. 9520 otherwise known as the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008 took effect.16chanrobleslaw

    On April 28, 2009, NEA issued a Resolution reappointing the members of the Interim Board Directors for 180 days or until the regular Board of Directors of ZAMECO II have been elected and qualified.17chanrobleslaw

    On June 22, 2009, the CDA through a Board Resolution, issued a confirmation as to the registration of ZAMECO II. A Task Force for ZAMECO II was created headed by Atty. Fulgencio A. Vigare, Jr., who was the CDA Administrator for Luzon and the Oversight Administrator for Electric Cooperatives.18 The Task Force was created primarily to reinstate the duly-recognized incumbent members of the board of directors who should perform their functions until such time as elections were conducted, and their successors should have been elected and qualified.19chanrobleslaw

    On August 27, 2009, the NEA Administrator recalled the designation of Engr. Lopez as Project Supervisor of ZAMECO II effective September 1, 2009.20chanrobleslaw

    On September 1, 2009, Vigare issued a Memorandum stating that the CDA should assume jurisdiction over ZAMECO II. It also stated that in the August 26, 2009 hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Cooperative Development (August 26, 2009 House Committee Hearing), the NEA readily acceded that the CDA should assume jurisdiction over ZAMECO II.21 It recognized the incumbent Board of Directors of ZAMECO II headed by Dominguez and the Management Staff headed by General Manager Fidel S. Correa.22chanrobleslaw

    On September 19, 2009, a Special Annual General Membership Assembly was called and conducted by the Interim Board of Directors headed by Gallardo.

    In a letter dated October 12, 2009, NEA informed the Interim Board of Directors that their previous reappointment for 180 days had expired on the said date.23chanrobleslaw

    On October 19, 2009, pursuant to the said Memorandum issued by Vigare, the CDA issued a Resolution which created a team composed of the officers of the CDA. The team was mandated to meet with the ZAMECO II management who was then headed by Gallardo to talk about some issues and concerns; to pave the way for the conduct of the election of officers; and to seek the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the jurisdiction of the CDA over electric cooperatives. The said Resolution was implemented through a Special Order issued on October 20, 2009.24chanrobleslaw

    According to CASCONA, on October 22, 2009, Correa, who was installed by the CDA as General Manager, and his companions entered the ZAMECO II premises and refused to leave. Come night fall, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and security guards assembled outside the gates of ZAMECO II but were not allowed inside the premises.25cralawredchanrobleslaw

    The next day, on October 23, 2009, the PNP members asked Gallardo, the Interim President of the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II, for a discussion. When the latter opened the gates, the PNP members and security guards forcefully entered the grounds of ZAMECO II. The Interim Board of Directors did not surrender the management of ZAMECO II to the group of Correa.26chanrobleslaw

    On October 24, 2009, Dominguez, who was installed as President of the Board by the CDA, and two other former board members arrived at the ZAMECO II premises. Tensions only de-escalated when the PNP members left the scene through the intervention of Governor Amor Deloso.27chanrobleslaw

    On October 30, 2009, petitioners Mary Ann Venzon, Eddie Gutierrez, Jose Gutierrez, Jr., Correa and another employee filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City with an application for a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction against the Interim Board of Directors and General Manager Engr. Alvin Farrales. On November 24, 2009, a Preliminary Injunction was granted by the RTC28 and ordered the Interim Board of Directors and General Manager Engr. Alvin Farrales to vacate their positions, and prevented them from interfering in the performance of the functions of General Manager Fidel S. Correa who was designated by the CDA.

    On November 27, 2009, the CA annulled the aforesaid NEA Resolution dated April 28, 2009.

    On February 15, 2010, the RTC of Olongapo City, set aside the Writ of Injunction it had previously issued. The RTC took into consideration the Resolutions that were passed on October 30, 2008 which were affirmed in the Annual General Assembly held on September 19, 2009, to wit: (1) Resolution removing Engr. Fidel S. Correa as OIC General Manager of ZAMECO II and appointed Engr. Alvin Farrales as the Interim OIC General Manager; (2) Resolution withdrawing and cancelling ZAMECO II's registration with the CDA and recognizing the NEA as the regulatory agency; (3) Resolution recognizing the present members of the Interim Board of Directors as legitimate and ratifying their continuance in office until the next regular election.29 The dispositive portion of the RTC Order states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, in order to avoid the provocative effect in the catalytic change of the General Manager and Members of the Board of Directors of Zameco II by the resolution of the Cooperative Development Authority, the powers of which as alleged by the defendants' counsel are not clearly defined by law insofar as appointment and removal of the General Manager and Members of the Board of Directors are concerned, the Court finds merit in the motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 19, 2009 and the writ of injunction issued on November 24, 2009 pursuant to the said order is hereby set aside.

    Consequently, and there being no legal and factual basis for the issuance of the writ of injunction dated November 24, 2009, defendant Engr. Alvin Farrales and the other defendants are hereby reinstated to their positions as General Manager and Members of the Interim Board of Directors of Zameco II, respectively, x x x.

    x x x. Ineluctably, plaintiff Fidel S. Correa is hereby ordered to vacate his position as Manager of Zameco II and the other plaintiffs to desist from performing their duties and functions as designated by the Cooperative Development Authority.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    On June 16, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution in G.R. No. 176935-36, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    The Court NOTES the Report dated 25 March 2010 submitted by Associate Justice Romeo E. Barza of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in compliance with the Decision dated 13 March 2009 (which remanded these cases to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings to determine whether the proceedings outlined in Republic Act No. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 or EPIRA) and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority had been complied with), stating that in the hearing conducted by the appellate court on October 20, 2009, it was aptly observed by respondents CASCONA and NEA that counsel for petitioners categorically admitted that none of the requirements such as conduct of a referendum and obtainment of a simple majority vote of its members to determine whether they agree to convert into a stock cooperative or stock corporation were complied with, and that given the said admissions, the appellate court cannot but conclude that petitioners failed to prove compliance with the procedure outline[d] in the EPIRA and its Implementing Rules for the conversion of an electric cooperative into a stock certificate under the CDA.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    On September 24, 2010, the RTC of Olongapo City denied the motion of ZAMECO II to declare the Order of February 15, 2010 immediately executory in view of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners and Correa.32chanrobleslaw

    On October 20, 2014, this Court issued a Decision in G.R. Nos. 176935-3633 stating that the NEA's power of supervision applies whether an electric cooperative remains as a non-stock cooperative or opts to register with the CDA as a stock cooperative. This Court ruled:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    x x x. This only means that even assuming arguendo that the petitioners validly registered ZAMECO II with the CDA in 2007, the NEA is not completely ousted of its supervisory jurisdiction over electric cooperatives under the R.A. No. 10531. This law may be considered as curative statute that is intended to address the impact of a restructured electric power industry under the EPIRA on electric cooperatives, which has not been fully addressed by the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008.
    The Facts of the Case:

    Petitioner Jose M. Gutierrez, Jr. was the Manager of Administrative and Personnel Department of ZAMECO II and was hired on June 1, 2003. Petitioner Mary Ann Venzon was the Manager of Member Service Department and had been with ZAMECO II since January 21, 1996. Petitioner Eddie Gutierrez was a member of the Operation and Disconnection Team and was hired on April 29, 2002. Petitioner Monaliza L. Cabal was an accounting staff and started working at ZAMECO II on August 1, 2001.34chanrobleslaw

    In a Memorandum dated September 2, 2009, OIC-General Manager Engr. Alvin Farrales designated petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. as Officer-in-Charge of the cooperative during his official travel to Manila on September 3, 2009.35chanrobleslaw

    On September, 3, 2009, the CDA authorities arrived in ZAMECO II to assume management of the cooperative. This was opposed by the existing management of ZAMECO II.36 The following day, September 4, 2009, Petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. issued a Memorandum for and in behalf of Farrales directing the employees to proceed to the main office in compliance with the directive of the CDA appointed officers. Thus, a meeting was held on the same date at ZAMECO II's office in San Antonio led by CDA representatives. Petitioners Gutierrez, Jr., Venzon and Gutierrez participated in the said meeting.37 Also, several meetings were held which were attended by employees and officers of ZAMECO II who allegedly defected to the side of CDA appointed officers.38chanrobleslaw

    Likewise, on September 4, 2009, petitioners Venzon, Gutierrez and Gutierrez, Jr. were given separate memoranda by Engr. Farrales directing them to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for failure to report for work on the said date and for violating the Company Code of Ethics and Discipline and the Employees Code of Conduct.39 The charges against them were: (a) attending unauthorized meetings, gatherings or assembly of employees; (b) abandonment of work or of assigned duties; (c) misrepresentation or usurpation of functions; (d) giving unlawful orders that create confusion and disorder; (e) rumor mongering or gossiping with intent to destroy the reputation of the company or its officers and employees; and/or (f) any act conduct or behavior not included in the above but which is prejudicial or detrimental to the company or its employees and/or contrary to good order or discipline.40chanrobleslaw

    Incidentally, petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. had undergone medical treatment from September 8 to September 28, 2009. He submitted medical certificates but did not file any application for sick leave.41 He, together with petitioner Gutierrez, did not submit any explanation with regard to the above charges.

    On September 11, 2009, petitioner Venzon answered the above charges. She explained that effective September 3, 2009 when CDA had assumed jurisdiction over ZAMECO II, after a serious discernment, she recognized only the officers appointed by the CDA, who were the ones dismissed by the NEA, and Fidel Correa as the General Manager. She further averred:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    2. Nevertheless, allow us to state our position on the issues you raised:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    a. Unauthorized meeting/gathering or assembly of employees at sub-offices. The meeting was called by the CDA representatives who have the mandate to conduct information dissemination under the CDA Memorandum dated September 1, 2009 and we had no other choice but to follow a lawful order.

    b. Abandonment of work or assigned duties - Since the interim board (which has no legal authority or power whatsoever) has virtually driven out of ZAMECO II's office premises the legally-recognized management of the cooperative, we decided to report for work and undertake our respective duties at their designated [workplace]. x x x

    c. Misrepresentation or usurpation of functions — xxx. It is the illegally-constituted interim board that is usurping the functions of the CDA-recognized Board of Directors. In addition, you are the one usurping the functions of General Manager Fidel S. Correa, while the other cooperative staff you designated in our stead are the ones usurping our own functions as Department Managers.

    d. Giving unlawful orders that create confusion and disorder - xxx; It is you and the interim board that are giving unlawful orders on account of your lack of legal basis to continue performing such functions, regrettably.

    e. Rumor mongering or gossiping with intent to destroy the reputation of the company or its officers and employees - xxx. Openly discussing the more than P17M net losses of the cooperative incurred for only the six-month period January to June 2009 that were registered under the watch of the interim board and yourself, and talking about the true state of validity of the registration of Zameco II with CDA are legitimate issues.

    f. Any act, conduct or behavior not included in the above but which is prejudicial or detrimental to the company or its employees and/or contrary to good order or discipline, etc. — Your inclusion of this "offense" among those that we need to explain merely exposes your lack of knowledge and competence on general management. x x x42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Petitioner Cabal stopped reporting for work starting September 13, 2009.

    On September 18, 2009, Farrales issued a Memorandum to the security personnel to deny entry to petitioners Gutierrez, Jr, Gutierrez and Venzon and four other persons including Engr. Correa, and to not allow them to report for work.43chanrobleslaw

    On September 22, 2009, Farrales issued several memoranda: a) for petitioner Venzon to return the laptop computer and other equipment entrusted to her; b) for petitioner Gutierrez to answer the charges against him; c) for petitioners Venzon, Jose Gutierrez, Jr., and Gutierrez placing them under preventive suspension pending investigation by the Investigation and Appeals Committee (IAC).44chanrobleslaw

    Also, on September 22, 2009, a Memorandum was sent to petitioner Cabal to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for violating the Company Code of Ethics and Discipline particularly on the unauthorized and unexcused absence from work which exceeded six (6) consecutive days.45 On September 24, 2009, she was directed to appear before the IAC but she stated that she was banned from entering the premises. She submitted a Memorandum claiming that she had not abandoned her work, and that she believed that she had not incurred any unauthorized and unexcused absences from work exceeding six consecutive days on the basis of what she believed was "right and legal".46 She was again required to appear, for the last time, on September 29, 2009 but she replied through a letter that she couldn't do so because of the existing ban for her from entering the main office of ZAMECO II.47 On October 1, 2009, she made a written manifestation to Engr. John Regadio that she did not recognize the authority of the IAC, and that the Interim Board of Directors was not cloth with any authority, such that, their actions were illegal.48chanrobleslaw

    On October 27, 2009, upon the recommendation of the IAC in a meeting on October 22, 2009, petitioners were dismissed from employment. The order of dismissal was served to them on November 20, 2009 but they refused to receive the same.49chanrobleslaw

    On November 23, 2009, petitioners Venzon and Gutierrez jointly filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of 13th month pay, damages payment of allowances. On January 5, 2010, petitioners Gutierrez, Jr. and Cabal jointly filed the same complaint.

    During the mandatory conference, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by Correa stating that petitioners were already reinstated to their respective positions by him as the CDA-recognized and recently reinstated General Manager of ZAMECO II commencing on October 20, 2009 with Board Resolution dated November 14, 2009, and that the Interim Board Members and the OIC General Manager were prohibited from meddling with the operations of ZAMECO II by virtue of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC of Olongapo City. Various checks issued in the names of petitioners dated January 2010 and February 2010, signed by Dominguez as President and by Correa as General Manager of ZAMECO II, were presented.

    On the other hand, Farrales submitted his Comment stating that the action of the CDA in assuming jurisdiction over ZAMECO II was a unilateral act on the part of Vigare; and that, Farrales' appointment as General Manager was still subsisting and recognized by the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II.50chanrobleslaw

    On August 11, 2009, an Order was issued by LA Leandro M. Jose suspending the resolution of the incident.51chanrobleslaw

    On January 21, 2011, the LA issued a Decision declaring petitioners to have been illegally dismissed from employment. The LA held that though the evidence may, at first glance, shows compliance with the notice requirement of procedural due process, the same failed to show that petitioners were indeed guilty of violations of the cooperative's Code of Ethics and Discipline. According to the LA, the Investigation Reports and Recommendations were noticeably undated which gave rise to a suspicion that it was conveniently intercalated to give basis to the memorandum of dismissal, and that, the supporting documents were not attached to the said reports.

    Thereafter, respondents elevated the case before the NLRC Third Division. On September 30, 2011, the NLRC ruled that the termination of petitioners from employment was valid, but in view of their reinstatement, it dismissed the case for being moot and academic, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    We rule that the said Manifestation and Motion has rendered this case moot and academic. Notably, when complainants were suspended on September 23, 2009 and dismissed on October 27, 2009 by OIC-General Manager Farrales, he appears to have the authority to do so. This is because at that point in time, the CDA has already assumed jurisdiction over ZAMECO II and has recognized the incumbent Board of Directors headed by Jose S. Dominguez and the management staff under General Manager Correa. The NEA has (sic) apparently gave way to CDA as shown by its recall order of Engr. Lopez as Project Supervisor of ZAMECO II effective 1 September 2009 and its letter stating that the reappointment/appointment of the interim board headed by Gallardo has expired on October 12, 2009. Besides, on April 28, 2009, the NEA Board of Administrators' Resolution (reappointing as members of Interim Board of Directors for 180 days or sooner when the regular Board of Directors of ZAMECO II has been duly elected and qualified) was annulled and set aside by the Court of Appeals' Special Sixteenth Division in its Decision dated November 27, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108553. The records of this case is bereft of any showing that said Decision was assailed before the Supreme Court.

    x x x. Unless the issue as to which of the Board of Directors and/or management have authority to control the affairs of ZAMECO II is legally settled with clarity and finality, we uphold the right of the complainants to remain in their employment with ZAMECO II and accordingly, receive their salaries and benefits. The grounds (serious misconduct, breach of trust, willful disobedience, etc.) relied upon by Engr. Farrales for suspending and dismissing the complainants are essentially anchored on his and the Interim Board's authority, which authority the complainants believe they do not possess. And, we have no jurisdiction to rule on the same.52chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Respondent ZAMECO II filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On March 26, 2012, the NLRC Special Third Division held that there was no valid reinstatement of petitioners hence the case has not been mooted:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    It is thus clear that as of February 15, 2010, Engr. Alvin Farrales and no longer Fidel S. Correa was the General Manager of herein respondent-appellant Zameco II and therefore Fidel S. Correa's Manifestion and Motion filed on February 18, 2010 which sought the dismissal of these consolidated cases since herein complainants-appellees were allegedly reinstated earlier should not have made these cases moot and academic since as of February 15, 2010, he already lost his standing and authority to do anything in connection with these cases.

    We therefore reconsider and set aside Our having, thus, dismissed these cases and proceed to resolve the issue in this case.53chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    The NLRC Special Third Division54 ruled, however, that there was valid dismissal of petitioners because, instead of playing neutral, they embroiled themselves in the ongoing corporate dispute. Hence, it set aside its Decision dated September 30, 2011 and dismissed case the case for lack of merit. The decretal portion of the Decision states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of respondents-appellants is hereby GRANTED. Our Decision dated September 30, 2011 is hereby reconsidered and SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the case a quo for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.55chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. In a Decision dated July 31, 2014, the CA affirmed the Decision of the NLRC. It held that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim, or point to a specific act on the part of the NLRC that can be construed as amounting to grave abuse of discretion.

    Hence, the instant Petition, wherein petitioners make the following assignment of errors:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND THAT THEY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM THAT THE NLRC ACTED ARBITRARILY IN CONCLUDING THAT THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE; [and]

    2. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER AS AN ACT OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION THE GRANTING OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE NLRC WHEN SUCH MOTION WAS BASED ON THE MISLEADING AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.56
    Petitioners argued in their petition that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it treated the Order dated February 15, 2010 of RTC Olongapo City as final and executory. Petitioners cited the fact that there is a pending appeal before this Court as to the execution of the said Order in GR No. 199828. They alleged that without any finality on who has the control of ZAMECO II because of the pending cases with this Court, they could not be faulted for following orders of the other faction.

    In their Comment,57 respondents alleged that the petition should not be given due course because it raises questions of fact which is not allowed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They also showed the dismissal of the case before the RTC Olongapo City upon the initiative of both parties.58 And that, the dismissal of the case settled the issue of injunction.

    Our Ruling

    There are two issues that have to be resolved in this case, to wit: a) whether or not Engr. Farrales of the Interim Board of Directors of ZAMECO II had the authority to suspend and dismiss petitioners from employment; and, b) whether petitioners where validly terminated from employment.

    To resolve the first issue, We need to determine who between the two factions - the NEA appointed General Manager Engr. Farrales or the CDA installed General Manager Engr. Correa - had the authority to manage the affairs of ZAMECO II for the period from September 4, 2009, when the first memorandum was issued to petitioners, until October 27, 2009, when petitioners were dismissed from employment.

    We have clarified this in our Decision in CASCONA v. Dominguez,59 thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    In the case at bench, the respondents committed several acts which constituted indirect contempt. The CDA issued the September 1, 2009 Memorandum stating that it had jurisdiction over ZAMECO II and could reinstate the former members of the Board of Directors. The CDA officials also issued Resolution No. 262, S-2009 and Special Order 2009-304 to interfere with the management and control of ZAMECO II. Armed with these issuances, the other respondents even tried to physically takeover ZAMECO II on October 22,2009. These acts were evidently against the March 13, 2009 decision of this Court and, thus, constituted indirect contempt against the Court. These contemptuous acts are criminal in nature because these obstruct the administration of justice and tend to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. x x x.

    x x x x

    x x x. [T]he March 13, 2009 decision should not be taken in isolation. A perusal of the said decision shows that there were several pronouncements which must be respected and obeyed, to wit: first, the CA shall make a factual determination as to the propriety of ZAMECO II's registration with the CDA; second, the continuing jurisdiction of the Court, as the case is not yet final and executory; and lastly, that there is substantial evidence to justify the removal from office of respondents Dominguez, et al.

    Precisely, the Court remanded the case to the CA to determine whether ZAMECO II was properly registered as a stock cooperative under the CDA. Until the CA properly had ascertained such fact, the Court could not determine conclusively that the CDA had supervisory powers over ZAMECO II. The parties were then expected to maintain status quo and refrain from doing any act that would pre-empt the final decision of the Court. Hence, the Court continued to exercise its jurisdiction in G.R. Nos. 176935-36 until a final decision was promulgated. The respondents, however, unreasonably interfered with the proper procedure mandated by the Court when they decided for themselves that the CDA had jurisdiction over ZAMECO II. This constituted a contemptuous act because it unlawfully interfered with the processes or proceedings of a court.

    Worse, the respondent-officials of the CDA, fully aware of the Court's pronouncement, attempted to reinstate respondents Dominguez, et al. despite the existence of substantial evidence that warrant the latter's removal from office. Glaringly, this grave allegation was never refuted by the respondents, Dominguez, et al. were found unfit to hold office yet the respondents relentlessly endeavored to return them to the seat of power in ZAMECO II. This blatant disregard of the March 13, 2009 decision of the Court is an improper conduct that impedes, obstructs, or degrades the administration of justice.

    The respondents justify their acts by stating that in the August 26, 2009 House Committee Hearing, the NBA acceded to the jurisdiction of the CDA over ZAMECO II. This contention, however, is completely unsubstantiated. Notably, respondents Esguerra and Apalisok admitted that the creation of a task force to take over ZAMECO II would place dire consequences against the CDA. Even CDA Regional Director Manuel A. Mar doubted that the NEA consented to the authority of the CDA over ZAMECO II.

    Indeed, the October 20, 2014 decision of the Court in G.R. Nos. 176935-36 conclusively settled that it is NEA, and not the CDA, that has jurisdiction and disciplinary authority over ZAMECO II. The substantial issues of the case have now been laid to rest. The Court, however, cannot turn a blind eye to the contemptuous acts of the respondents during the pendency of the case. If the Court condones these acts of interference and improper conduct, it would set a dangerous precedent to future litigants in disregarding the interlocutory orders and processes of the Court.60chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Clearly, from the above pronouncement, during the period material to this case, the Interim Board of Directors of ZAMECO appointed by the NEA had the jurisdiction and disciplinary authority over ZAMECO II. Thus, Engr. Farrales, as General Manager, had the authority to suspend and dismiss petitioners.

    We go now to the second issue as to whether the petitioners were validly dismissed from employment. The right to security of tenure states that no employee shall be dismissed unless there are just or authorized causes and only after compliance with procedural and substantive due process. Article 279 of the Labor Code provides for this right, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause of when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
    Hence, a lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in fine, the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due process of notice and hearing. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the just causes for dismissing an employee, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER

    An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

    chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

    (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

    (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

    (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative;

    (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
    Serious misconduct by the employee justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment.
    Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee s misconduct must be serious i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.

    Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the employees duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the employer. Further, and equally important and required, the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.
    61chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    In the case at bar, General Manager Farrales, himself, designated petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. as Officer-in-Charge of the cooperative during his official travel to Manila on September 3, 2009. But when the CDA authorities arrived in ZAMECO II to assume management of the cooperative which was opposed by the existing management of ZAMECO II, petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. issued a Memorandum, allegedly signed on behalf of Farrales, directing the employees to proceed to the main office in compliance with the directive of the CDA appointed officers. Hence, a meeting was held on the same date at the cooperative's office in San Antonio led by CDA representatives. Petitioners Gutierrez, Jr., Venzon and Gutierrez participated in the said meeting.

    Petitioners obviously aligned themselves with the former Board of Directors led by Dominguez in trying to wrest control of the management of ZAMECO II. In deciding to get involved in the power play, petitioners relinquished their duties as employees. They defied the instructions and directives of the Interim Board of Directors as well as that of the General Manager. Instead, they followed the instructions of the Board of Directors and officers designated by the CDA. They even filed a civil action against Farrales and the Interim Board of Directors.

    Petitioners did not participate in the proceedings before the IAC because they did not recognize its authority. It was the officers designated by the CDA whom they recognize. Their acts definitely undermined the existence of the cooperative.

    Under these factual premises, We cannot help but consider the petitioners' misconduct to be of grave and aggravated character so that the cooperative was justified in imposing the highest penalty available — dismissal. In ruling as We do now, We considered the balancing between petitioners' tenurial rights and ZAMECO II's interests. Unfortunately for the petitioners, in this balancing under the circumstances of the case, we have to rule against their tenurial rights in favor of the employer's management rights.62chanrobleslaw

    As correctly held by the NLRC Special Third Division, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
    What is important, as shown by the records, is that complainants-appellees Venzon, Jose Gutierrez, Jr. and Eddie Gutierrez burned their bridges when they not only sided with the group of Fidel S. Correa but also fought with them as actual complainants-appellees in their effort at wrestling control over ZAMECO II and its interim board headed by Engr. Alvin Farrales.

    This is shown by the fact that instead of playing neutral, they, along with Correa, instituted Civil Case No. 163-0-2009 with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City against Farrales to remove him as the rightful General Manager of Zameco II. Complainants-appellees embroiled themselves in the ongoing corporate dispute instead of being neutral.63chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
    Furthermore, Article 296(c) states that loss of trust and confidence in the employee is a just cause for dismissal. But it will validate an employee's dismissal only upon compliance with certain requirements, namely: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.64chanrobleslaw

    Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be work related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. The loss of trust and confidence must spring from the voluntary or willful act of the employee, or by reason of some blameworthy act or omission on the part of the employee.65chanrobleslaw

    While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employees participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.66chanrobleslaw

    There are two classes o f positions of trust. First, are the managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. The second class consists of the fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.67chanrobleslaw

    It is undisputed that at the time of their dismissal, the petitioners Gutierrez, Jr. and Venson were holding managerial positions and greater fidelity and trust were expected of them.68 Farrales even designated petitioner Gutierrez, Jr. as Officer-in-Charge of ZAMECO II during his official travel to Manila. Their positions were unmistakably imbued with trust and confidence as they were charged with the delicate task of overseeing the operations of their divisions. As managers, a high degree of honesty and responsibility, as compared with ordinary rank-and-file employees, were required and expected of them.

    It need not be stressed that the nature or extent of the penalty imposed on an erring employee must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense as weighed against the degree of responsibility and trust expected of the employee's position. Petitioners Gutierrez, Jr. and Venson are not just charged with a misdeed, but with loss of trust and confidence, a cause premised on the fact that petitioners Gutierrez, Jr. and Venzon hold positions whose functions may only be performed by someone who enjoys the trust and confidence of the management. Needless to say, such an employee bears a greater burden of trustworthiness than ordinary workers, and the betrayal of the trust reposed is the essence of the loss of trust and confidence which is a ground for the employee's dismissal.69chanrobleslaw

    As to the standards of procedural due process, the same were likewise observed in effecting the petitioner's dismissal. Petitioners were given written memorandum to inform them of the charges against them as well as notices of termination in accordance with Section 2, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

    In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however, does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of labor. The constitutional and legal protection equally recognizes the employer's right and prerogative to manage its operation according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play.70chanrobleslaw

    Finally, in labor cases, a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion and deciding other jurisdictional errors of the NLRC. In this case, the CA is correct in ruling that the NLRC cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in concluding that, indeed, petitioners were validly dismissed from their employment. After all, grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.71 Such is not present in this case.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125798, dated July 31, 2014, is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
    Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:


    ** Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2395 dated October 19, 2016.

    1Rollo, pp. 9-33.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring; id. at 35-37.

    3 Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., with Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Numeriano D. Villena, concurring; id. at 69-79.

    4 Penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, with Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Pablo C. Espirito, Jr., concurring; id. at 52-68.

    5Rollo, pp. 38-51.

    6Id. at 55; CASCONA v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 189949, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 385.

    7Id.; ZAMECO II, et al. v. CASCONA, et al., G.R. No. 176935-36, October 20, 2014.

    8Id; CASCONA v. Jose S. Dominguez, et al., supra note 6.

    9Rollo, p. 55.

    10CASCONA v. Dominguez, supra note 6.

    11Rollo, p. 56.

    12ZAMECO II Board of Directors v. CASCONA, 600 Phil. 365 (2009).

    13Id. at 376.

    14CASCONA v. Dominguez, supra note 6, at 388.

    15Rollo, p. 56; ZAMECO II Board of Directors v. CASCONA, supra note 12, at 385.

    16Rollo, p. 56.

    17Id. at 56-57.

    18Id. at 57.

    19CASCONA v. Dominguez, supra note 6, at 390.

    20Rollo, p. 57.

    21CASCONA v. Dominguez, supra note 6, at 390.

    22Rollo, p. 57.

    23Id.

    24CASCONA v. Jose S. Dominguez, et al., supra note 6.

    25cralawred Id.

    26Id.

    27Id.

    28Rollo, p. 58.

    29Id. at 84.

    30Id. at 86-87.

    31Id. at 58.

    32Id. at 90.

    33ZAMECO II, et al. v. CASCONA, et al., supra note 7.

    34Rollo, p. 59.

    35Id. at 43 and 59.

    36Id. at 43-44.

    37Id. at 59.

    38Id. at 43-44.

    39Id. at 59-60.

    40Id. at 41-42.

    41Id. at 60.

    42Id. at 60-61.

    43Id. at 62.

    44Id.

    45Id. at 42.

    46Id. at 61.

    47Id. at 62.

    48Id. at 42.

    49Id. at 41-42; 63.

    50Id. at 63-64.

    51Id. at 64.

    52Id. at 66-67.

    53Id. at 76.

    54 NLRC Chairman Gerardo C. Nograles issued Administrative Order No. 02-28 (Series of 2012) creating a Special Third Division to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration in view of the inhibition of Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez; id. at 69.

    55Rollo, p. 79.

    56Id. at 21-22.

    57Id. at 99-104.

    58 Annex "1" to the Comment filed by respondents; id. at 104.

    59Supra note 6.

    60Id. at 395-397.

    61Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014, 739 SCRA 187, 196-197.

    62Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, supra, at 200.

    63Rollo, p. 77.

    64Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., et al., 718 Phil. 415, 425 (2013).

    65Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company/Mary Ann Dela Vega v. Esteban, G.R. No. 192582, April 7, 2014, 720 SCRA 765, 775.

    66P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo, G.R. No. 198620, November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 147, 162.

    67Alvarez v. Golden Tri Bloc, Inc., et al., supra note 64.

    68Torres v. Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc., 706 Phil. 355, 370 (2013).

    69P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Velayo, supra note 66, at 159.

    70Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, supra note 61, at 195.

    71Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc. and/or Dizon, 523 Phil. 199, 212 (2006).

    G.R. No. 213934, November 09, 2016 - MARY ANN G. VENZON, EDDIE D. GUTIERREZ, JOSE M. GUTIERREZ, JR. AND MONA LIZA L. CABAL, Petitioners, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND ENGR. FIDEL S. CORREA, GENERAL MANAGER, Respondents.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED