Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > February 2017 Decisions > A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 [Formerly OCA IPI No.15-2792-MTJ], February 15, 2017 - DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIRAND SONNYTONGCALO, Complainants, v. HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents.:




A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 [Formerly OCA IPI No.15-2792-MTJ], February 15, 2017 - DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIRAND SONNYTONGCALO, Complainants, v. HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 [Formerly OCA IPI No.15-2792-MTJ], February 15, 2017

DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIRAND SONNYTONGCALO, Complainants, v. HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

LEONEN, J.:

An administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for every action of a judge considered "aberrant or irregular" especially when a judicial remedy exists.1

This is an administrative complaint2 for gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality relative to an ejectment case and damages docketed as  Civil  Case No.  302 against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing (respondent judge) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet. Complainants insist that respondent judge should be faulted for her cognizance: of the civil case and her subsequent issuance of the assailed decision and writ of execution despite lack of jurisdiction.3

In their Joint Complaint Affidavit4  dated September 11, 2015 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator, Dominador Biado, Mamerto Biado, Carlito Dela Cruz, Norma Dela Cruz, Danilo Dela Cruz, Romulo Marano Sr., Francisco Padilla, Lolita Ablir and Sonny Tongcalo (complainants) stated that they were the defendants in Civil Case No. 302 entitled Heirs of Cariño Sioco v. Dominador Biado et. al.5  filed before the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet,6  over which respondent judge presided.

On December 9, 2011, respondent judge issued a Decision7  in favor of the Heirs of Cariño Sioco.8  In her decision, respondent judge found that all the elements of unlawful detainer were present in the case.9 She directed the complainants to vacate the disputed lot and to "tum over the possession to the plaintiffs."10   She also ordered them to pay monthly rental fees to the heirs until they ,vacated the premises.11

Complainants appealed  before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet.12  However, their appeal was dismissed due to their "failure to appear and participate in it."13  Since there was no further appeal made, respondent judge's decision became final and executory. 14

On December 14, 2012, through motion of the prevailing party, respondent Judge issued an Order granting the Heirs of Carino Sioco's Motion for Execution.15 Similarly, she issued a Writ for Execution16 ordering the sheriff to  cause the immediate implementation  of  the Decision.17

Complainants opposed the assailed decision and Writ of Execution, and claimed that respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case.18 They insisted that the disputed property was not within the jurisdiction of Tuba­Sablan, Benguet but within Pangasinan.19 Moreover, there was an "existing boundary dispute between Pangasinan and Benguet."20 They asserted that they had already brought this matter to respondent judge's attention and "sought deferment on the case pending the resolution of the boundary issue."21  To bolster their claim, they even allegedly presented the Municipal Index Map of San Manuel, Pangasinan and the Land Clarification of Benguet and Pangasinan.22  However, these were ignored by the respondent judge.23

Complainants averred that respondent judge should have at least "inquired by herself' on the exact location of the disputed property to determine if she had jurisdiction over the case.24  Respondent judge showed her gross ignorance of the law and her manifest partiality against them for her failure to know the exact location of the disputed property.25  For this reason, they were prompted to file this administrative case against her.

In her Comment26 dated November 23, 2015, respondent judge denied the accusations relative to her alleged manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law.27  She claimed that this administrative complaint was a "mere ploy to divert the implementation of the decision in Civil Case No. 302,"28 which already attained finality as of September 17, 2012, per Entry of Judgment dated January 23, 201329  A Writ of Execution had already been issued, which complainants ignored.30 A Writ of Demolition has likewise been  issued  after  complainants failed  to willingly remove their constructions.31   Instead of obeying the writ, complainants filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA­ G.R. SP. No. 131838.32  Their petition, however, was dismissed33  on October 4, 2013.

Due to complainants' "obstinate refusal" to  comply  with  the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's order, the Heirs of Cariño Sioco filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt against them docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. 03, which has been pending resolution.34

Respondent judge maintained that she had jurisdiction to rule over the case.35 She relied on the plaintiff's complaint and the respondent's answer, which "categorically stated that both parties were residents and/or occupants of the parcels: of land located at Barangay Ansangan, Tuba, Benguet,"36 Several other documents37  submitted by the complainants, showed that they acknowledged the fact that the disputed property was in Benguet and not in San Manuel, Pangasinan.38

Contrary, to complainants' assertion that they immediately raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction as soon as they learned about it, "it was only in their position paper, by way of a motion to dismiss, that complainants for the first time, questioned the court's lack of jurisdiction."39  Also, respondent judge maintained that she did not ignore this issue and even ruled on the matter in her assailed decision.40

The Office of the Court Administrator, through a Report dated June 28, 2016, recommended the dismissal of this case for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit.41

We affirm the recommendation.

I

This administrative complaint is due to respondent judge's cognizance of Civil Case No. 302 and her consequent issuance of the assailed Decision dated December 9, 2011 as well as the Writ of Execution.  Complainants assert that these decisions were tainted with manifest partiality42  and that respondent judge's conduct constitutes gross ignorance of the law since she ruled on the case even though she had no jurisdiction over it.43

"[A]n administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available[.]"44  It must be underscored that "the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action."45  He cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, "no matter how erroneous," provided he acts in good faith.46

In this case, it is apparent that the assailed orders relate to respondent judge's acts in her judicial capacity. These alleged errors, therefore, cannot be the proper subject of an administrative proceeding, but is only correctible through judicial remedies. Hence, what complainants should have done was to appeal the assailed orders to the higher court, for review and not to file an administrative complaint against respondent judge.  "Disciplinary proceedings and criminal  actions do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary."47

It is to be emphasized that the complainants initially filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court' of Appeals relative to the assailed orders. As correctly observed by. the Office of the Court Administrator, this act showed complainants' recognition that the issues they were raising against respondent judge required judicial determination. Thus,

Finally, it must be pointed out that complainants elevated the alleged erroneous decision of herein respondent judge to the Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, which the appellate court dismissed in a Resolution dated i4 October 2013.  To us, such actuation is an indication that complainants indeed recognized that the issue that they were raising against respondent judge was one that was appropriate for judicial determination. Also noteworthy is the fact that after their petition for annulment f judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, complainants sought recourse.  On 17 September 2015, they filed an administrative complaint before this Office... (Emphasis supplied)
An issue of jurisdiction is a judicial matter,48  which can only be decided upon through judicial remedies. A party's recourse, if prejudiced by a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing court and not with  the Office of the  Court Administrator, through  an administrative complaint.49

II

The complainants' imputation of gross ignorance of the law must also fail. "Gross ignorance transcends a simple error in the application of legal provisions. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous."50

To be liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed orders of a judge, who acts in his official capacity, should not only be erroneous; it must be established I that his actuation was attended by "bad faith, dishonesty, hatred" or other similar motive.51  In this case, complainants failed to do establish this. n their Joint-Complaint Affidavit, they merely claimed that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
11.
It is very clear that MCTC-Tuba has no jurisdiction over the Subject Property. As a judge, Judge Brawner-Cualing should know this very well.


12.
As an Officer of the Court charged with duty to dispense justice, Judge Brawner-Cualing should have proceeded with outmost(sic) care and diligence with the aforesaid ejectment case considering that her jurisdiction over the Subject Property is being disputed. At the very least, she should have inquired by herself as to the territorial jurisdiction or exact location of the Subject Property. But instead of doing this, Judge Brawner-Cualing proceeded in deciding the case with recklessness.


13.
In deciding the case, despite the fact that MCTC-Tuba has no jurisdiction to try and hear the aforesaid ejectment case, Judge Brawner-Cualing has clearly showed gross partiality in favor of the plaintiffs.


14.
We have executed this joint complaint-affidavit in order to attest to the truth of all the foregoing and to formally file a complaint against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing for gross ignorance of the law.52
In her Comment, respondent judge asserts that contrary to complainants' assertion that they immediately raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction as soon as they learned about it, "it was only in their position paper, by way of a motion to dismiss, that complainants for the first time, questioned the court's lack of jurisdiction."53  Thus,
12. It would also be erroneous for the petitioners herein to state in paragraph 554  of their Joint Complaint Affidavit that it was only during the pendency of the ejectment case that they found out and verified that the subject property was located in San Manuel, Pangasinan and not in Tuba, Benguet because as early as August 26, 2010 in compliance by the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 302, it would appear that they have already been raising the apparent location of the subject property to be in Pangasinan and not in Tuba, Benguet in an earlier Malicious Mischief case filed against them by Ruby Giron ... Nothing therefore would have precluded petitioners herein from amending their Answer to the Complaint in Civil Case No. 302 to raise at the start the issue that the Court Lacked any jurisdiction over the same because of the location of the subject property. It was therefore too late in the proceeding for the petitioners to raise ground in their Position Paper. It would also be to the prejudice of the respondent to be declared gross ignorance of the law based on the ground that was never first place raised by petitioners.55  (Emphasis on the original)
Complainants oppose the assailed decision and Writ of Execution and claim that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the case.56   The disputed property is allegedly not within the jurisdiction of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet but in Pangasinan.57  Complainants assert that while they have already brought the matter to respondent judge's attention, they were nevertheless ignored.58

Contrary to complainants' claim, this issue was explicitly addressed by respondent judge in her December 9, 2011 Decision which read:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As a final note, defendant's claim that this case should be dismissed as it would appear that the subject parcel of land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Pangasinan[.]

The Court however could not uphold this claim by the defendants because from the previous pleadings as well as their dealings entered into in connection with the property they are possessing, they have been representing themselves to be residents of Ansagan, Tuba, Benguet. Because of this representation, defendants were able to secure loan from NIA-CAR, or from the Province of Benguet (Exhibits "1", "2", "3" and "4"). Defendants could not therefore state that they are under the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Pangasinan considering that with the dismissal of this case, it would greatly favor them.

Moreover, the Land Classification Map appended to Exhibit "13" clearly states therein that "Municipal boundaries are not established nor located on the ground but are merely indicated hereon as taken from available references. Such political boundaries are for purposes of determining Administrative Jurisdiction of Forest District affected."

Clearly, to claim that the subject property is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Pangasinan concluding only on a map classifying the forest areas therein could not be accepted by the Court without any further evidence to that effect."59
Though there are opposing claims in this case, it is to be emphasized that in administrative  proceedings,  the  burden of proof lies with the complainants.60 Hence, the allegations in their complaints should be proven by substantial evidence.61   Thus,

While the Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act, or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the peoples faith in the judiciary, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."62

III.

Similarly, complainants' assertion of respondent judge's manifest partiality against them cannot prosper. Manifest partiality pertains to "a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other."63   Thus, a mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient because "bias and partiality can never be presumed."64

Since "bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party,"65 it is incumbent upon the complainants to prove that respondent judge was manifestly partial against them. Their failure to prove this is fatal to their cause. Apart from their bare allegations, complainants offered no other independent proof to validate this allegation.66

Complainants' failure to substantiate their claims in an administrative proceeding can cause the dismissal of the case for lack of merit.67  "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail."68

WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, J., Chairperson, Peralta, Mendoza, and Jardeleza, JJ. concur.

Endnotes:


1Santos v. Orlino (Resolution) 357 Phil. 102, 108 (1998) [Per Chief Justice Narvasa, Third Division].

2Rollo, pp. 2-5.

3 Id. at 99.

4 Id. at 2-5.

5 Id. at 99.

6 Id. at 2.

7 Id. at 6-15.

8 Id. at 2.

9 Id. at 99, OCA Report and Recommendation.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 97, Court of Appeals Resolution.

14 Id. at 99.  

15 Id.

16 Id. at 16-18.

WHEREAS, on December 12,2012, a MOTION FOR EXECUTION was received by the Court WHEREAS, on December 14,2012, an Order was issued by Hon. Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing, which states:

"Filed by plaintiff through counsel is a Motion for Execution stating that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La Trinidad, Benguet issued an Order dated August 28, 2012, dismissing the Appeal of the
defendants. Said Order of Dismissal was not appealed further by the Defendants.

Considering however that this case is for ejectment and damages and defendants did not file any Supersedeas Bond to stay the execution, the Motion for Execution is hereby granted. Issue Writ of Execution.

SO ORDERED."

NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause immediately the execution of the Decision dated December 9, 2012, and to seize the goods and chattels of the said defendants, except such as by law are exempt and cause to be made the aforementioned sum together with your lawful fees.

17 Id. at 99.

18  Id.

19 Id. at 100.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id. at 22-33.

27 Id. at 100.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 94.

30 Id. at 100.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 Id. at 95-98. TI1e Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeal Manila.

The Decision states:

Even assuming that the remedy of annulment is proper, still the same will fail. The well-settled rule is that an annulment of judgment is not a relief to be granted indiscriminately by the courts.  It is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Therefore, one important condition for the availment of this remedy is that the petitioner failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for relief against, or take other appropriate' remedies assailing the questioned judgment or final order or resolution through no fault attributable to him. The records reveal that petitioners interposed an appeal before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 63 which was dismissed because of their failure to appear and participate in it. Obviously, petitioners can no longer avail of this remedy.

34 Id. at 100.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id. at 100--101. Including complainants' Pre-Trial Brief, Final Loan Agreement with the NIA and Certificate System Acceptance

38 Id. at 101.

39 Id. at 101.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 103.

42 Id. at 102.

43 Id.

44Santos v. Orlino (357 Phil. 102, 108 (1998) [Per Chief Justice Narvasa, Third Division].

45Estrada Jr. v. Himalaloan, 512 Phil. 1, 7 (2005) [Per Justice Callejo Sr., Second Division].

46 Id.

47 Id.

48Rollo, p. I 02.

49HiIario v. Ocampo, III, 422 Phil. 593,606 (2001) [Per Justice Panganiban, Third Division].

50Luna v. Mirafuente, 508 Phil. 1, 7 (2005) [Per Justice Carpio-Morales, Third Division}.

51 Id. at 8.

52Rollo, p. 3.

53 Id. at 10 l.

54 Id. at 2.

1.  During the pendency of the said ejectment case is a parcel of land located at Barangay Ansagan, Municipality of San Manuel, Province of Pangasinan (the "Subject Property") (Emphasis on the original)

55 Id. at 27

56Rollo, p. 99.

57 Id. at 100.

58 Id. at 100.

59 Id. at 14.  

60Umali, Jr. v.  Hernandez,  IPI  No.  15-35-SB-J,  February  23,  2016, 4 [Per Justice Brion, En Banc].

61Id.

62Id.

633-D Industries, Inc. v. Roxas, 646 Phil. 422, 431 (2010) [Per Justice Carpio-Morales, En Banc].

64People v. Aure, 590 Phil. 848, 884 (2008) [Per Justice Chico Nazario, Third Division].

65Salcedo v. Bollozos, 637 Phil. 27,43 (2010) [Per Justice Brion, Third Division].

66Rollo, p. 102.

67Monticalbo v. Judge Maraya, Jr., 664 Phil. 1, 10 (201l) [Per Justice Mendoza, Second Division].

68 Id.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 202597, February 08, 2017 - SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL AND EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, Petitioners, v. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION AND ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BUTUAN CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225035, February 08, 2017 - CARSON REALTY & MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RED ROBIN SECURITY AGENCY AND MONINA C. SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212193, February 15, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN RICHARD TIONLOC Y MARQUEZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.C. No. 5819, February 01, 2017 - HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., REPRESENTED BY RECTO A. TAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. NESTOR B. BELTRAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, February 14, 2017 - CONCERNED LAWYERS OF BULACAN, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, ETC., Respondent. - RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF THEN JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-­PORNILLOS.

  • A.M. No. 17-01-04-SC, February 07, 2017 - RE: COMPLAINT OF AERO ENGR. DARWIN A. RECI AGAINST COURT ADMINISTRATOR JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ AND DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR THELMA C. BAHIA RELATIVE TO CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-236956

  • G.R. No. 224583, February 01, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL PALANAY Y MINISTER, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202597, February 08, 2017 - SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL AND EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, Petitioners, v. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION AND ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BUTUAN CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5819, February 01, 2017 - HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., REPRESENTED BY RECTO A. TAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. NESTOR B. BELTRAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225035, February 08, 2017 - CARSON REALTY & MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RED ROBIN SECURITY AGENCY AND MONINA C. SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212193, February 15, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN RICHARD TIONLOC Y MARQUEZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, February 14, 2017 - CONCERNED LAWYERS OF BULACAN, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, ETC., Respondent.; RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF THEN JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-­PORNILLOS.

  • G.R. No. 224583, February 01, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL PALANAY Y MINISTER, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. 17-01-04-SC, February 07, 2017 - RE: COMPLAINT OF AERO ENGR. DARWIN A. RECI AGAINST COURT ADMINISTRATOR JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ AND DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR THELMA C. BAHIA RELATIVE TO CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-236956

  • G.R. No. 193068, February 01, 2017 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RODOLFO CUENCA, MANUEL TINIO, CUENCA INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. No. 193099, February 1, 2017 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STA. INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RODOLFO M. CUENCA, MANUEL I. TINIO, CUENCA INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203514, February 13, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208459, February 15, 2017 - JULIETA B. STA. ANA, Petitioner, v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215910, February 06, 2017 - MANUEL C. UBAS, SR., Petitioner, v. WILSON CHAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3315 (Formerly OCA IPI No.12-3978-P), February 06, 2017 - SPOUSES RODEL AND ELEANOR CAÑOS, Complainants, v. ATTY. LOUISE MARIE THERESE B. ESCOBIDO, CLERK OF COURT V, BRANCH 19, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIGOS CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7424, February 08, 2017 - NATIVIDAD R. MUNAR, BENNY O. TAGUBA, REYNALD S. LAMPITOC, ADELINA A. FARNACIO, ANITA R. DOMINGO, LUZ T. DOMINGO, EVANGELINE G. VINARAO, MOISES J. BARTOLOME, JR., ROSARIO R. RAMONES, MERCEDITA G. PIMENTEL, MYRNA A. CAMANTE, LEONIDA A. RUMBAOA, NORMA U. VILLANUEVA, ANTONIA M. TANGONAN, ASUNCION C. MARQUEZ, JULIETA B. MADRID, ESTRELLA C. ARELLANO, LUDIVINA B. SALES, JEANY M. FLORENTINO, AND SHRI B. VISAYA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. ELMER T. BAUTISTA AND ATTY. WINSTON F. GARCIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196444, February 15, 2017 - DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA AND MAGNANI T. BANTA, Petitioners, v. NOEMI L. INGRAM, REPRESENTED BY MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187543, February 08, 2017 - WERR CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, Petitioner, v. HIGHLANDS PRIME, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 187580 - HIGHLANDS PRIME, INC., Petitioner, v. WERR CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196084, February 15, 2017 - NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AREA I, MR. REYNALDO VILLANUEVA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND MRS. EULALIA CASTRO, GENERAL MANAGER, Petitioners, v. ELMER B. MAPAGU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212690 (Formerly UDK-15080), February 20, 2017 - SPOUSES ROMEO PAJARES AND IDA T. PAJARES, Petitioners, v. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING, REPRESENTED BY ARCHEMEDES G. SOLIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191416, February 07, 2017 - MAYOR WILLIAM N. MAMBA, ATTY. FRANCISCO N. MAMBA, JR., ARIEL MALANA, NARDING AGGANGAN, JOMARI SAGALON, JUN CINABRE, FREDERICK BALIGOD, ROMMEL ENCOLLADO, JOSEPH TUMALIUAN, AND RANDY DAYAG, Petitioners, v. LEOMAR BUENO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALIM ISMAEL Y RADANG, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 217979, February 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADALTON ARCE Y CAMARGO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 173399, February 21, 2017 - CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, Petitioner, v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 2016-03-SC, February 21, 2017 - RE: ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED DIGGING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT COMPOUND, BAGUIO CITY.; A.M. No. 16-06-07-SC, February 21, 2017 - RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED DIGGING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT COMPOUND IN BAGUIO CITY. D E C I S I O N

  • A.C. No. 5408, February 07, 2017 - ANITA SANTOS MURRAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELICITO J. CERVANTES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193092, February 21, 2017 - DENNIS M. VILLA-IGNACIO, Petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BOARD OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, ELVIRA C. CHUA, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200749, February 06, 2017 - CECILIO ABENION, CANDELARIO S. CASIMSIMAN, ERNESTO R. OLLEGUE, JIMMY S. SALE, PONCIANO T. TINAMBACAN, DOMINADOR S. SELDURA, ANDRES P. ATCHIVARA, ANTONIO M. CABULANG, TIRSO S. LIMBAGA, RAMON J. LIPER, JUANITO P. GODOY, ANIANO J. DEJESICA, JULITO I. JUNASA, SOFRONIO S. DUMBASE, APOLINAR S. ESTAÑO, BEN S. ARIETA, VICENTE G. RIVAS, GLORIA S. OMOÑA, MARINA L. TABUDLONG, ERNESTO S. PASCUAL, NEMIA S. ROSIL, ROMEL M. RUEDAS, RODOLFO N. ARTUBAL, VICTOR C. HONOR, FRUTO M. PEDRAL, JOVENTINO J. CADELIÑA, CONSTANCIO S. COLE, TITO A. CAPUYAN, JUANITO D. LEGASPINO, ALFREDO V. ACAS, CLOTILDO D. ALBASIN, CERILO B. BALANGKIG, ISMAEL M. BAUTISTA, JAGDON D. CASTAÑEDO, PRIMITIVO A. BANGAHO, SR., LEONARDO B. DUMAN-AG, RODRIGO G. PATRIS, SR., LITO B. LABAJO, EUTEMIO C. ESTOSE, RUSTOM T. TIO, BONIFACIO A. PUROL, OSIAS A. ASURIZ, SR., RUDOLFO P. MACALISANG, OSCAR G. MARTINEZ, VICTOR D. SINGSON, JR., ERNESTO F. FATALLO, ARNOLD S. BASTIDA, ALFREDO L. MORALES, BIBIANO M. PANUDA, DEOGENES L. LAORDEN, CONCORDIO D. OCLARIT, VEVENCIO S. BASTIDA, NEMESIO D. OCLARIT, EGLESIO M. OCLARIT, SR., CIPRIANO V. ABAT, ROMEO C. LUMAGOD, HERMINIGILDO P. EXCLAMADO, SILVESTRE D. EDILLON, PONCIANO B. GEROLAGA, LEOPOLDO D. ACEBEDO, EDUARDO B. ARCAMO, BENEDICTO P. DELA CRUZ, AND CRISOSTOMO M. DIANA, SR., Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. No. 208725, February 6, 2017 - CECILIO ABENION, BEN S. ARIETA, ERNESTO F. FATALLO, PONCIANO B. GEROLAGA, EGLESIO M. OCLARIT, NEMESIO D. OCLARIT, RODOLFO D. MACALISANG, FRUTO M. PEDRAL, OSIAS A. ASURIZ, SR., LEONARDO B. DUMAN-AG, VICTOR C. HONOR, PRIMITIVO M. BONGAHON, WILLIAM J. BADE, HERMINIGILDO P. EXCLAMADO, WARLITO E. BORRES, EDITO B. CAYANONG, EXEQUIEL M. LAPE, ANTONIO A. JAROY, BUENAVENTURA A. BONONO, MAXIMO A. JUANILLO, BENEDICTO P. DELA CERNA, WILFREDO J. ESPAÑOLA, MARIANO S. CRISANTO, RICARDO Q. DAVID, REYNALDO O. ICOY, REYNALDO Y. RICO, CRISOSTOMO M. DIANA, LEONILO H. GALAN, ALFREDO V. ACAS, DIOGENES B. LAORDEN, ROMY A. MANANQUIL, POLICARPIO R. BORJA, GABRIEL B. DIEZ, CONCORDIO D. OCLARIT, VENANCIO S. BASTIDA, ALFREDO L. MORALES, BIBIANO M. PANUDA, CIPRIANO V. ABAT, COMWELL R. LAYAGUIN, MUNDA P. CONOIMON, MAXIMO J. GAGABE, VICTOR D. SINGSON, OSCAR G. MARTINEZ, RODRIGO G. PATRIS, SR., EUTEMIO C. ESTOSE, JETO B. LABAJO, SILVESTRE D. EDILLON, LEOPOLDO D. ACEBEDO, EDUARDO B. ARCAMO, ARNOLD S. BASTIDA AND VICENTE G. RIVAS, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9364 [Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3696], February 08, 2017 - FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215293, February 08, 2017 - LAMBERTO M. DE LEON, Petitioner, v. MAUNLAD TRANS, INC., SEACHEST ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215933, February 08, 2017 - POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PSALM), Petitioner, v. MAUNLAD HOMES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212038, February 08, 2017 - SPOUSES JESUS FERNANDO AND ELIZABETH S. FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 212043 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JESUS FERNANDO AND ELIZABETH S. FERNANDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223768, February 22, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, Petitioner, v. P/S SUPT. LUIS L. SALIGUMBA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196110, February 06, 2017 - PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION (PSC), Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188996, February 01, 2017 - SERI SOMBOONSAKDIKUL, Petitioner, v. ORLANE S.A., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201607, February 15, 2017 - HON. CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, Petitioner, v. JOSE R. RAMIREZ, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214064, February 06, 2017 - MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELIPE IMPAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194226, February 15, 2017 - POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PSALM), Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (21ST DIVISION), AND FRANCISCO LABAO, AS GENERAL MANAGER OF SAN MIGUEL PROTECTIVE SECURITY AGENCY (SMPSA), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194272, February 15, 2017- SPOUSES AMADO O. IBAÑEZ AND ESTHER R. IBAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. JAMES HARPER AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, SR., THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA AND THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, Respondent.

  • GR. No. 186339, February 15, 2017 - VIVENCIO, EUGENIO, JOJI AND MYRNA, ALL SURNAMED MATEO, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARIANO T. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. SCC-10-14-P (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-31-SCC-P), February 21, 2017 - JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR., Petitioner, v. RAHIM A. ARABANI, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, AND ABDURAJI G. BAKIL, UTILITY WORKER I, BOTH FROM SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU, Respondents.; A.M. NO. SCC-10-15-P (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 06-3-03-SCC) - JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR., 4TH SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU, Petitioner, v. RODRIGO RAMOS, JR., CLERK OF COURT, 4TH SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU, Respondent.; A.M. NO. SCC-11-17 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 10-34-SCC) - CLERK OF COURT RODRIGO RAMOS, JR., PROCESS SERVER RAHIM A. ARABANI AND UTILITY WORKER I ABDURAJI G. BAKIL, ALL OF 4TH SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU, AND UTILITY CLERK SHELDALYN* I. MAHARAN, 5TH SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, PATIKUL, SULU, Petitioners, v. JUDGE BENSAUDI A. ARABANI, JR., 4TH SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MAIMBUNG, SULU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190702, February 27, 2017 - JAIME T. GAISANO, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017 - REYNALDO Y. SUNIT, Petitioner, v. OSM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., DOF OSM MARITIME SERVICES A/S, AND CAPT. ADONIS B. DONATO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017 - LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, AND RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners, v. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAYAN CITY, BRANCH 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, AND EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ,IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS, AND RAUL M. GONZALEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214986, February 15, 2017 - ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., Petitioner, v. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF OF STAFF, GEN. GREGORIO PIO CATAPANG, BRIG. GEN. ARTHUR ANG, CAMP AGUINALDO CAMP COMMANDER, AND LT. COL. HAROLD CABUNOC, AFP PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE CHIEF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214406, February 06, 2017 - BP OIL AND CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 224302, February 21, 2017 - 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, Respondents, JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Intervenor.

  • G.R. No. 216467, February 15, 2017 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CARLOS DUQUE & TERESA DUQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195450, February 01, 2017 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, DAVAO CITY, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, DABAY ABAD, HATAB ABAD, OMAR ABAS, HANAPI ABDULLAH, ROJEA AB ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ABEDIN, ALEX ABEDIN, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MR. MANUEL L. TE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 221590, February 22, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ASALUS CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199907, February 27, 2017 - ANITA CAPULONG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221296, February 22, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. NICASIO A. CONTI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211917, February 27, 2017 - NORMA C. GAMARO AND JOSEPHINE G. UMALI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215705-07, February 22, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4291-RTJ], February 21, 2017 - DR. RAUL M. SUNICO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant, v. JUDGE PEDRO DL. GUTIERREZ PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 119, PASAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208506, February 22, 2017 - MAHARLIKA A. CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM, NAMELY; VIRGILIO ALMARIO, CORAZON ALVINA, SEN. EDGARDO ANGARA, JEREMY BARNS, FELIPE DE LEON, CONG. SALVADOR ESCUDERO III, MARINELLA K. FABELLA, FR. RENE PIO B. JAVELLANA, MARIA ISABEL G. ONGPIN, FELICE P. STA. MARIA AND BENITO S. VERGARA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017 - MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188146, February 01, 2017 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROYAL FERRY SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193381, February 08, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. APO CEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214183, February 20, 2017 - E. GANZON, INC. (EGI)AND EULALIO GANZON, Petitioners, v. FORTUNATO B. ANDO, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 [Formerly OCA IPI No.15-2792-MTJ], February 15, 2017 - DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIRAND SONNYTONGCALO, Complainants, v. HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210307, February 22, 2017 - TRADEPHIL SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC.,/GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, Petitioners, v. DANTE F. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223073, February 22, 2017 - PJ LHUILLIER, INC., Petitioner, v. HECTOR ORIEL CIMAGALA CAMACHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204639, February 15, 2017 - SAN FRANCISCO INN, HERETO REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, LEODINO M. CARANDANG, Petitioner, v. SAN PABLO CITY WATER DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ROGER F. BORJA AND THE SPCWD INVESTIGATING BOARD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201326, February 08, 2017 - SITEL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (FORMERLY CLIENTLOGIC PHILS., INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222541, February 15, 2017 - RACHEL A. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. JOSE O. DEL ROSARIO AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017 - DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, Petitioner, v. JUANITO C. BERNARDO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-17-2488 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-3046-RTJ), February 21, 2017 - MAY N. LASPIÑAS, ROENA V. DIONEO, MAE VERCILLE H. NALLOS, CHERYL D. LOPEZ, ANTHONY B. CARISMA, RALPH P. BALILI, JAIME D. WAYONG, VICENTE V. QUINICOT, ENRICO B. ESPINOSA, JR., ELIZALDE T. JUEVES, JEANETTE A. ARINDAY, MA. TERESA S. VILLANOS, LARRY C. HECHANOVA, AILEEN H. GAMBOA, JORGE P. DEQUILLA, Complainants, v. JUDGE FELIPE G. BANZON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BR. 69, SILAY CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-14-3216 (FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-3376-P) - JUDGE FELIPE G. BANZON, Complainant, v. MAY N. LASPIÑAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER/OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 40, SILAY CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198954, February 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO MACASPAC Y ISIP, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187257, February 07, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) AS THE PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE, AND THE NATIONAL POWER BOARD, Petitioners, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION (NECU), AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (NEWU), Respondents.; G.R. No. 187776 - ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198120, February 20, 2017 - MERCEDES S. GATMAYTAN, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO DOLOR (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND HERMOGENA DOLOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184092, February 22, 2017 - AQUILINA B. GRANADA, CARLOS B. BAUTISTA, AND FELIPE PANCHO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 186084 - VENANCIO R. NAVA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES MA. CRISTINA G. CORTEZ-ESTRADA, ROLAND B. JURADO, AND TERESITA V. DIAZ-BALDOS, AS MEMBERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN'S 5TH DIVISION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186272 - JESUSA DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 186488 - AQUILINA B. GRANADA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 186570 - SUSANA B. CABAHUG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187273, February 15, 2017 - ROMEO F. ARA AND WILLIAM A. GARCIA, Petitioners, v. DRA. FELY S. PIZARRO AND HENRY ROSSI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206343, February 22, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LORENZO MUSNI, EDUARDO SONZA AND SPOUSES IRENEO AND NENITA SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 226145, February 13, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO D. CALINAWAN a.k.a "MEO", Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 11165, February 06, 2017 - ORLANDO S. CASTELO, ELENA C. CAMA, OSWALDO CASTELO, JOCELYN LLANILLO, AND BENJAMIN CASTELO, Complainants, v. ATTY. RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 56, TRAYELLER KIDS INC., CELY L. GABALDON-CO AND JEANNIE L. LUGMOC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204990, February 22, 2017 - RAMON AMPARO Y IBAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3593 (Formerly OCA EPI No. 12-3976-P), February 21, 2017 - ATTY. RAUL Q. BUENSALIDA, CESO III, Complainant, v. MARINEL V. GABINETE, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LUPON-BANAYBANAY, DAVAO ORIENTAL, Respondent.