Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > June 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017 - MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. IFP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017 - MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. IFP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017

MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. IFP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO JR., J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Resolutions dated June 10, 20151 and December 2, 20152 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139020.

The Facts


The Trademark Application and the Opposition

Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation is a local manufacturer of snacks and beverages.

On May 26, 2011, respondent filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) an application3 for the registration of the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" (OK Hotdog Inasal mark) in connection with goods under Class 30 of the Nice Classification.4 The said mark, which respondent intends to use on one of its curl snack products, appears as follows:

(See Image)

The application of respondent was opposed5 by petitioner Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc.

Petitioner is a domestic fast food company and the owner of the mark "Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device" Mang Inasal mark) for services under Class 43 of the Nice Classification.6 The said mark, which was registered with the IPO in 20067 and had been used by petitioner for its chain of restaurants since 2003,8 consists of the following insignia:

(See Image)

Petitioner, in its opposition, contended that the registration of respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal mark is prohibited under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8293.9 Petitioner averred that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark and the Mang Inasal mark share similarities�both as to their appearance and as to the goods or services that they represent�which tend to suggest a false connection or association between the said marks and, in that regard, would likely cause confusion on the part of the public.10 As petitioner explained:

  1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to the Mang Inasal mark. Both marks feature the same dominant element�i.e., the word "INASAL"�printed and stylized in the exact same manner, viz:

    1. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is spelled using the same font style and red color;

    2. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is placed inside the same black outline and yellow background; and

    3. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is arranged in the same staggered format.


  2. The goods that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is intended to identify (i.e., curl snack products) are also closely related to the services represented by the Mang Inasal mark (i.e., fast food restaurants). Both marks cover inasal or inasal-flavored food products.


Petitioner's opposition was referred to the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO for hearing and disposition.

Decisions of the IPO-BLA and the IPO-DG

On September 19, 2013, after due proceedings, the IPO-BLA issued a Decision11 dismissing petitioner's opposition. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant opposition is hereby DISMISSED. Let the filewrapper [sic] of Trademark Application Serial No. 4-2011-006098 be returned, together with a copy of this Decision, to the Bureau of Trademarks for further information and appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the Decision of IPO-BLA to the Director General (DG) of the IPO.12

On December 15, 2014, the IPO-DG rendered a Decision13 dismissing the appeal of petitioner. The fallo of the Decision accordingly reads:

Wherefore, premises considered, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director ofBureau ofLegal Affairs and the Director of Bureau of Trademarks for their appropriate action and information. Further, let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the library ofthe Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau for records purposes.

SO ORDERED.

Both the IPO-BLA and the IPO-DG were not convinced that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is confusingly similar to the Mang Inasal mark. They rebuffed petitioner's contention, thusly:

  1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not similar to the Mang Inasal mark. In terms of appearance, the only similarity between the two marks is the word "INASAL." However, there are other words like "OK," "HOTDOG," and "CHEESE" and images like that of curls and cheese that are found in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark but are not present in the Mang Inasal mark.14

    In addition, petitioner cannot prevent the application of the word "INASAL" in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark. No person or entity can claim exclusive right to use the word "INASAL" because it is merely a generic or descriptive word that means barbeque or barbeque products.15

  2. Neither can the underlying goods and services of the two marks be considered as closely related. The products represented by the two marks are not competitive and are sold in different channels of trade. The curl snack products of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark are sold in sari-sari stores, grocery stores and other small distributor outlets, whereas the food products associated with the Mang Inasal mark are sold in petitioner's restaurants.16


Undeterred, petitioner appealed to the CA.

Resolutions of the CA and the Instant Appeal


On June 10, 2015, the CA issued a Resolution17 denying the appeal of petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but this too was denied by the CA through its Resolution18 dated December 2, 2015. The CA, in its Resolutions, simply agreed with the ratiocinations of the IPO-BLA and IPO-DG.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Here, petitioner prays for the reversal of the CA Resolutions. Petitioner maintains that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is confusingly similar to the Mang Inasal mark and insists that the trademark application of respondent ought to be denied for that reason.

Our Ruling


We have examined the OK Hotdog Inasal and Mang Inasal marks under the lens of pertinent law and jurisprudence. And, through it, we have determined the justness of petitioner's claim. By our legal and jurisprudential standards, the respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal mark is, indeed, likely to cause deception or confusion on the part of the public. Hence, contrary to what the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA had ruled, the respondent's application should have been denied.

We, therefore, grant the appeal.

I

The Proscription: Sec. 123.1 (d)(iii) of RA 8293


A mark that is similar to a registered mark or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date (earlier mark) and which is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public cannot be registered with the IPO. Such is the import of Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293:

SECTION 123. Registrability. -

123. 1. A mark cannot be registered if it:

x x x x

d. x x x:

  1. x x x
  2. x x x
  3. ...nearly resembles [a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date] as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The concept of confusion, which is at the heart of the proscription, could either refer to confusion of goods or confusion of business. In Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Trendworks International Corporation,19 we discussed and differentiated both types of confusion, as follows:

Relative to the question on confusion of marks and trade names, jurisprudence has noted two (2) types of confusion, viz.: (1) confusion of goods (product confusion), where the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other; and (2) confusion of business (source or origin confusion), where, although the goods of the parties are different, the product, the mark of which registration is applied for by one party, is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the registrant of an earlier product, and the public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the two parties, though inexistent.

Confusion, in either of its forms, is, thus, only possible when the goods or services covered by allegedly similar marks are identical, similar or re1ated in some manner.20

Verily, to fall under the ambit of Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) and be regarded as likely to deceive or cause confusion upon the purchasing public, a prospective mark must be shown to meet two (2) minimum conditions:

  1. The prospective mark must nearly resemble or be similar to an earlier mark; and

  2. The prospective mark must pertain to goods or services that are either identical, similar or related to the goods or services represented by the earlier mark.


The rulings of the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA all rest on the notion that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark does not fulfill both conditions and so may be granted registration.

We disagree.

II

The OK Hotdog Inasal Mark Is Similar to the Mang Inasal Mark


The first condition of the proscription requires resemblance or similarity between a prospective mark and an earlier mark Similarity does not mean absolute identity of marks.21 To be regarded as similar to an earlier mark, it is enough that a prospective mark be a colorable imitation of the former.22 Colorable imitation denotes such likeness in form, content, words, sound, meaning, special arrangement or general appearance of one mark with respect to another as would likely mislead an average buyer in the ordinary course of purchase.23

In determining whether there is similarity or colorable imitation between two marks, authorities employ either the dominancy test or the holistic test.24 In Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,25 we distinguished between the two tests as follows:

The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception, and thus infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers.

On the other hand, the Holistic Test requires that the entirety of the marks in question be considered in resolving confusing similarity. Comparison of words is not the only determining factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other. (citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

There are currently no fixed rules as to which of the two tests can be applied in any given case.26 However, recent case law on trademark seems to indicate an overwhelming judicial preference towards applying the dominancy test.27 We conform.

Our examination of the marks in controversy yielded the following findings:

  1. The petitioner's Mang Inasal mark has a single dominant feature�the word "INASAL" written in a bold red typeface against a black outline and yellow background with staggered design. The other perceptible elements of the mark�such as the word "MANG" written in black colored font at the upper left side of the mark and the phrase "HOME OF REAL PINOY STYLE BARBEQUE" written in a black colored stylized font at the lower portion of the mark�are not as visually outstanding as the mentioned feature.

  2. Being the sole dominant element, the word "INASAL," as stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is also the most distinctive and recognizable feature of the said mark.

  3. The dominant element "INASAL," as stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is different from the term "inasaf' per se. The term "inasal" per se is a descriptive term that cannot be appropriated. However, the dominant element "INASAL," as stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is not. Petitioner, as the registered owner of the Mang Inasal mark, can claim exclusive use of such element.

  4. The respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal mark, on the other hand, has three (3) dominant features: (a) the word "INASAL" written in a bold red typeface against a black and yellow outline with staggered design; (b) the word "HOTDOG" written in green colored font; and (c) a picture of three pieces of curls. Though there are other observable elements in the mark�such as the word "OK" written in red colored font at the upper left side of the mark, the small red banner overlaying the picture of the curls with the words "CHEESE HOTDOG FLAVOR" written on it, and the image of a block of cheese beside the picture of the curls�none of those are as prevalent as the two features aforementioned.

  5. The dominant element "INASAL" in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is exactly the same as the dominant element "NASAL" in the Mang Inasal mark. Both elements in both marks are printed using the exact same red colored font, against the exact same black outline and yellow background and is arranged in the exact same staggered format.

  6. Apart from the element "INASAL," there appear no other perceivable similarities between the two marks.


Given the foregoing premises, and applying the dominancy test, we hold that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is a colorable imitation of the Mang Inasal mark.

First. The fact that the conflicting marks have exactly the same dominant element is key. It is undisputed that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark copied and adopted as one of its dominant features the "INASAL" element of the Mang Inasal mark. Given that the "INASAL" element is, at the same time, the dominant and most distinctive feature of the Mang Inasal mark, the said element's incorporation in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark, thus, has the potential to project the deceptive and false impression that the latter mark is somehow linked or associated with the former mark.

Second. The differences between the two marks are trumped by the

overall impression created by their similarity. The mere fact that there are other elements in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark that are not present in the Mang Inasal mark actually does little to change the probable public perception that both marks are linked or associated. It is worth reiterating that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark actually brandishes a literal copy of the most recognizable feature of the Mang Inasal mark. We doubt that an average buyer catching a casual glimpse of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark would pay more attention to the peripheral details of the said mark than it would to the mark's more prominent feature, especially when the same invokes the distinctive feature of another more popular brand.

All in all, we find that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to the Mang Inasal mark.

III

The Goods for which the Registration of the
OK Hotdog Inasal Mark Is Sought Are Related to the
Services Being Represented by the Mang Inasal Mark


The second condition of the proscription requires that the prospective mark pertain to goods or services that are either identical, similar or related to the goods or services represented by the earlier mark. While there can be no quibble that the curl snack product for which the registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is sought cannot be considered as identical or similar to the restaurant services represented by the Mang Inasal mark, there is ample reason to conclude that the said product and services may nonetheless be regarded as related to each other.

Related goods and services are those that, though non-identical or non-similar, are so logically connected to each other that they may reasonably be assumed to originate from one manufacturer or from economically-linked manufacturers.28 In determining whether goods or services are related, several factors may be considered. Some of those factors recognized in our jurisprudence are:29

  1. the business (and its location) to which the goods belong;

  2. the class of product to which the goods belong;

  3. the product's quality, quantity, or size, including the nature of the package, wrapper or container;

  4. the nature and cost of the articles;

  5. the descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to their form, composition, texture or quality;

  6. the purpose of the goods;

  7. whether the article is bought for immediate consumption, that is, day-to-day household items;

  8. the fields of manufacture;

  9. the conditions under which the article is usually purchased, and

  10. the channels of trade through which the goods flow, how they are distributed, marketed, displayed and sold.


Relative to the consideration of the foregoing factors, however, Mighty Corporation30 significantly imparted:

The wisdom of this approach is its recognition that each trademark infringement case presents its own unique set of facts. No single factor is preeminent, nor can the presence or absence of one determine, without analysis of the others, the outcome of an infringement suit. Rather, the court is required to sift the evidence relevant to each of the criteria. This requires that the entire panoply of elements constituting the relevant factual landscape be comprehensively examined. It is a weighing and balancing process. With reference to this ultimate question, and from a balancing of the determinations reached on all of the factors, a conclusion is reached whether the parties have a right to the relief sought.

A very important circumstance though is whether there exists a likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers will be misled, or simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question. The "purchaser" is not the "completely unwary consumer" but is the "ordinarily intelligent buyer" considering the type of product involved he is accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or the possibility of deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase. (citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

Mindful of the foregoing precepts, we hold that the curl snack product for which the registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is sought is related to the restaurant services represented by the Mang Inasal mark, in such a way that may lead to a confusion of business. In holding so, we took into account the specific kind of restaurant business that petitioner is engaged in, the reputation of the petitioner's mark, and the particular type of curls sought to be marketed by the respondent, thus:

First. Petitioner uses the Mang Inasal mark in connection with its restaurant services that is particularly known for its chicken inasal, i.e., grilled chicken doused in a special inasal marinade.31 The inasal marinade is different from the typical barbeque marinade and it is what gives the chicken inasal its unique taste and distinct orange color.32Inasal refers to the manner of grilling meat products using an inasal marinade.

Second. The Mang Inasal mark has been used for petitioner's restaurant business since 2003. The restaurant started in Iloilo but has since expanded its business throughout the country. Currently, the Mang Inasal chain of restaurants has a total of 464 branches scattered throughout the nation's three major islands.33 It is, thus, fair to say that a sizeable portion of the population is knowledgeable of the Mang Inasal mark.

Third. Respondent, on the other hand, seeks to market under the OK Hotdog Inasal mark curl snack products which it publicizes as having a cheese hotdog inasal flavor.34

Accordingly, it is the fact that the underlying goods and services of both marks deal with inasal and inasal-flavored products which ultimately fixes the relations between such goods and services. Given the foregoing circumstances and the aforesaid similarity between the marks in controversy, we are convinced that an average buyer who comes across the curls marketed under the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is likely to be confused as to the true source of such curls. To our mind, it is not unlikely that such buyer would be led into the assumption that the curls are of petitioner and that the latter has ventured into snack manufacturing or, if not, that the petitioner has supplied the flavorings for respondent's product. Either way, the reputation of petitioner would be taken advantage of and placed at the mercy of respondent.

All in all, we find that the goods for which the registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is sought are related to the services being represented by the Mang Inasal mark.

IV

Conclusion


The OK Hotdog Inasal mark meets the two conditions of the proscription under Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) ofRA 8293. First, it is similar to the Mang Inasal mark, an earlier mark Second, it pertains to goods that are related to the services represented by such earlier mark Petitioner was, therefore, correct; and the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA's rulings must be reversed. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not entitled to be registered as its use will likely deceive or cause confusion on the part of the public and, thus, also likely to infringe the Mang Inasal mark The law, in instances such as this, must come to the succor of the owner of the earlier mark.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. We hereby render a decision as follows:

  1. REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Resolutions dated June 10, 2015 and December 2, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139020;

  2. SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2014 of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office in Appeal No. 14-2013-0052;

  3. SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated September 19, 2013 of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office in IPC No. 14-2012-00369; and

  4. DIRECTING the incumbent Director General and Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office to DENY respondent's Application No. 4-2011-006098 for the registration of the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark."

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, Reyes, Jardeleza, and Tijam, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 854-857. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.

2 Id. at 55-58.

3 Trademark Application No. 4-2011-006098. The application was published in the IPO E-Gazette on July 16, 2012.

4 Otherwise known as the "International Classification of Goods."

5Rollo, pp. 65-76. Via Notice of Opposition dated October 15, 2012. The Notice of Opposition was docketed in the IPO as IPC No. 14-2012-00369.

6 Per Certificate of Registration No. 4-2006-009050.

7Rollo, p. 122. The Mang Inasal mark was registered with the IPO on August 17, 2006. See Certificate of Registration No. 4-2006-009050,

8 Id. at 25.

9 The provision reads:

SECTION 123. Registrability.
123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:

x x x x

d. Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:

i. The same goods or services, or
ii. Closely related goods or services, or
iii. If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

10Rollo, pp. 65-76

11 Id. at 203-207.

12 The appeal was docketed as Appeal No. 14-2013-0052.

13Rollo, pp. 408-411. Rendered by then Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor.

14 Id. at 410.

15 Id. at 410-411.

16 Id. at 206-207; 411.

17 Id. at 854-857.

18 Id. at 55-58.

19 G.R. No. 164321, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 448.

20 See Faberge, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71189, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 316.

21 See Emerald Garment Manufacturing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995, 251 SCRA 600.

22Clark v. Manila Candy Company, 36 Phil. 100 (1917).

23Emerald Garment Manufacturing, supra note 21.

24Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 473.

25 Id.

26 See Diaz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 139.

27 See UFC Philippines, Inc. v. Fiesta Barrio Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016; Skechers U.SA., Inc., supra note 19; Berris Agricultural Company, Inc. v. Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 196; Dermaline, Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals, G.R. No. 190065, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 356; Societe Des Produits Nestl�, S.A. v. Dy, Jr., G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010, 627 SCRA 223; Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA, G.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 523.

28 See Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. L-19906, April 30, 1969, 27 SCRA 1214.

29Mighty Corporation, supra note 24.

30 Id.

31Rollo, p. 25.

32 Gapultos, Marvin. The Adobo Road Cookbook: A Filipino Food Journey from Food Blog, to Food Truck and Beyond (2013), p. 84.

33Rollo, p. 25.

34 Id. at 39-40.



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 204906, June 05, 2017 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) SECRETARY SIMEON A. DATUMANONG; DPWH UNDERSECRETARY MANUEL M. BONOAN; DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE DIRECTOR IV CLARTTA A. BANDONILLO; DPWH REGION VI REGIONAL DIRECTOR WILFREDO AGUSTINO; DPWH ILOILO CITY DISTRICT ENGINEER VICENTE M. TINGSON, JR.; AND ENGINEERS RUBY P. LAGOC, MAVI V. JERECIA AND ELIZABETH GARDOSE, Petitioners, v. MARIA ELENA L. MALAGA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209132, June 05, 2017 - HEIRS OF TERESITA VILLANUEVA, SUBSTITUTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS, NAMELY: ELSA ANA VILLANUEVA, LEONILA VILLANUEVA, TERESITA VILLANUEVA-SIPIN, FERDINAND VILLANUEVA, AND MARISSA VILLANUEVA-MADRIAGA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF PETRONILA SYQUIA MENDOZA, REPRESENTED BY MILAGROS PACIS, AND THE CO-HEIRS OF PETRONILA SYQUIA-MENDOZA, NAMELY, TOMAS S. QUIRINO, REPRESENTED BY SOCORRO QUIRINO, VICTORIA Q. DEGADO, CESAR SYQUIA, JUAN J. SYQUIA, REPRESENTED BY CARLOTA (NENITA) C. SYQUIA, AND HECTOR SYQUIA, JR., ACTING THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CARLOS C. SYQUIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216063, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON SORIANO Y NARAG, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216938, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HENRY BENTAYO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215627, June 05, 2017 - LUIS S. DOBLE, JR., Petitioner, v. ABB, INC./NITIN DESAI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218114, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR AYCARDO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 220168, June 07, 2017 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES, INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD. AND/OR MS. EILEEN MORALES, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF RICARDO S. GANAL, GEMMA B. BORAGAY, FOR HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN NAMED: RIGEM GANAL & IVAN CHARLES GANAL; AND CHARLES F. GANAL, REPRESENTED BY SPOUSES PROCOPIO & VICTORIA GANAL, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2450 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-4324-RTJ), June 07, 2017 - PO1 MYRA S. MARCELO, Complainant, v. JUDGE IGNACIO C. BARCILLANO, BRANCH 13, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), LIGAO CITY, ALBAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210266, June 07, 2017 - ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204262, June 07, 2017 - MARIO C. MADRIDEJOS, Petitioner, v. NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206008, June 07, 2017 - DELFIN DOMINGO DADIS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES MAGTANGGOL DE GUZMAN AND NORA Q. DE GUZMAN, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TALAVERA, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205428, June 07, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SENANDO F. SALVADOR AND JOSEFIMA R. SALVADOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 223244, June 20, 2017 - RHODELIA L. SAMBO AND LORYL J. AVILA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11480 (Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1558), June 20, 2017 - ARLENE VILLAFLORES�-PUZA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLANDO B. ARELLANO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211166, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PORFERIO CULAS Y RAGA, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-17-3676 (formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3985-P), June 05, 2017 - ELEANOR OLYMPIA-GERONILLA AND EMMA OLYMPIA GUTIERREZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BEATRIZ O. GERONILLA-VILLEGAS, Complainant, v. RICARDO V. MONTEMAYOR, JR., SHERIFF IV AND ATTY. LUNINGNING CENTRON, CLERK OF COURT VI AND EX- OFFICIO SHERIFF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220211, June 05, 2017 - EDRON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND EDMER Y. LIM, Petitioners, v. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SURIGAO DEL SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR VICENTE T. PIMENTEL, JR., Respondents.

  • G. R. No. 217730, June 05, 2017 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ARJAN T. HASSARAM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215061, June 06, 2017 - AMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR., PETER B. FAVILA, JUANITA D. AMATONG, NELLY A. FAVIS� VILLAFUERTE, ALFREDO C. ANTONIO, IGNACIO R. BUNYE, MARIE MICHELLE N. ONG, BELLA M. PRUDENCIO, ESMEGARDO S. REYES, MA. CORAZON G. CATARROJA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2279 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2452-P), June 06, 2017 - MAURA JUDAYA AND ANA AREVALO, Complainants, v. RAMIRO F. BALBONA, UTILITY WORKER I, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11533, June 06, 2017 - SPOUSES EDWIN AND GRETA CHUA, Complainants, v. SACP TERESA BELINDA G. TAN-SOLLANO, DCP MARIA GENE Z. JULIANDA-SARMIENTO, SDCP EUFROSINO A. SULLA, SACP SUWERTE L. OFRECIO-GONZALES, AND DCP JOSELITO D.R. OBEJAS, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, RELATIVE TO I.S. NO. XV-07-INV-15J-05513, Respondents.

  • A.M. No.16-12-03-CA, June 06, 2017 - RE: LETTER OF LUCENA OFENDOREYES ALLEGING ILLICIT ACTIVITIES OF A CERTAIN ATTY. CAJAYON INVOLVING CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY; IPI No. 17-248-CA-J, June 6, 2017 - RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF SYLVIA ADANTE CHARGING HON. JANE AURORA C. LANTION, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND ATTY. DOROTHY CAJAYON WITH SYSTEMATIC PRACTICES OF CORRUPTION.

  • G.R. No. 209859, June 05, 2017 - EILEEN P. DAVID, Petitioner, v. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190043, June 21, 2017 - SANTOS-YLLANA REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RICARDO DEANG AND FLORENTINA DEANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175772[*], June 05, 2017 - MITSUBISHI CORPORATION-MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184464, June 21, 2017 - CINDY SHIELA COBARDE-GAMALLO, Petitioner, v. JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 184469 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 226792, June 06, 2017 - SOFRONIO B. ALBANIA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EDGARDO A. TALLADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189100, June 21, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LETICIA BARBARA B. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182297, June 21, 2017 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. FE L. ESTEVES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195876, June 19, 2017 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017 - MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. IFP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10911, June 06, 2017 - VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3614 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4630-P], June 20, 2017 - ANONYMOUS, Complainant, v. GLENN L. NAMOL, COURT INTERPRETER, ERLA JOIE L. ROCO, LEGAL RESEARCHER AND EDSELBERT ANTHONY A. GARABATO, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT , BRANCH 63, BAYAWAN CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211093, June 06, 2017 - MINDANAO SHOPPING DESTINATION CORPORATION, ACE HARDWARE PHILS., INC., INTERNATIONAL TOYWORLD, INC., STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC., SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION, WATSONS PERSONAL CARE STORES (PHILS.), INC., AND SUPERVALUE, INC., Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF DAVAO CITY, HON. SARA DUTERTE, VICE-MAYOR OF DAVAO CITY, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD, AND THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD (CITY COUNCIL) NG DAVAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210693, June 07, 2017 - EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017 - DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA, Petitioner, v. EMMANUEL D. SAPIGAO AND GINALYN C. ACOSTA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224022, June 28, 2017 - TEODORICO A. ZARAGOZA, Petitioner, v. ILOILO SANTOS TRUCKERS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 224143, June 28, 2017 - KEVIN BELMONTE Y GOROMEO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-17-3709 (Formerly OCA IPI No.13-4058-P), June 19, 2017 - JUDGE CELSO O. BAGUIO, Complainant, v. JOCELYN P. LACUNA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.

  • OCA IPI No. 11-3800-RTJ, June 19, 2017 - OSCAR C. RIZALADO, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 21, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 12-3867-RTJ, June 19, 2017 - RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT DATED JUNE 27, 2011 OF OSCAR C. RIZALADO AGAINST JUDGE GIL BOLLOZOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RELATIVE TO G.R. NO. 188427 (CYNTHIA G. ESPANO, ET AL. v. DR. OTHELLO C. GUZMAN, ET AL.); OCA IPI No. 12-3897-RTJ, June 19, 2017 - OTHELLO C. GUZMAN, RICARDO GUZMAN, MARIO C. GUZMAN, SR., AND ROSARIO GUZMAN RIZALADO, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, Respondent.; OCA IPI No. 13-4070-RTJ, June 19, 2017 - OSCAR C. RIZALADO, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017 - ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLANDO V. ZUBIRI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218942, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO BISORA Y LAGONOY, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216937, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TITO AMOC Y MAMBATALAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2833-MTJ], June 06, 2017 - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT, Complainant, v. JUDGE DIVINA T. SAMSON, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MABINI-PANTUKAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY, AND UTILITY WORKER FRANCISCO M. ROQUE, JR., MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MABINI-PANTUKAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 223334, June 07, 2017 - DANILO BARTOLATA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT REBECCA R. PILOT AND/OR DIONISIO P. PILOT, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225743, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDY DOMINGO Y LABIS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219070, June 21, 2017 - CONRADO R. ESPIRITU, JR., TERESITA ESPXRITU-GUTIERREZ, MARIETTA R. ESPIRITU-CRUZ, OSCAR R. ESPIRITU, AND ALFREDO R. ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198583, June 28, 2017 - ARLYN ALMARIO-TEMPLONUEVO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHITO M. OYARDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218970, June 28, 2017 - RICHARD ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194137, June 21, 2017 - AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3604 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4245-P], June 28, 2017 - HEIRS OF DAMASO OCHEA, REPRESENTED BY MIGUEL KILANTANG, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDREA P. MARATAS, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 53, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAPU-LAPU CITY, CEBU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222538, June 21, 2017 - EDUARDO N. RIGUER, Petitioner, v. ATTY. EDRALIN S. MATEO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 228435, June 21, 2017 - KT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM GO, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200370, June 07, 2017 - MARIO VERIDIANO Y SAPI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198544, June 19, 2017 - SEAPOWER SHIPPING ENT., INC., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF WARREN M. SABANAL, REPRESENTED BY ELVIRA ONG-SABANAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192391, June 19, 2017 - ESTATE OF HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., REPRESENTED BY RAFAEL A. POBLADOR, Petitioner, v. ROSARIO L. MANZANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218242, June 21, 2017 - PAULINO M. ALDABA, Petitioner, v. CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIP-MANAGEMENT, INC., COLUMBIA SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., AND/OR VERLOU CARMELINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220718, June 21, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICOLAS TUBILLO Y ABELLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210654, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO LUAD ARMODIA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208243, June 05, 2017 - EDWIN GRANADA REYES, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PAUL JOCSON ARCHES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200512, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELMER AVANCENA Y CABANELA, JAIME POPIOCO Y CAMBAYA1 AND NOLASCO TAYTAY Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3616 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-4457-P], June 21, 2017 - ATTY. PROSENCIO D. JASO, Complainant, v. GLORIA L. LONDRES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 258, PARA�AQUE CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198066, June 07, 2017 - YOLANDO T. BRAVO, Petitioner, v. URIOS COLLEGE (NOW FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY) AND/OR FR. JOHN CHRISTIAN U. YOUNG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194152, June 05, 2017 - MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, Petitioner, v. DURA TIRE & RUBBER INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO DENIEGA Y ESPINOSA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 219848, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO MACARAIG Y GONZALES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213088, June 28, 2017 - LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB), Petitioner, v. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214500, June 28, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v, MICHELLE DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 226846, June 21, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY MACARANAS Y FERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 224300, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CUTARA Y BRIX, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 176703, June 28, 2017 - MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PASIG AND UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC., Respondents.; G.R. No. 176721 - UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF PASIG AND MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220143, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN BAAY Y FALCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017 - VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211108, June 07, 2017 - ALEJANDRO D.C. ROQUE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214301, June 07, 2017 - RAMON MANUEL T. JAVINES, Petitioner, v. XLIBRIS A.K.A. AUTHOR SOLUTIONS, INC., JOSEPH STEINBACH, AND STELLA MARS OUANO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205283, June 07, 2017 - ABIGAIL L. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, v. VENERANDO P. SANGALANG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212934, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLAS GAA Y RODRIGUEZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 224532, June 21, 2017 - CONSTANCIO CADERAO BALATERO, Petitioner, v. SENATOR CREWING (MANILA) INC., AQUANAUT SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., ROSE AARON AND CARLOS BONOAN, MV MSC FLAMINIA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 224565, June 21, 2017 - SENATOR CREWING (MANILA) INC., AQUANAUT SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., ROSE AARON AND CARLOS BONOAN, Petitioners, v. CONSTANCIO C. BALATERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225623, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO RAYTOS Y ESPINO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207001, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD F. TRIPOLI AND ROMULO B. IMPAS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 191174, June 07, 2017 - PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217459, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBERTO FORTUNA ALBERCA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220758, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEPHAN CABILES Y SUAREZ A.K.A. "KANO", Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177000, June 19, 2017 - NESTOR GUELOS, RODRIGO GUELOS, GIL CARANDANG AND SPO2 ALFREDO CARANDANG Y PRESCILLA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221096, June 28, 2017 - CLAUDIA'S KITCHEN, INC. AND ENZO SQUILLANTINI, Petitioners, v. MA. REALIZA S. TANGUIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206702, June 07, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO C. CEBUAN, RUBEN C. CEBUAN, ERIC C. CEBUAN, SAMUEL C. BARING, BEATRICE A. LOW, LEONORE L. DE LA SERNA AND HEIRS OF LORENZO UMBAAD, Respondents

  • G.R. No. 227005, June 19, 2017 - BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. ENGR. SELWYN LAO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "SELWYN F. LAO CONSTRUCTION" AND "WING AN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION" AND INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA ALIAS "ROBERT SANTOS," Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 224144, June 28, 2017 - LOLITA BAS CAPABLANCA, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF PEDRO BAS, REPRESENTED BY JOSEFINA BAS ESPINOSA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216987, June 05, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILFREDO PACAYRA Y MABUTOL, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222685, June 21, 2017 - LORETA SAMBALILO, SALVADOR SAMBALILO, ZOILO SAMBALILO, JR. AND RENANTE SAMBALILO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PABLO LLARENAS AND FE LLARENAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 221085, June 19, 2017 - RAVENGAR G. IBON, Petitioner, v. GENGHIS KHAN SECURITY SERVICES AND/OR MARIETTA VALLESPIN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202091, June 07, 2017 - SUMIFRU (PHILIPPINES) CORP. (SURVIVING ENTITY OF A MERGER WITH FRESH BANANA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION AND OTHER CORPORATIONS), Petitioner, v. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA SUYAPA FARM1 (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198485, June 05, 2017 - MARUBENI PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220977, June 19, 2017 - PO1 CELSO TABOBO III Y EBID, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196650, June 07, 2017 - SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. DAVID GRAVE, ARIEL V. AROA, TOMASINO R. DE CHAVEZ, JR., LUCITO P. SAMARITA, SAIDOMAR M. MAROHOM, LITO V. MAHILOM AND OLIVER N. MARTIN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159139, June 06, 2017 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, MA. CORAZON M. AKOL, MIGUEL UY, EDUARDO H. LOPEZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, REX C. DRILON, MIGUEL HILADO, LEY SALCEDO, AND MANUEL ALCUAZ, JR., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMELEC CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS, SR., COMELEC BIDDING AND AWARDS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN EDUARDO D. MEJOS AND MEMBERS GIDEON DE GUZMAN, JOSE F. BALBUENA, LAMBERTO P. LLAMAS, AND BARTOLOME SINOCRUZ, JR., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 174777 - AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., SERGIO R. OSME�A III, PANFILO M. LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, RODOLFO G. BIAZON, AND RICHARD J. GORDON, Petitioners, v. MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215195, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE DESCARTIN, JR. Y MERCADER, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220022, June 19, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILTON ALACDIS Y ANATIL A.K.A. "WELTON", DOMINGO LINGBANAN (AT-LARGE), AND PEPITO ANATIL ALACDIS (AT-LARGE), Accused.; WILTON ALACDIS Y ANATIL A.K.A. "WELTON", Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3335 [Formerly A.M. No. 15-04-98-RTC], June 28, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. JEROME B. BANTIYAN, CLERK OF COURT VI AND ERLINDA G. CAMILO, FORMER OIC/COURT INTERPRETER, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, BANAUE, IFUGAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219615, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL AGUDO Y DEL VALLE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 219590, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCIAL M. PARDILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 224099, June 21, 2017 - ROMMEL M. ZAMBRANO, ROMEO O. CALIPAY, JESUS L. CHIN, LYNDON B. APOSAGA, BONIFACIO A. CASTA�EDA, ROSEMARIE P. FALCUNIT, ROMEO A. FINALLA, LUISITO G. GELLIDO, JOSE ALLI L. MABUHAY, VICENTE A. MORALES, RAUL L. REANZARES, DIODITO I. TACUD, ERNAN D. TERCERO, LARRY V. MUTIA, ROMEO A. GURON, DIOSDADO S. AZUSANO, BENEDICTO D. GIDAYAWAN, LOWIS M. LANDRITO, NARCISO R. ASI, TEODULO BORAC, SANTOS J. CRUZADO, JR., ROLANDO DELA CRUZ, RAYMUNDO, MILA Y. ABLAY, ERMITY F. GABUCAY, PABLITO M. LACANARIA, MELCHOR PE�AFLOR, ARSENIO B. PICART III, ROMEO M. SISON, JOSE VELASCO JR., ERWIN M. VICTORIA, PRISCO J. ABILO, WILFREDO D. ARANDIA, ALEXANDER Y. HILADO, JAIME M. CORALES, GERALDINE C. MAUHAY, MAURO P. MARQUEZ, JONATHAN T. BARQUIN, RICARDO M. CALDERON JR., RENATOR. RAMIREZ, VIVIAN P. VIRTUDES, DOMINGO P. COSTANTINO JR., RENATO A. MANAIG, RAFAEL D. CARILLO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION/PACIFIC CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, DAVID E. T. LIM, AND EVELYN LIM FORBES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209518, June 19, 2017 - MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE, Petitioner, v. ANA KARI CARMENCITA NUSTAD, AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MARGUERITE THERESE L. LUCILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208359, June 19, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO SABIDA Y SADIWA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206114, June 19, 2017 - DOLORES ALEJO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERNESTO CORTEZ AND PRISCILLA SAN PEDRO, SPOUSES JORGE LEONARDO AND JACINTA LEONARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192723, June 05, 2017 - LEOVIGILDO A. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, v. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ROBERTO OWAS, FLORENCIO RAPANA, CERELO BALURO, EDDIE YAGUNO, RUPO YAGUNO AND JERRY YAGUNO, ACCUSED. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 8371, June 28, 2017 - SPOUSES GERARDO MONTECILLO AND DOMINGA SALONOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO Z. GATCHALIAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208450, June 05, 2017 - SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA CABARRUS, Petitioners, v. SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L. PO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 208497 - SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L. PO, Petitioners, v. SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA CABARRUS, JOSE MARIA MORAZA, AND ERNESTO ABOITIZ AND ISABEL ABOITIZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218572, June 19, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLIE GHER TUBALLAS Y FAUSTINO, Accused-Appellant,

  • G.R. No. 202922, June 19, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198795, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCEDITAS MATHEUS Y DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 195003, June 07, 2017 - CITY OF BATANGAS, REPRESENTED BY HON. SEVERINA VILMA ABAYA, IN HER CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR OF BATANGAS, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198162, June 21, 2017 - CORAZON M. LACAP, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION] AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202086, June 21, 2017 - NORMAN PANALIGAN, IRENEO VILLAJIN, AND GABRIEL PENILLA, Petitioners, v. PHYVITA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189102, June 07, 2017 - CHIQUITA BRANDS, INC. AND CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioners, v. HON. GEORGE E. OMELIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 14, SHERIFF ROBERTO C. ESGUERRA, CECILIO G. ABENION, AND 1,842 OTHER PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 95-45, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208001, June 19, 2017 - P/C SUPT. EDWIN A. PFLEIDER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225634, June 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN JAO Y CALONIA AND ROGELIO CATIGTIG Y COBIO, Accused-Appellants.