Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 167283 : February 10, 2010] CITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, AND JOSEPH R. SANTIAGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION OF THE CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 167283 : February 10, 2010]

CITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, AND JOSEPH R. SANTIAGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION OF THE CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 February 2010:

G.R. No. 167283: CITY OF MANILA, represented by Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr., LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, and JOSEPH R. SANTIAGO, in his capacity as Chief of the License Division of the City of Manila, petitioners, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.

Before the Court is a petition for review[1] of the Resolutions dated 9 April 2003[2] and 28 February 2005[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 74517.

From 1994 to 1999, petitioners assessed and collected from respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Coca-Cola), as a manufacturer of beverages, the local business tax under Section 14 of the Revenue Code of Manila,[4] which states:

Section 14. Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and other Processors. - There is hereby imposed a graduated tax on manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines on manufacturers of any articles of commerce of whatever kind or nature in accordance with the following schedule.

With gross receipts or sales for the preceding calendar year in the amount of:

xxxx

For the year 2000, petitioners assessed Coca-Cola, as seller of beverages, with the business tax under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila, in addition to the business tax imposed under Section 14 of the same Revenue Code. Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila provides:

Section 21. Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC - On any of the following businesses and articles of commerce subject to the excise, value-added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, hereinafter referred to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ONE PERCENT (1%) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year is hereby imposed:

A) On person who sells goods and services in the course of trade or businesses; xxx

PROVIDED, that all registered businesses in the City of Manila already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

On 12 January 2000, Coca-Cola paid under protest the tax assessment made by Manila's Chief of Licensing Division for the first quarter of the taxable year 2000, to wit:

Business tax under
Section 14 of the Revenue Code of Manila             P 652,127.46

Business tax under
Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila             P 3,036,887.33

On 14 February 2000, Coca-Cola requested the City Treasurer of Manila for refund or tax credit in the amount of P3,036,887.33, representing the business tax under Section 21 it had paid under protest for the first quarter of the year 2000. The said request was denied by the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila in a letter dated 28 February 2000. Thus, Coca-Cola filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila an action for the refund or issuance of tax credit in the amount of P3,036,887.33, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

The Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 21, ruled as follows:

The first paragraph of Sec. 21 of the code refers to taxes on businesses subject to the excise, value added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and are imposed "on persons who sells goods and services in the course of business or trade." The taxes are imposed on persons who sell goods and services in the course of trade and business. The penultimate paragraph of the same section provides "That the tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and shall be paid to the person rendering the services who is required to collect and pay the tax within twenty (20) days after the end of each quarter." The provision of Section 21 is very clear and unambiguous foreclosing any doubt as to allow an expanded construction. The imposition of taxes under Secs. 14 and 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila would constitute an imposition of tax on the plaintiff as manufacturer and seller of their products which are already subject to value-added tax under the National Internal Revenue Code. As the right to manufacture implies the right to distribute the manufactured products (Central Aguerrera de Pedro v. City of Manila, etc. 28 SCRA 840), to impose taxes under Sec. 21 would amount to double taxation which in effect was taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once. This conclusion finds support in the opinion (Exhs. "E" and "E-l") of the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance which .states that "if a business is already taxed under subsection (a) to (g) of Sec. 143 of the Local Government Code such business should no longer be taxed under sub-section (h) for the reasons that such imposition will constitute double taxation as the same kind of tax is being imposed twice on the same business." Further this negates the respondents' contention that the taxes imposed under Sec. 21 are in the concept of indirect taxes upon end users of the goods and services of the business at the establishment itself.[5] (Emphasis supplied)

The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants to either refund or credit the tax assessed under Sec. 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila and paid for by plaintiff on the first quarter of year 2000 in the amount of P3,0363887.33.

The defendants City of Manila, etc. are enjoined from collecting the tax from plaintiff Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. under Sec. 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila. The counterclaim of respondent is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Accordingly, the Injunction bond posted by petitioner is hereby CANCELLED.

SO ORDERED.[6]

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal, ruling as follows:

The present appeal arose from a complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellee on the issues of double taxation and application of Section 21 of the Revenue Code of the City of Manila, x x x

[The trial court] did not make any finding of fact. What it did was to interpret the provisions of the laws it cited and therefrom drew a conclusion of whether there is truth to the claim of the plaintiff-appellee that there was double taxation.

xxxx

Thus, the errors assigned in the defendants-appellants Brief in connection with the conclusion set forth by the trial court in its assailed decision interpreting the laws cited by the parties could only raise a pure question of law which this court could not rule upon. It would be a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on our part if we insist in resolving the issues raised in the appeal. Accordingly, the arguments in the defendants-appellants' Brief and the comment thereto by the plaintiff-appellee may only be resolved when the appropriate mode of review is availed of. The present appeal having been improperly brought to this court, it should be dismissed outright pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

xxxx

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[7]

The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

The issues in this case are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioners' appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court; and (2) whether the trial court erred in enjoining the petitioners from collecting from Coca-Cola the tax under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila.

The petition lacks merit.

The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners' appeal for being improperly filed pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.- An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.

An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (Emphasis supplied)

The distinction between a question of law and a question of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[8]

Contrary to petitioners' contention, the present case involves purely a question of law. The principal issue of whether the City of Manila's imposition and collection of the business tax under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila is valid does not require a review or evaluation of the evidence of the parties; thus, it is clearly a question of law. No examination of the probative value of the evidence would be necessary to resolve a question of law.[9] Hence, the Court of Appeals did not en1 in dismissing petitioners' appeal, which raised purely a question of law, for being improperly filed.

More importantly, the Court has recently held in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,[10] which involved the same parties and substantially the same issues, that the imposition of the business tax under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila, in addition to the business tax under Section 14 of the same Revenue Code, is prohibited under the exempting proviso of Section 21.[11] The Court stated there that "businesses such as Coca-Cola's, already subject to a local business tax under Section 14 of the Revenue Code of Manila (which is based on Section 143(a) of the Local Government Code),[12] can no longer be made liable for local business tax under Section 21 of the same Revenue Code (which is based on Section 143(h) of the Local Government Code).[13]" The Court pertinently ruled:

Petitioners obstinately ignore the exempting proviso in Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, to their own detriment. Said exempting proviso was precisely included in said section so as to avoid double taxation.

Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, "taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing." It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation," the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character.

Using the aforementioned test, the Court finds that there is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794,[14] since these are being imposed: (1) on the same subject matter - the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila; (2) for the same purpose - to make persons conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same taxing authority - petitioner City of Manila; (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction - within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila; (5) for the same taxing periods - per calendar year; and (6) of the same kind or character - a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business.

The distinction petitioners attempt to make between the taxes under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 is specious. The Court revisits Section 143 of the LGC, the very source of the power of municipalities and cities to impose a local business tax, and to which any local business tax imposed by petitioner City of Manila must conform. It is apparent from a perusal thereof that when a municipality or city has already imposed a business tax on manufacturers, etc. of liquors, distilled spirits, wines, and any other article of commerce, pursuant to Section 143(a) of the LGC, said municipality or city may no longer subject the same manufacturers, etc. to a business tax under Section 143(h) of the same Code. Section 143(h) may be imposed only on businesses that are subject to excise tax, VAT, or percentage tax under the NIRC, and that are "not otherwise specified in preceding paragraphs." (Emphasis in the original)

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The Court AFFIRMS the 9 April 2003 and 28 February 2005 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CVNo. 74517.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 10th day of February, 2010.

Very truly yours.

 (Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Rollo, pp. 82-85.   Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirana with a Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Edgardo F. Sundiam concurring.

[3] Id. at 87-88.    Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirana with a Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Edgardo F. Sundiam concurring.

[4] Tax Ordinance No. 7794 approved on 1 July 1993, as amended.

[5] Rollo, p. 40.

[6] Id. at 41. Dated 28 September 2001 and penned by Judge Amor A. Reyes.

[7] Id. at 83, 84, and 85.

[8] City of Manila v   Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,  Inc.,   G.R. No.   181845, 4 August 2009; Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, 14 January 2009, 576 SCRA 70, 81; Standard Chartered Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU), G.R. No. 165550. 8 October 2008, 568 SCRA 135, 143; Bukidnon Doctors' Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 501 Phil. 516, 526 (2005); Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550, 561 (2004); Chiang Kai Shek College v. Court of Appeals, 480 Phil. 609, 626 (2004).

[9] Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, 14 January 2009, 576 SCRA 70, 81.

[10] G.R. No. 181845, 4 August 2009.

[11] Section 21 (as quoted in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., supra). - Tax on Businesses Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC. - On any of the following businesses and articles of commerce subject to excise, value-added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code hereinafter referred to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of ONE PERCENT (1%) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year is hereby imposed:

(A) On persons who sell goods and services in the course of trade or business; and those who import goods whether for business or otherwise; as provided for in Sections 100 to 103 of the NIRC as administered and determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the said Code.

x x x x

(D) Excisable goods subject to VAT

 (1) Distilled spirits
 (2) Wines

 
x x x x

 (8) Coal and coke
 (9) Fermented liquor, brewers' wholesale price, excluding the ad valorem tax

x x x x

PROVIDED, that all registered businesses in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

[12] SEC. 143. Tax on Business. - The municipality may impose taxes on the following businesses:

(a) On manufacturers,  assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the following schedule: With gross sales or receipts for the Amount of Tax preceding calendar year in the amount of: x x x

[13] SEC. 143(h). On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That on any business subject to the excise, value-added or percentage tax under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%) of gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year. The sanggunian concerned may prescribe a schedule of graduated tax rates but in no case to exceed the rates prescribed herein.

[14] Revenue Code of Manila




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






February-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 161736 : February 24, 2010] FIDELA B. MARABE, PETITIONER, V. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND CLARA VELIGANIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170850 : February 24, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. DENNIS M. MALIWAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • [G.R. No. 171473 : February 24, 2010] SOL F. MATUGAS V. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND LUZ S. ALMEDA

  • [G.R. No. 161736 : February 24, 2010] FIDELA B. MARABE, PETITIONER, V. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND CLARA VELIGANIO, RESPONDENTS

  • [G.R. No. 177019 : February 24, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SPS. SANTIAGO N. PRADO, JR. AND LYDIA P. PRADO

  • [G.R. No. 185921 : February 24, 2010] GEORGE L GO AND/OR JUANITO A. UY V. HON. WINLOVE DUMAYAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI CITY, UCPB SECURITIES, INC., SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENRIQUE TAN AND KAY SWEE TUAN

  • [G.R. No. 189978 : February 24, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROLITO PUGOSA

  • [G.R. No. 182659 : February 24, 2010] DAVAO TUGBOAT AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC./CAPT. JOSE F. JORGE, CHIEF PILOT V. EDUARDO T. VIDAMO

  • [G.R. No. 178158 : February 23, 2010] STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [G.R. NO. 180428] LUIS SISON V. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED

  • [G.R. No. 178368 : February 22, 2010] FIRST BAY AREA BANK [RURAL BANK OF MALALAG, INC.] V. SPOUSES THELMA CASCO AND JAIME DUPITAS

  • [A.C. No. 8519 : February 22, 2010] EFREN G. BATTAD V. SENATOR MIRIAM PALMA DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • [G.R. No. 178123 : February 17, 2010] ROMEO G. PANGANIBAN V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP [CIDG]

  • [G.R. No. 188842 : February 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARNEL ODOCADO Y RONDA

  • [G.R. No. 176522 : February 17, 2010] LOYOLA MEMORIAL CHAPELS AND CREMATORIUM, INC. V. CHRISTOPHER CORPUZ

  • [G.R. No. 188971 : February 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GREGORIO MONSANTO

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-01-O : February 16, 2010] RE: RECOMMENDATION OF ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL KARL B. MIRANDA, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL [OSG], RELATIVE TO THE EFFORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO EXPEDITE THE HEARINGS OF CASES INVOLVING JAIL INMATES AND PRISONERS

  • [A.M. No. 10-2-01-SB : February 16, 2010] RE: REQUEST FOR ACCREDITATION OF SERVICE OF JUSTICE RAOUL V. VICTORINO, SANDIGANBAYAN

  • [A.M. No. 10-2-02-SB : February 16, 2010] RE: REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS FOR SPECIAL DIVISION IN THE PLUNDER CASE AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26558

  • [A.M. No. 07-11-566-RTC : February 16, 2010] RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, TOLEDO CITY

  • [G.R. Nos. 181562-63 : February 15, 2010] SPOUSES CIRIACO ANIL ARMINDA ORTEGA V. CEBU CITY); AND G.R. NOS. 181583-84 (CITY OF CEBU V. SPOUSES CIRIACO AND ARMINDA ORTEGA

  • [G.R. No. 180509 : February 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BERNARDO MEDILLIN Y ORPIANO

  • [G.R. No. 167720 : February 15, 2010] JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, PETITIONER, VS. SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA REPRESENTED BY CONSOLACION GARCIA, AND PABLO GARCIA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 168248] JOSEFA VILLANUEVA, VALENTINO VILLANUEVA, EDWARD VILLANUEVA, LORENZO VILLANUEVA AND JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED FILOTEO VILLANUEVA,PETITIONERS, VS. SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA REPRESENTED BY CONSOLACION GARCIA AND PABLO GARCIA, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 174865 : February 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BILLY TINAMPAY

  • [G.R. No. 189732 : February 15, 2010] RJ VENTURES REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RAJAH BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT

  • [G.R. No. 180867 : February 15, 2010] HON. EDWIN DE LEON OLIVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TERESITA SANTIAGO LAZARO AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2768 : February 14, 2010] CLARENCE JONATHAN WOOD V. MARILYN S. LUNGAY, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY

  • [G.R. No. 167315 : February 10, 2010] MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY, SOUTHERN ENERGY PHILIPPINES, INC.), PETITIONER, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OE INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

  • [G.R. No. 153788 : February 10, 2010] ROGER V. NAVARRO, PETITIONER VS. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC BRANCH 37, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND KAREN T. GO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME KARGO ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188748 : February 10, 2010] ISAGANI YAMBOT, LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC AND JULIET L. JAVELLANA, PETITIONERS, VS. RENATO V. PUNO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167283 : February 10, 2010] CITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, AND JOSEPH R. SANTIAGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION OF THE CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT

  • [G.R. No. 190411 : February 10, 2010] SAMAHANG MANGAGAWA NG ECONOTRADE INC., REPRESENTED BY ALBERTO SOLOMON, ET AL VS. ECONOTRADE INC. AND/OR MANUEL CORLETO

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2728 : February 10, 2010] HABITUAL TARDINESS OF ARISTEO FRANKLIN M. GARCIA, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, MALOLOS CITY

  • [A.C. No. 8062 : February 08, 2010] GREGORIO Z. ROBLES V. ATTY. ISAGANI M. JUNGCO

  • [G.R. No. 143338 : February 08, 2010] THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION [SOLIDBANK] V. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS INC., NARCISO G. MORALES AND SPOUSE

  • [G.R. No. 184772 : February 08, 2010] RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. AND JOSELITO V. CORCINO, JR. V. LUIS LOKIN, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 168714 : February 08, 2010] LEOPOLDO ESPIRITU V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 189503 : February 08, 2010] SEN. PANFILO M. LACSON, PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), DOJ PANEL COMPOSED OF HON. PETER L. ONG, HON. MARMARIE P. SATIN-VIVAS AND HON. MARI ELVIRA B. HERRERA; CARINA LIM DACER, SABINA DACER-HUNGERFORD, AND AMPARO DACER-HENSON,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172886 : February 08, 2010] GUILLERMO LUZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGRNAN, AND TELIBERT LAOC V. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MOLEO ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR JOAQUIN F. SALAZAR, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND LUZVIMINDA G. TANCANGCO

  • [G.R. No. 190438 : February 03, 2010] RENATO O. DASIG, PETITIONER, V. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.), RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 190450 : February 03, 2010] MECTAP INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, PETITIONER VS. RICHARD S. GUTIB, RESPONDENT

  • [G.R. No. 190420 : February 03, 2010] JOSEPHINE TUTOR AND ADAM ADUGALSKI, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. JOHNSON B. HONTANOSAS, RESPONDENT

  • [G.R. No. 190068 : February 03, 2010] VIRGILIO SAULOG PETITIONER V. HON. JUDGE FERNANDO L. FELICEN, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, JEREMIAS M. SAULOG AND ALFONSO GACUTAN ANG RESPONDENTS

  • [G.R. No. 165035 : February 03, 2010] MARTIN ORTEGA AND MORETO DEVANADERA,PETITIONERS, VS. ZENAIDA ANGELES, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE F & Z GENERAL MERCHANDISE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176935-36 : February 03, 2010] ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), REPRESENTED BY DOMINADOR GALLARDO, ET AL. AND NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171169 : February 03, 2010] GC DALTON INDUSTRIES, INC. VERSUS EQUITABLE PCI BANK [G.R. NO. 187709] CAMDEN INDUSTRIES, INC. VERSUS EQUITABLE PCI BANK

  • [A.C. No. 7054 : February 02, 2010] CONRADO QUE, COMPLAINANT V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., RESPONDENT

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-27-RTC : February 02, 2010] RE: REQUEST FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION ON MRS. DORINDINA R. DAMASIN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, RTC, BRANCH 2, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-09-MTC : February 02, 2010] RE: RESIGNATION OF PRESIDING JUDGE ROSALINDA S. MEDINACELI-GEPIGON, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOLINAO, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. 09-7-269-RTC : February 02, 2010] RE: REQUEST FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT IN BACOLOD CITY

  • [G.R. No. 190714 : February 01, 2010] ALEJO POL, JAIME LOPEZ, GASPAR GERALDE, ANASTACIO NIEZ, HERMOGENES TAPICAN, ADRIANO SABELLANO, MARIETO FLORES, JOSE LARISMA, JR., ALEXANDER CORTEZ, ROBERTO FALLER, BERNARDINO GONZALES, FELICIANO CALINAWAN, EFREN CABALLES, ROMEO REMEDIO, JOSEPH CANGA, MANUELITO AWIT, ROMEO DANIEL AND BENJAMIN TUDTUD, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT