Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > November 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 190648 : November 14, 2011] HYATT TAXI SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO RAMOS, JR. V. WILFREDO CERILLO:




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 190648 : November 14, 2011]

HYATT TAXI SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO RAMOS, JR. V. WILFREDO CERILLO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2011, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 190648 (Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc./Mr. Cesar Lee/Mr. Constancio Ramos, Jr. v. Wilfredo Cerillo)

RESOLUTION 

Before Us is a Motion for Clarification with Leave of Court filed by respondent Wilfredo Cerillo (Wilfredo) on May 13, 2011. Clarification is sought on the period applicable for the monetary awards granted to him.

It must be recalled that, on April 24, 2008, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam (LA Macam) of the NLRC-NCR rendered a Decision[1] in NLRC-NCR-08-09158-07, finding Wilfredo illegally dismissed and ordered petitioners to pay him: (a) full backwages from the date of dismissal on July 11, 2007 until the date of the Decision; (b) due to strained relations, separation pay of one month for every year of service; (c) moral and exemplary damages of PhP 50,000; and (d) 10% of the total award as attorney's fees. The fallo of the decision reads in full: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant [Wilfredo] as illegal and ordering the respondents to pay him his full backwages from the date of dismissal until the date of this decision, separation pay [sic] one month pay per year of service due to strained relations, damages, moral and exemplary, of P50,000.00 pesos, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees as computed by the Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch. 

SO ORDERED.[2]

Upon appeal, on January 26, 2009, the NLRC Third Division rendered a Resolution[3] in NLRC LAC No. 07-002405-08, which reversed and set aside the LA Decision, with the finding that Wilfredo's dismissal was valid. Wilfredo's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 8, 2009.[4]

Upon Wilfredo's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), on October 28, 2009, the CA rendered its Decision[5] in CA-G.R. SP No. 109737, reversing and setting aside the NLRC Resolution and reinstating the LA Decision, with modification in that the awards of PhP 50,000 as moral and exemplary damages and 10% attorney's fees were deleted. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on December 2, 2009.[6]

Subsequently, on February 17, 2010, We denied the petition for review on certiorari of petitioners for their "failure to show any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction."[7] On July 21, 2010, We denied with finality petitioners' motion for reconsideration.[8] Accordingly, on August 27, 2010, Entry of Judgment[9] was issued in this case.

Consequently, Wilfredo moved for execution of the Decision before the LA. Wilfredo submitted computations of what he believed are the backwages and separation pay due him, which were, however, contested by petitioners. The LA, however, agreed with petitioners that Wilfredo, under the April 24, 2008 LA Decision, is supposedly entitled to full backwages from the date of his dismissal on July 11, 2007 up to only April 24, 2008 (the date of LA Macam's Decision), and not until the finality of the Decision of the instant labor case as claimed by Wilfredo, and separation pay from 1995 until 2007 or the year he was dismissed. In short, the bone of contention is up to when Wilfredo is entitled to full backwages and separation pay, the object of the present recourse through a Motion for Clarification with Leave of Court.

Relying on Surima v. National Labor Relations Commission,[10] which cited Gaco v. NLRC,[11] and Javellana v. Belen,[12] Wilfredo argues that the monetary awards due him comprising his full backwages and separation pay ought to be computed until the finality of the decision through this Court's resolution, which he asserts is on August 27, 2010 when the entry of judgment was issued in this case.

On the other hand, petitioners, in their Comment, assert that the April 24, 2008 LA Decision, as modified�with the deletion of attorney's fees and damages�had already become final and executory, and may no longer be modified, as, they cited, aptly enunciated in Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals.[13]

While the decretal portion of the April 24, 2008 Decision of LA Macam indicates "full backwages from the date of dismissal until the date of this decision," such cannot be construed, as petitioners assert, that full backwages are reckoned from the date of dismissal up to April 24, 2008 when LA Macam rendered his decision, and that the separation pay is computed only up to the illegal dismissal of Wilfredo on July 11, 2007. First, there are no factual and legal bases for these. Second, the determination of the propriety of the monetary awards of backwages and separation pay in illegal dismissal cases only becomes settled and conclusive upon the finality of the decision of said case and not necessarily upon the determinations made by the LA, NLRC or the CA when these are further appealed. Thus, We hold that the phrase "the date of this decision" refers to the date of the finality of our Decision, i.e., on July 21, 2010 when petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied with finality.

Verily, it is all too evident that an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement, but if reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is awarded to the employee in an amount equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. The Court has consistently applied that the computation for full backwages due to an illegally dismissed employee is reckoned from the date of his illegal dismissal up to the finality of the decision in the labor case. Similarly, the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service is computed from the date the employee was hired or engaged up to the finality of the decision of the labor case. Thus, there is neither factual nor legal basis to construe that the monetary awards are applied only up to the date of the rendition of judgment by the LA, even if said judgment has been affirmed with modification, as in the instant case.

In CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor Relations Commission,[14] with the finding of illegal dismissal, the Court emphatically reiterated the consistent application of the monetary awards of full backwages�inclusive of allowances and other benefits�from the date of dismissal up to the finality of the decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, computed from the time of the illegally dismissed employee's engagement up to the finality of this decision.

The rationale for pegging the monetary awards in illegal dismissal cases up to the finality of the decision is all too evident. The finality of the decision in labor cases involving illegal dismissal is the point of final and conclusive determination of the monetary awards of backwages and separation pay due to an illegally dismissed employee. Corollarily, the grant and determination of these monetary awards made by the LA, the NLRC or the CA may not become final when there are appeals taken by a party-litigant. As in the instant case, the determination of the awards of full backwages and separation pay initially granted by LA Macam only became conclusive and final�after all the appeals taken all the way to this Court�when We denied with finality petitioners' motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2010.

True is it that the dispositive portion of the final and executory LA Decision, as affirmed with modification by the CA, was couched in an ambiguous manner, yet its real meaning and import is all too discernable from the application of the nature of these monetary awards in illegal dismissal cases. Besides, while not at point, We will not be remiss to point out, if only to recognize petitioners' assertion that a final and executory decision may no longer be modified, that where something can be construed and interpreted in two (2) divergent ways (as in the dispositive portion of the LA Decision in the instant case), that which is prejudicial to an illegally dismissed employee and the other, favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in favor of the employee consistent with the principle of social justice.

WHEREFORE, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam is directed to compute the award of full backwages, inclusive of all allowances and other benefits, of respondent Wilfredo Cerillo, from the date of his dismissal up to July 21, 2010; and his separation pay, equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, shall similarly be computed from the time of his engagement up to July 21, 2010.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
  Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 86-93.

[2] Id. at 92.

[3] Id. at 72-81, Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III.

[4] Id. at 83-84.

[5]
Id. at 53-67. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales Sison.

[6] Id. at 69-70.

[7]
Id. at 249.

[8]
Id. at 267.

[9] Id. at 268.

[10] G.R. No. 121147, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 260.

[11] G.R. No. 104690, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 260.

[12] G.R. No. 182158, March 5, 2010, 609 SCRA 342.

[13] G.R. No. 144882, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 482.

[14] G.R. No. 177664, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 138.



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






November-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 167449 : November 14, 2011] BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB [PHILS.] v. NIXON A. BABAN

  • [G.R. No. 190648 : November 14, 2011] HYATT TAXI SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO RAMOS, JR. V. WILFREDO CERILLO

  • [G.R. No. 194974 : November 14, 2011] DAISY TOLEDO Y CAUPAYAN, FRED BULAWIN Y EROY AND EVELYN TIZON Y AGUSTINES, PETITIONERS -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196974 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOMAR MALLILLIN Y BUNCAG

  • [G.R. No. 195966 : November 14, 2011] ATTY. ROSELLER "JACK" MAALAT v. HONORABLE COURT OR APPEALS [18TH DIVISION], CEBU CITY, LORETO VALENZUELA, AND JESSIE CERVANTES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 194840 : November 14, 2011] MARCELO PACHECO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 198558 : November 14, 2011] ARIEL LANTAJO Y CRISTOBAL AND GUILLERMO ALOJAMIENTO Y GUAPIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 197248 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMULO DUTERTE

  • [G.R. No. 197924 : November 14, 2011] BENITO YAO CHUA AND WILSON GO v. LEONARDO L. VILLALON, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 196227 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHANEDATU UTOH

  • [G.R. No. 181027 : November 15, 2011] NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 191970 : November 15, 2011] ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 193462 : November 15, 2011] DENNIS B. FUNA VS. MANILA ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • [G.R. No. 196933 : November 15, 2011] NOLI JOEL IGNAO BERMEO VS. LUZ IGNAO PADAYAO AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [COMELEC]

  • [G.R. No. 197930 : November 15, 2011] EFRAIM C. GENUINO, ET AL. VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197878 : November 15, 2011] GEMMA C. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY [MERALCO], ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197778 : November 15, 2011] NASSER DIKI LAGUINDAB VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197419 : November 15, 2011] JESUS VICENTE H. MAGSAYSAY II VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 196926 : November 15, 2011] JOSE A. ZAMORRO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MAASIM, SARANGANI AND ARTURO LAWA

  • [G.R No. 196452 : November 15, 2011] MARIA BLANCA KIM B. LOKIN VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND LEOPOLDO N. BATAOIL

  • [G.R. No. 195971 : November 15, 2011] AL-JIHAN R. EDDING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MIGUEL C. ALAVAR III

  • [G.R. No. 195649 : November 15, 2011] CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO AND LINOG G. BALUA

  • [G.R. No. 195378 : November 15, 2011] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANCISCO SERVITO

  • [G.R. No. 193808 : November 15, 2011] LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND TERESITA F. PLANAS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VIRGINIA S. JOSE, ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES

  • [G.R. No. 193719 : November 15, 2011] SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR. VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1787 : November 15, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. MS. MAURA D. CAMPANO, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, NESTOR S. ROBLES, CLERK OF COURT, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL, CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO AND YOLANDA A. BONUS, INTERPRETER I, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL-CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO

  • [G.R. No. 153690 : November 15, 2011] DAVID LU VS. PATERNO LUYM, SR., ET AL.

  • [G.R. Nos. 184461-62 : November 15, 2011] LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, ET AL. VS. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN, ET AL.

  • [G.R. Nos. 183711-13 : November 15, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14082-Ret. : November 15, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF HON. JUANITO C. RANJO, FORMER DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR [DCA]

  • [G.R. No. 174788 : November 15, 2011] THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM, COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. COURT OF APPEALS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • [G.R. No. 181653 : November 15, 2011] POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO I. RAZON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VERSUS HON. ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181067 : November 15, 2011] CECILIA ORENA-DRILON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 181159. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] RAOUL ESPERAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199034 November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. SEC. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034, November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • [G.R. No. 195640 (Formerly UDK No. 14455) : November 15, 2011] SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION VS. ENCARNACION B. TORMON, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197199 : November 16, 2011] RAFAEL REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 : November 16, 2011] SULPICIO LINES, INC. AND SOLID TOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS V. VINNELL ABORBE, ET AL., UNYON NG MGA MANDARAGAT SA SULPICIO LINES, INC./SOLID STOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. AND ALEXANDER KIAMCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 147193 : November 16, 2011] SPOUSES ALFREDO G. VELAYO AND JOVITA F. VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS, NATY MIRANDA, NATALIO SALONGA, AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 197102 : November 16, 2011] SONNY LAZO Y ADEZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 195376 : November 16, 2011] SERGIO RA�A v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 198595 : November 16, 2011] ANGELITO GLORIA Y BISARA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 191398 : November 16, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BOBBY SALIC Y PAUDAC

  • [G.R. No. 198461 : November 16, 2011] SAN LORENZO RUIZ BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS GROUP, INC. v. TACIANO L. BANGCORO

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 18, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO V. SEC. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 18, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • [G.R. No. 197050 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MINA AKMAD Y MAMOMPON

  • [A.C. No. 8125 : November 21, 2011] TEOFILA JABONITE-ARAO v. ATTY. EMMANUEL C. OPAY

  • [G.R. No. 196241 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIS ALLAWIGAN Y PAGULAYAN

  • [G.R. No. 197547 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERLITO MODAR Y MARCELO

  • [G.R. No. 198427 : November 21, 2011] LEE MICHAEL LEONIDAS QUIZON v. FERROTECH STEEL CORPORATION AND BENITO T. KEH

  • [G.R. No. 198236 : November 21, 2011] OLIVER RAPISORA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 194239 : November 22, 2011] WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF WEST TOWER CONDO., AND IN REPRESENTATION OF BARANGAY BANGKAL, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING MINORS AND GENERATIONS YET UNBORN V. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES AND RICHARD ROES

  • [A.M. No. 07-9-447-RTC : November 22, 2011] REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9436, CREATION AND RATIFICATION OF CITY OF CARCAR IN CEBU AND CREATION OF RTC AND MTCC FOR SAID CITY

  • [G.R. No. 165450 : November 22, 2011] FRANCIS F. YENKO, AS ADMINISTRATOR, & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA BOTH OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, PETITIONERS, v. RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-199-RTC : November 22, 2011] RE: RENUMBERING OF THE RTC, BRANCH 66, BALER, AURORA OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

  • [A.M. No. 11-10-194-RTC : November 22, 2011] RE: CLARIFICATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF RTC, BRANCH 7, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL SUR AS DESIGNATED SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT

  • [A.M. No. 14119-Ret. : November 22, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. AMELITA M. GROSPE, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE NATHANAEL M. GROSPE, FORMER SANDIGANBAYAN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

  • [G.R. No. 198891 : November 22, 2011] FLORIDA F. MAPILE VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTURO T. FRIGILLANA

  • [G.R. No. 177131 : November 22, 2011] BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • [G.R. NO. 198073 : November 23, 2011] LUCENO JUANICO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G. R. No. 145817 : November 28, 2011] URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PE�A

  • [G.R. No. 197426 : November 28, 2011] JOSEPH FLORANTE C. ALVARO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN

  • [G.R. No. 197443 : November 28, 2011] SPS. ERNESTO SANTOS AND LOURDES SANTOS v. SPS. RENATO AND PAG-ASA SANTOS

  • [G.R. No. 164181 : November 28, 2011] NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC. v. VICTORINO ANGELO

  • [G.R. No. 199082 : November 29, 2011] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE AND FACT-FINDING TEAM

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-207-RTC : November 29, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF APPEAL DOCKET FEE PAID TO THE RTC OF LEGASPI CITY RELATIVE TO CAD CASE NO. N-711

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : November 29, 2011] WILSON P. GAMBOA VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 199179 : November 29, 2011] MARIVIC P. JAVAREZ AND JESSIE A. TABANG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN

  • [G.R. No. 199228 : November 29, 2011] ERNIE I. ALTERADO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JIMMY G. DUREZA

  • [G.R. No. 199149 : November 29, 2011] LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND ELMER E. PANOTES

  • [G.R. No. 197466 : November 29, 2011] JOEL QUI�O, MARY ANTONETTE DANGOY, JOSEPHINE T. ABING, JOY ANN P. CABATINGAN, TESSA P. CANG, WILFREDO T. CALO, HOMER C. CANEN, JOSE L. CAGANG, ALBERTO CABATINGAN AND FRANCISCO OLIVERIO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RITCHIE WAGAS

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-206-RTC : November 29, 2011] RE: PETITION OF JUDGE JOSEPHINE ZARATE FERNANDEZ, RTC, BRANCH 76, SAN MATEO, RIZAL FOR RELIEF FROM PROPERTY AND RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITIES DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY TYPHOON 'ONDOY' ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2009

  • [G.R. No. 198756 : November 29, 2011] BANCO DE ORO, ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 199164 : November 29, 2011] EDNA FE R. DANDO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND KARL BRANDO C. MALIKSI

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ) : November 29, 2011] CARMEN P. EDA�O v. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 183711 : November 29, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-182-CA-J : November 29, 2011] ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI V. COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR., DIVISION CLERK OF COURT JOSEFINA C. MALLARI, AND ATTY. ANTONIO M. ELICAcO