Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : February 06, 2012] ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : February 06, 2012]

ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. Nos. 147925-26 (Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the name and style of Edison Development and Construction v. Public Estates Authority). - For appropriate action by this Court are: (a) petitioner Elpidio Uy's (Uy) Motion for Clarification,[1] Amended Motion for Clarification[2] and Supplement to Amended Motion for Clarification;[3] and (b) respondent Public Estates Authority's (PEA) Comment[4] to Uy's Motion for Clarification.

The Factual Antecedents 

On May 16, 2000, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) rendered a decision[5] in CIAC Case No. 02-2000, the dispositive portion of which reads: 

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] Contractor ELPIDIO S. UY and Award is hereby made on its (sic) monetary claims as follows: 

Respondent PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY is directed to pay the [petitioner] the following amounts:                                     

P19,604,132.06
� 
for the cost of idle time of equipment
2,275,721.00
for the cost of idled manpower
6,050,165.05
for the construction of the nursery shade net area
605,016.50
for attorney's fees

Interest on the amount of [P]6,050,l65.05 as cost for the construction of the nursery shade net area shal (sic) be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the Complaint was filed on 12 January 2000. Interest on the total amount of [P]21,879,853.06 for the cost of idled manpower and equipment shall be paid at the same rate of 6% per annum from the date this Decision is promulgated. After finality of this Decision, interest at the rate of 12%  per annum shall be paid on the total of these 3 awards amounting to [P] 27,930,018.11 until full payment of the awarded amount shall have been made, "this interim period being to be at that time already a forbearance of credit" (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA 78 [1994]; Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]; Crismina Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128721, March 9, 1999). 

SO ORDERED.[6]

Writs of execution relative to the above arbitral award were issued by the CIAC on September 19, 2000,[7] August 31, 2001[8]  and April 10, 2002.[9] PEA paid Uy a total of P34,058,775.79.[10]

In its Joint Decision[11] rendered on September 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the award made by the CIAC. Both PEA and Uy Filed petitions before this Court to assail the CA's Joint Decision. PEA's Petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 147933-34, and Uy's, docketed as G.R. Nos. 147925-26, were not consolidated. This Court dismissed PEA's petition sans prejudice to the result of Uy's petition.

On June 8, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision[12] partially granting Uy's petition. We affirmed with modifications the CA Joint Decision by increasing the award for cost of idle time of equipment from P19,604,132.06 to P55,680,492.38. We sustained the awards of P2,275,721.00 and P6,050,165.05 respectively corresponding to the costs of idled manpower and construction of the nursery shade net area. We likewise affirmed the permanent injunction issued by the CA relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001. We, however, denied Uy�s claims for the costs of additional hauling distance of topsoil and mobilization of water trucks.

Uy filed a motion for initial reconsideration[13] to our June 8, 2009 Decision again seeking for the increase of the award for the cost of idle time of equipment from P55,680,492.38 to P71,009,557.90. He argued that in our computation, we did not consider the actual number of equipment deployed and on standby pending PEA�s delay in delivering work areas to him. He stressed that the Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL) factor rate used was only the total average, rate with undue regard to the number of equipment actually deployed. Uy also reiterated his prayers for the awards of P37,780,200.00, allegedly representing the cost to him of additional hauling distance of topsoil, and P19,652.000.00 as added expense for water trucks mobilization. He also sought for the lifting of the permanent injunction issued in CIAC Case No. 03- 2001.

On July 7, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution[14] sustaining Uy's argument relative to the propriety of including in the computation the number of equipment actually mobilized. However, from our examination of the annexes to Uy's partial motion for reconsideration, we observed that some mobilized equipment were under repair. Hence, we denied Uy's claim for P71,009,557.95 and instead remanded the records to the CIAC for a recomputation of the cost of idle time of equipment considering the number actually deployed and which were not under repair. Uy's claims for costs for additional hauling distance of topsoil and water trucks mobilization, and for the lifting of the permanent injunction were again denied.

The CIAC conducted hearings and required the parties to submit their memoranda in support of their respective positions.

On September 20, 2010, the CIAC issued an Order[15] holding Uy's entitlement to P62,828,515.00 as cost of idle time of equipment.

On September 30, 2010 PEA filed before the CIAC a motion for recomputation seeking the deduction from the recomputed sum of P62,828,515.00 the amount of P19,604,132.06, which PEA already paid to Uy in compliance with a writ of execution previously issued by the CIAC on August 31, 2001.[16]

Uy opposed PEA�s motion for recomputation arguing that the amount of P19,604,132.06 which the latter paid corresponded to the damage he incurred as a result of the reduction of the work areas, whereas the recomputed sum of P62,828,515.00 is intended to answer for the cost of idle time of equipment consequent to the delay in the turn over of the work areas.[17]

On October 14, 2010, the CIAC issued an Order[18] motion for recomputation on grounds: 

Re-examining the Award made by this Tribunal, there is nothing therein that would support Claimant's [Uy] view and reasoning that would differentiate the source of delay and would confine the award made by this Tribunal only to the reduction of Work-Area. What the Tribunal awarded was "for the cost of idled equipment" in the amount of [P]19,604,132.06 whatever caused the equipment to be idle, whether by reduction of work area or delay in turn-over of work area[.] 

The Tribunal is convinced that the amount paid by the Respondent [PEA] should be deducted, as Respondent has done, from the increased amount due as recomputed by the Tribunal, thereby making the net amount of [P]43,224,382.94 payable to the Claimant. For the Claimant to pray that the increased amount of [P]62,967,021.00  determined by this Tribunal be considered as "ADDITIONAL AWARD FOR THE DELAY IN THE TURN-OVER OF WORK AREAS" is hairsplitting and would work against the Tribunal's concept of justice. 

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Recomputation filed by Respondent is hereby GRANTED. The Award made by this Tribunal, as affected by the recomputation is as follows:                                                               

Net amount due for cost of idle equipment
-
[P]43,224,382.94

Cost of idle manpower
-
2,275,721.00

Construction of nursery shade net area
-
6,050,165.05

  
-------------------
 
Total award
  
[P]51,550,268.99

At 6% interest per annum on said amount from the filing of the complaint on 12 January 2000 up to 18 October 2010, interest is computed at [P]33,319,230.69. Fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt when this Order becomes final, interest on said amount of [P]51,550,268.99 shall be computed at 12% per annum until fully paid. 

As per Decision of the Supreme Court, attorney's fees computed at 10% of the amount awarded, [P]5,155,026.89, is further awarded.[19] (citations omitted)         

Uy's Claims in His Motion for Clarification, Amended Motion for Clarification and Supplement to Amended Motion for Clarification.

 
Despite the total award of more or less P110,000,000.00 granted to him by this Court and the CIAC, Uy is discontented. He now comes before this Court with his motion for clarification, amended motion for clarification and supplement to amended motion for clarification praying for the issuance of a clarificatory order to direct PEA to pay him P70,871,051.49, plus interests and attorney's fees. Uy argues that the amount corresponds to the cost of idle time bf equipment awarded to him by this Court in our July 7, 2010 Resolution. Further, he likewise once again seeks the lifting of the injunction issued relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001.

This Court's Disquisition 

Uy's claims fail to persuade.

When this Court issued its July 7, 2010 Resolution, it categorically denied Uy's claim for the amount of P70,871,051.49 as cost of idle time of equipment. Hence, we ordered the remand of the records of the case for the CIAC to compute the award on the basis of a revised formula.

We agree with the CIAC�s computation, which was explained in detail in its September 20, 2010 order,[20] viz.: 

In compliance with the Order of the Tribunal, the parties submitted their respective computations of idled equipment cost. The following columnar table is the comparative computations submitted by the parties:                                                                                      

Equipment
No.
EDC
PEA
1. Road Grader
2/2
P3,339,499
P3,339,499
2. Pay Loader
2/3
9,721,402
14,582,103
3. Tractor
0
0
0
4. Backhoe
3/2
13,704,600
9,136,400
5. Roto Tiller
0
0
0
6. Concrete Mixer
4/7
847,392
1,482,936
7. Roller
1/1
5,221,853
5,221,853
8. Bulldozer
1/0
15,238,841
0
9. Dump Trucks
10/10
18,383,638
18,383,638
10. Concrete Cutter
1/0
126,436
0
11. Plate Compactor
2/2
494,130
494,130
12. Jack Hammer
2/1
327,709
163,854
13. Generator
1/1
665,756
665,756
14. Drill/Holesaw
4/1
181,490
45,372
15. Welding Machine
2/1
306,379
153,189
16. Bar Cutter
2/1
72,800
36[,]400
17. Delivery Trucks
3/3
3,087,320
3,087,335
� �




TOTALS:
 
EDC [P]71,719,245.00
PEA [P]56,792,465.00

Note: Under the column entitled No. or number of units of equipment, the number before the slash-sign represents that of the Claimant's and the number after the slash-sign represents that of the Respondent's. 

The computation, Annex "A" of Claimant's submission of August 24, 2010 (COMPLIANCE with Manifestation and Motion) listed all the 17 units of equipment delivered on site as of December 6, 1996 obviously not deleting any item that may have be[en] under repair or on operational as what the Supreme Court wants to be determined. 

What Claimant did was simply to multiply the listed 17 units of equipment by the corresponding rental rates per month. The total resulting amount of [P]3,940,597.00 was just multiplied by 18.2 months to arrive at the amount of [P]71,009,557.95 as due the Claimant. 

Some insightful understanding arises from an analysis of the foregoing comparison of the parties' respective computations. 

Item 2 on payloader: while Claimant lays claim to only two (2) units for a cost of [P]9,721,402, [r]espondent credits it with three (3) units for a higher cost of [P]14,582,103.90. 

Item 6 on concrete mixer: while Claimant lays claim to only four (4) units for a cost of [P]847,392, [r]espondent credits it with seven (7) units for a higher cost of [P]1,482,936.00. 

The total of these two items is [P]16,065,039.30  ([P]1,482,936.00 + [P]14,582,103.30) resulting in an increase of  [P]5,496,245.30 from the claim of [P]10,568,794.00. (9,721,402 + 847,392). 

Item 1 on road grader; item 3 on tractor; item 5 on roto tiller[;] item 7 on road roller; item 9 on dump trucks; item 11 on plate compactor; item 13 on generator; and item 17 on delivery trucks. In all of these eight (8) items, the number of units, or lack of it, and the cost calculation made by both the Claimant and the Respondent coincide with each other. 

The eight items of coincidence and the two items in which Respondent credited Claimant with more units together with the corresponding cost than the claims of the Claimant, clearly shows (sic) Respondent's more balanced calculations than the one-sided calculations made by the Claimant and, therefore, more deserving of credit. 

The divergences between the two calculations as to the seven (7) other items rest on (1) the number of equipment units � Claimant claiming more units than Respondent's calculations � and (2) the increased cost of idled equipment. Thus, for item 4 on backhoe, Claimant claims 3 units while Respondent admits to only 2 units; item  10 on concrete cutter where Claimant claims 1 unit but is denied by Respondent; item 12 on jackhammer where Claimant claims 2 units vs. Respondent's 1 unit; item 14 on Drill/Holesaw where Claimant asserts 4 units v. 1; item 15 on Welding Machine � 2 v. 1; item 16 on Bar Cutter, 2 v. 1. 

The biggest divergence is on item 8 on bulldozer  which Claimant asserts for 1 unit but Respondent denies, (0), resulting in [P] 15,238,841.00. difference between the claim for that amount and the denial thereof by Respondent. This requires elaboration. Claimant's calculation in Annex A to its COMPLIANCE  dated 24 August 2010 included the Komatsu D-155A with [P]837,277.00 as monthly rental rate. Respondent assert[s] that said bulldozer was not on site. 

Respondent, on its part submitted a TABULATION OF THE LIST Of REQUIPMENT (sic) (based on the Certification dated December 6, 1996 vis-a-vis the monthly progress reports) of the same 17 units of equipment which excluded what it claimed as non-operational. In support of the Tabulation were monthly progress reports of the Resident Works Engineer listing the units of equipment at the site from February 1997 (Annex 3-C) to March 1998 (Annex3-B), except for the months of March and September 1997. 

Although it is noted that these Tabulation and supporting monthly reports were not among the records of this case and should not be considered, as argued by the Claimant, it has been earlier held by this Tribunal that this would unduly constrict the power of this Tribunal to do what the Supreme Court has directed it to do. 

It is noted that the list of equipment cited by the Supreme Court includes 1 bulldozer as of December 1996 when Claimant Uy mobilized his equipment. Although the delay is from February 1997, there is no evidence submitted by Respondent to show that said bulldozer was pulled out of site. The presumption that it was on site must prevail without such contravening evidence. 

Among the evidence submitted is Annex 8-D of Respondent's Project Manager's Affidavit, Jaime R. Millan wherein the following appears at the bottom of the document:

"EDC also has on site a Caterpillar D-5. It is our belief that the D-5 was used for landscaping works since the Komatsu D-155A-3 is too large for the job."

The rental for the smaller bulldozer is [P]615,807.00, not [P] 837,277.00 which is for the larger one. Thus, the Claimant is credited For the rental of the smaller bulldozer for the period of delay, for a total award of [P]11,207,687.00. 

Although the Tribunal had noted the generosity of the Respondent in allowing more units and the corresponding costs than what Claimant had asked for, the Tribunal cannot be as generous. It can only grant relief in the amount being claimed. This refers to the items related to pay loader and concrete mixer. Thus, in calculating this matter, the claim for idle time for these two equipment will be used, not the generous amount calculated by Respondent. 

As the record shows that the backhoe, the number on site is only 2. The claim, however, is for 3. Thus, only two (2) is allowed for [P] 9,136,400.00. The reduced amount results in a difference of [P] 4,568,200.00 which must be deducted from Claimant's claims. 

Further, the record shows that only one (1) welding machine was on site but Claimant claims 2. Thus, only 1 is allowed for [P] 153,189.00. The reduced amount results in a difference of one-half of that claimed. Said amount must, therefore, be deducted from Claimant's claims. 

The sum of all the foregoing changes is that this Arbitral Tribunal finds that Claimant is entitled for cost of idled equipment in the total amount of [P]62,967,021.00. To be deducted from this amount is the item of equipment which under Claimant's Exhibit C-1, was under repair for a period of seven (7) days, as follows:   

Backhoe
[P] 58[,]566.69
 
Concrete Mixer
5,432.00
  
Dump Truck 
70,706.37
  
Jack Hammer
4,201.40
  
 
___________
  
TOTAL
[P]138,506.46
 

It is accordingly the HOLDING of this Arbitral Tribunal that Claimant is entitled to be paid the net amount of [P]62,828,515.00  as the cost of idled equipment.[21]  (citations omitted)

This Court is also in accord with the CIAC�s holding to deduct the amount of P19,604,132.06 from the award of P62,828,515.00 corresponding to the cost of idle time of equipment. PEA paid Uy the arbitral award pursuant to the CIAC�s May 16, 2000 decision and the payment already included the amount of P19,604,132 as cost of idle time of equipment. This Court agrees with the CIAC�s explanation in the latter�s October 14, 2010 Order[22]  that the sum should cover the cost of idle time of equipment both by reason of the reduction of work area and the delay in the turn over of work area. To do otherwise would be tantamount to allowing undue hairsplitting distinctions. Besides, the CIAC, which had evaluated the evidence before it, had the best opportunity to assess the correct computation of the cost of idle time of equipment. We now find no sufficient reason to overturn CIAC�s findings.

Further, Uy accepted PEA�s payments made on October 12, 2010, October 15, 2010 and November 10, 2010. The Total amount already tendered was P76,302,361.14 corresponding to the net amount due as cost of idle time of equipment and interests.

We also find no merit in Uy's repeated prayer for the lifting of the injunction issued relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001. In our June 8, 2009 Decision, we emphasized that there is only a single cause of action running through CIAC Case Nos. 03-2001 and 02-2000, to wit, Uy's claimed rights under the Landscaping and Construction Agreement. We previously denied Uy's Motion for Reconsideration on the matter and we are surprised that Uy prays for a contrary outcome in his repetitive motions for clarification. Clearly, Uy's plea for the lifting of the injunction in CIAC Case No. 03-2001 is nothing less but a second motion for reconsideration, which Section 2,[23] Rule 52 of the Rules of Court prohibits.cralaw

WHEREFORE, Uy's motion for clarification, amended motion for clarification and supplement to amended motion for clarification are DENIED. The CIAC's October 14, 2010 Order is AFFIRMED. The permanent injunction issued relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001 STANDS. Let no further pleadings be entertained. [Carpio, J., recused himself from the case due to close relation to a counsel representing one of the parties; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per raffle dated December 15, 2010.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 1199-1208.

[2] Id. at 1265-1275. 

[3] Id. at 1449-1463. 

[4] Id. at 1377-1389. 

[5] Id. at 263-318. 

[6] Id. at 317-318. 

[7] Id. at 1065-1066. 

[8] Id. at 1067-1068. 

[9] Id. at 1069-1070. 

[10] id. al 1046-1084, 1061. 

[11] Id. at 101-117. 

[12] Id. at 974-996. 

[13] Id. at 997-1024. 

[14] Id. at 1151-1158. 

[15] Id. at 1249-1256. 

[16] Id. at 1257-1258. 

[17] Id. at 1258. 

[18] Id. at 1257-1260. 

[19] Id. at 1258-1259. 

[20] Id. at 1249-1256. 

[21] Id. at 1251-1256. 

[22] Supra note 18. 

[23] Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.




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-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 191397 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME GARCIA

  • [G.R. No. 197364 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUIS ALIGUYON A.K.A. "AGLIPAY"

  • [G.R. No. 190772 : February 01, 2012] JULIE [JULIA] PEREZ-SILVA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RAQUEL N. PEREZ v. DOLORES MATA-PEDONG, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, PRIMITIVO A. PEDONG.

  • [G.R. No. 199350 : February 01, 2012] PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (PSCEU) VS. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR LABOR RELATIONS, PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION (PSC), PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC), AND SKYWAY O AND M CORPORATION.

  • [G.R. No. 199292 : February 01, 2012] LEONARDO A. AURELIO VS. BUN SIONG YAO, MARIA VICTORIA L. YAO AND REYNALDO TAY

  • [G.R. No. 199468 : February 01, 2012] BENJAMIN PAYUMO AND RICARDO LUCIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JAIME APARIS, REYNALDO APARIS AND AQUILINA APARIS

  • [G.R. No. 197040 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALYN MANATAD Y GAVIOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196963 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. ANA ESTRELLA Y SAPAFO

  • [G.R. No. 199289 : February 06, 2012] HILARIO P. SORIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199429 : February 06, 2012] EDWIN DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 169905 : February 06, 2012] ST. PAUL COLLEGE QUEZON CITY, SR. LILIA THERESE TOLENTINO, SPC, SR. BERNADETTE RACADIO, SPC, AND SR. SARAH MANAPOL, SPC v. REMIGIO MICHAEL A. ANCHETA II AND CYNTHIA A. ANCHETA

  • [G.R. No. 198567 : February 06, 2012] ARTURO S. HERRERA v. LIBERTAD TOURIST DEVELOPMENT, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198319 : February 06, 2012] CITY OF CEBU v. APOLONIO M. DEDAMO, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 198966 : February 06, 2012] SPS. BENSON KWAN AND LOLITA KWAN, AND JOHN DOE, PETITIONERS - VERSUS - PHILAM SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 198021 : February 06, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUDY GUILLERO Y QUIVIDO @ VERGEL.

  • [G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : February 06, 2012] ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

  • [A.M. No. 14165-Ret. : February 07, 2012] RE: RESUMPTION OF PRO-RATA PENSION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE URBANO C. VICTORIO, SR., RTC, BRANCH 50, MANILA, JUDGE GERONIMO S. MANGAY, RTC, BRANCH 126, CALOOCAN CITY, JUDGE FERNANDO P. CABATO, RTC, BRANCH 62, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, JUDGE BLAS O. CAUSAPIN, JR., RTC, BRANCH 32, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, JUDGE AVELINO A. LAZO, RTC, BRANCH 75, OLONGAPO CITY, JUDGE MULRY P. MENDEZ, RTC, BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY, JUDGE JESUSA G. PEREZ, MTC, TANDAG, SURIGAO DEL SUR, AND JUDGE JUAN A. DULFO, MCTC, DARRAM-ZUMARRAGA, SAMAR

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3000 : February 07, 2012] ARTHUR M. GABON v. REBECCA P. MERKA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LILOAN, SOUTHERN LEYTE

  • [G.R. No. 176830 : February 07, 2012] SATURNINO OCAMPO v. JUDGE EPHREM ABANDO, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 183711 : February 07, 2012] EDITA T. BURGOS, PETITIONER -VERSUS- 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, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 09-11-11-CA : February 07, 2012] RE: 2009 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.M. No. 00-3-48-MeTC : February 07, 2012] RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE METC, BRANCH 2, MANILA

  • [G.R. No. 189155 : February 07, 2012] IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS, PETITIONER, - VERSUS - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAMES DEX, RC AND ROSE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193909 : February 07, 2012] HABER ASARUL v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND GULAM S. HATAMAN

  • [G.R. No. 199979 : February 07, 2012] MANOLITO A. AGLIPAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LEO BULOS

  • [G.R. No. 199459 : February 08, 2012] ROSARIO V. GONZALES v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • [A.C. No. 7572 : February 08, 2012] CORNELIO P. PELAEZ VS. ATTY. ROBERTO B. AWID

  • [G.R. No. 198101 : February 08, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODIL BORILLO Y MEDINA

  • [G.R. No. 196257 : February 08, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FAIZAL ASKALANI Y SULDANI AND ALFREDO DUNGGUN Y SALID, A. K. A. "FREDO"

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2956 : February 08, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT v. SULPICIO I. ANACAYA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CARAGA-MANAY-TARRAGONA, DAVAO ORIENTAL, RESPONDENT [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 11-6-58-MCTC (RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SULPICIO I. ANACAYA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CARAGA-MANAY-TARRAGONA, DAVAO ORIENTAL)

  • [G.R. No. 186607 : February 08, 2012] PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 182665 : February 08, 2012] ESTRELLA GONZALES-MEDRANO AND ASTERIO GONZALES v. FELICIANO QUETUA, PEDRO QUETUA, AND GONZALO CAPINPIN

  • [G.R. No. 192112 : February 08, 2012] ELIZABETH B. RAMOS, MANUEL F. TOCAO, JOSE F. TOCAO, LEYMIN CARI�O, LONICITA MORILLA, GIL EDEJER, RODOLFO F. TOCAO, FLORENCIO O. SAPONG, VICENTE G. MAGDADARO, HEIRS OF OSMUNDO N. TOCAO, HEIRS OF MAXIMO CABONITA, HEIRS OF EVARISTO GUARIN, HEIRS OF GENARO ALCANTARA, HEIRS OF GENOVEVA SARONA, HEIRS OF LEO CABALLERO, HEIRS OF GAUDIOSO LASCU�A, HEIRS OF TOMAS F. TOCAO, HEIRS OF TEODOLFO N. TOCAO, HEIRS OF FIDELINA C. FERENAL, HEIRS OF FELICISIMO AQUINO, HEIRS OF ISAAC GEMPEROA, HEIRS OF EUSTAQUIO CELEN, HEIRS OF JUAN RESGONIA, HEIRS OF DIOSDADO FEROLIN, HEIRS OF DIONESIO MORILLA, HEIRS OF DOMINADOR MANINGO, HEIRS OF CRISTOBAL JABILLO, HEIRS OF CELSO BUCAYONG, HEIRS OF QUINTIN NORO, ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT KORONADO B. APUZEN, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP), QUEEN ROSE T. CABIGAS, MEL ADRIAN T. CABIGAS, IRISH JOY T. CABIGAS, DYANNE GRACES T. CABIGAS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER LEA T. CABIGAS; IRANN PAUL S. TENORIO, NOREEN S. TENORIO, PRINCE JOHN S. TENORIO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PARENTS NELMAR B. TENORIO AND NORABEL S. TENORIO; JOAN MAE C. BUMA-AT, REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS, JUN ANTHONY BUMA-AT; RONEL B. REGIDOR, GLENN S. ADLAWAN; REGINA B. PATRICIO, AND BRIANIE T. PASANDALAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 ; February 08, 2012] SULPICIO LINES, INC. AND SOLID TOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. 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.

  • [G.R. No. 198129 : February 08, 2012] GERUNDINO E. CANTILLEP, FRANCISCO BARTOLATA, ELPEDIO JORDAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES NUMERIANO VALENCIA AND LORENZA P. VALENCIA, REP. BY CRISTINA ANTONIA VALENCIA

  • [G.R. No. 199724 : February 13, 2012] APOLINARIO VENTURA v. FLORENCIA VENTURA, AS REPRESENTED BY LEONORA V. GARCIA

  • [February 14, 2012] IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AND THE ATTENDANCE OF COURT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES AS WITNESSES UNDER THE SUBPOENAS OF FEBRUARY 10, 2012 AND THE VARIOUS LETTERS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTION PANEL DATED JANUARY 19 AND 25, 2012.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-01-CA : February 14, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF JUSTICE JOSEFINA GUEVARRA-SALONGA, COURT OF APPEALS, REGARDING HER INTENTION TO PURCHASE HER SERVICE VEHICLE AND A LAPTOP ON HER RETIREMENT

  • [A.M. No. 14172-Ret. : February 14, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MR. BIENVENIDO E. SOMERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE CORONA I. SOMERA

  • [G.R. No. 188852 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. MERVIN MAGLALANG Y LAGMAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185498 : February 15, 2012] PROGRESSIVE MASON CLUB, INC. AND/OR JAMES GO LEE, PETITIONERS, VERSUS MYRNA DIAZ MAGSINO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 155900 : February 15, 2012] ROMEO B. DACLAN, PETITIONER v. THE HON. JUDGE SALVADOR S. ABAD SANTOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 143, MAKATI CITY AND EDWIN F. FUNTANILLA, RONNIE T. SANTAYO, NORIEL M. MERCENE, BENJAMIN J. ANDRIN, JR., DOMINGO C. CAMANIA, RODOLFO B. ADAPTAR, MICHAEL M. JUBILADO, ISRAEL D. DICON, AND ALONZO V. LASCANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176383 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. FLORDELIZA LADORES SUERTE-FELIPE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 196683 : February 15, 2012] ESPERANZA A. HIPONA, BRAULIO D. HIPONA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, SERGIA ABRAGAN, ET. AL.

  • [G.R. No. 188700 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JOSELITO ROXAS Y VIROSEL, ACCUSED- APPELLANT.

  • [G. R. No. 197830 : February 15, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION XI

  • [G.R. No. 198118 : February 20, 2012] RENEW VENTURES INC. /MR. AND MRS. JOSE M. DE GUZMAN/JESSELYN JANITORIAL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES CO., ET AL. v. LARRY D. MORADA, ALAN D. ANGELES, JAIME D. ANGELES, JR., ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 198559 : February 21, 2012] ARSENIA J. LIM VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND DESIREE S. EDORA.

  • [G.R. No. 200350 : February 21, 2012] AMINA HARAIN ABDURAHMAN, MARWA C. SIDDIK AND JASIYA JANA KASARAN v. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF LT. JESSIE D. DELLOSA AND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ISAFP) CHIEF BRIGADIER GENERAL CESAR RONNIE ORDOYO

  • [A.M. No. 14186-Ret. : February 21, 2012] RE: ACCREDITATION OF SERVICE AND APPLICATION FOR RESUMPTION OF PENSION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946, JUDGE LEONARDO P. REYES, RTC, BRANCH 31, MANILA

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2287 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-11391-MTC) : February 21, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. MARCELA v. SANTOS, CLERK OF COURT II, MTC, SAN LEONARDO, NUEVA ECIJA

  • [A.M. No. 09-10-424-RTC : February 21, 2012] RE: CREATION OF ADDITIONAL REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCHES IN BATAAN TO BE STATIONED IN BALANGA CITY, MARIVELES AND DINALUPIHAN

  • [G.R. No. 193836 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ALENXANDER DASICO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191758 : February 22, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FRANCISCO PREMISTA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 197983 : February 22, 2012] SPOUSES CAYETANO AND FLORA MONDOY v. LILIBETH, RHODORA AND ALEJANDRO, JR., ALL SURNAMED MONTANER

  • [G.R. No. 199888 : February 22, 2012] VIOL OROSIO (OROSIO) A.K.A. VIOL/VIOLI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173468 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LOUIE CHUA Y WICO

  • [G.R. No. 200208 : February 22, 2012] AARON NATHAN Q. IFURUNG, ASSISTED BY REY NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG v. MRS. AMY C. GALANG AND/OR MRS. FELIZ FILOMENA O. CASTILLO AND LA SALLE GREENHILLS

  • [G.R. No. 195420 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUSIMO MALLO ALIAS "LILOY"

  • [G.R. No. 169142 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ENRICO DALUSONG Y MACALANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.C. No. 7390 : February 27, 2012] NEHEMY MORAN, PETITIONER, VERSUS ATTY. PERCY M. MORON, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171282 : February 27, 2012] SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCLARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CEASAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DE LOS REYES, NOMER MA�AGO, ANTONIO BALUDCAL, LUDOVICO STA. CLARA, RESPONDENT. [ G.R. NO. 183484. FEBRUARY 27, 2012 ] SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CESAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DELOS REYES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3046 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3707-P) : February 27, 2012] ACTING JUDGE GAEL P. PADERANGA v. LUZVIMINDA G. HERNANDEZ, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BUENAVISTA, AGUSAN DEL NORTE

  • [G.R. No. 194289 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO ZACARIAS Y ULANDAY

  • [G.R. No. 200397 : February 27, 2012] ACE PROMOTION & MARKETING CORPORATION V. ROSALIA M. ROMAN

  • [G.R. No. 195532 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY BACANI Y MARTIN

  • [A.M. No. 12534-Ret. : February 28, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF FORMER COURT ADMINISTRATOR ERNANI CRUZ PA�O FOR PAYMENT OF PENSION AS RETIRED COURT ADMINISTRATOR [QUERY OF FORMER COURT ADMINISTRATOR ERNANI CRUZ PA�O ON THE AMOUNT OF HIS MONTHLY PENSION]

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-16-MTC : February 28, 2012] RE: CONVERSION OF THE MTC, BI�AN, LAGUNA INTO MTCC, CITY OF BI�AN, LAGUNA

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-128-MTC : February 28, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD SALARIES OF MS. EUGENIA G. UY, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, TUPI, SOUTH COTABATO

  • [G.R. No. 154472 : February 28, 2012] ALEXANDER R. LOPEZ, ET AL. v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM

  • [G.R. No. 196430 : February 29, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARVILOUS FRANCISCO

  • [G.R. No. 187110 : February 29, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL GUARD PROTECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. PABLO M. ASTEO

  • [A.C. No. 2983 : February 29, 2012] LOURDES CORRES v. ATTY. JUAN A. ABAYA, JR.

  • [A.C. No. 9164 (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2252) : February 29, 2012] ATTY. ANGELITO W. CHUA v. ATTY. REY NATHANIEL IFURUNG.

  • [A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC : February 21, 2012] RE: GUIDELINES FOR LITIGATION IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS

  • [G.R. No. 195242 : February 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS JOEL DELA PE�A Y IBAY