Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > January 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 175611 : January 16, 2012] ENCARNACION M. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. RODRIGO T. POSADAS :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175611 : January 16, 2012]

ENCARNACION M. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. RODRIGO T. POSADAS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 January 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 175611 (Encarnacion M. dela Cruz, et al. v. Rodrigo T. Posadas*). - This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated August 15, 2006, dismissing the petition for certiorari, and the Resolution[2] dated November 27, 2006, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.

This case originated from a complaint for recovery of ownership filed by petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union (RTC). Respondent was declared in default; hence, petitioners were allowed to present evidence ex parte. On February 28, 1991, the RTC issued an Order which read as follows: 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Deed of Absolute Sale is hereby ordered ANNULLED. Plaintiffs are hereby directed to return to defendant the total amount P21,300.00 Philippine currency, representing the partial payment of the land upon payment of which the Transfer Certificate of Title subject of this complaint would be cancelled. 

SO ORDERED.[3]

On May 6, 1993, petitioners filed their first Motion for Consignation, stating therein that �[s]aid decision had long become final and executory." On July 6, 1993, the RTC issued the following Order:

Today the Motion for Consignation came up for hearing. Atty. Diosdado V. Calonge appeared for the Movant. However, the Defendant Rodrigo Posadas moved for Postponement praying that he be given a period of Thirty (30) days from today within which to locate a certain Atty. Zenaida Abegania who is in possession of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-18846. Atty. Calonge interposed no objection provided that after the lapse of [the] Thirty (30)-day period and the Defendant will not be able to produce the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-18846, he will be constrained to pray the Court for the cancellation of TCT No. T-18846 issued in the name of defendant and to issue another in favor of the Plaintiffs. 

The Court (sic) is hereby ordered the Defendant to exert effort to produce said Certificate of Title. 

SO ORDERED.

Upon both parties' motion, the RTC then issued the Order[4] dated August 12, 1993, ordering petitioners to consign the amount of P23,300.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Agoo, La Union. This directive was reiterated by the RTC in its Order[5] dated June 24, 1996. All those court orders were not complied with by petitioners, who only acted on their case, again by filing the Second Motion for Consignation on October 25, 2005.

On November 8, 2005, the RTC issued the assailed Order, the dispositive portion of which reads: 

WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Consignation is hereby DENIED as it amounts to a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, something that has gone very stale. 

Atty. Diosdado Calonge may withdraw the amount of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P23,300.00) from the office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Agoo, La Union. 

SO ORDERED.[6]

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the foregoing Order which was opposed by respondent. On December 29, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration and maintaining its Order dated November 8, 2005.

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the second motion for consignation had gone stale, because the "RTC's Order dated February 28, 1991 had not yet become final as the decision was conditional on the payment of the P23,300.00. On August 15, 2006, the CA promulgated the Decision subject of the present petition for review on certiorari, ruling that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying the Second Motion for Consignation. The CA pointed out that the RTC Order, which petitioners are seeking to be enforced, became final and executory sometime in March 1991 and, thus, petitioners only had five (5) years therefrom, or until March 1996, within which to seek execution by mere motion. Hence, at the time of filing of the Second Motion for Consignation on October 25, 2005, more than five years have elapsed and so the RTC Order had been reduced to a mere right of action.

In the present petition with this Court, petitioners again allege that the RTC, affirmed by the CA, incorrectly held that the RTC Order could no longer be enforced by mere motion. They argue that the RTC decision has not yet attained finality as the same was conditional on the payment of P23,300.00 to respondent as ordered by the court. In addition, petitioners allege that the RTC decision did not become final and executory due to the absence of notice that the decision had been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments; and that it is the respondent who should have filed a motion for execution for it was in his interest to be paid the P23,300.00.

The petition is doomed to fail.

Petitioners' arguments are tenuous at best. The main argument that the RTC decision did not attain finality has no leg to stand on.

The cases cited by petitioners, i.e., Cu Unjieng e Hijos v. Mabalacat Sugar Co.[7]  and Ignacio v. Hilario,[8]  discuss the effects of judgments conditioned upon a contingency, or judgments which leave matters to be settled for its completion. In said cases, the Court held that such judgments or orders are erroneous for they contain no disposition at all, and thus, they are null and void, for the judgment cannot have any effect until the contingency or condition is fulfilled. If petitioners insist that the RTC Order dated February 28, 1991 is a conditional one, then the entire judgment is deemed null and void, including the declaration of the nullity of the Deed of Sale, adjudging them to be owners of the subject property. In line with the cases cited by petitioners, whatever declaration the court made regarding their case has no effect until the supposed conditions are fulfilled. This scenario would be fatal to petitioners' cause, as this would mean there was practically no judgment at all rendered by the trial court and ownership over the subject property would still be in question.

Fortunately for petitioners, the RTC Order dated February 28, 1991 is not a conditional one. It completely disposed of the matters at hand, leaving nothing else for its completion. It definitively ruled on the issue of ownership over the land in favor of petitioners and clearly set forth the amount that petitioners should return to respondent. The decision finally disposed of the parties� rights and nothing was left unsettled. The RTC issued a perfectly valid judgment; hence, its finality came as a matter of course when, as revealed by the records, none of the herein parties moved for reconsideration thereof, or appealed therefrom, within the time provided for in the Rules of Court. Clearly, the argument that the RTC Order of February 28, 1991 did not attain finality because petitioners did not "fulfill" the "condition" that they pay respondent the sum of P23,300.00, has no legal basis whatsoever.

Moreover, petitioners are now estopped from claiming that the RTC judgment has not attained finality, for they themselves admitted such fact in their Motion for Consignation[9] dated May 4, 1993, by stating therein that �[s]aid decision had long become final and executory," and by seeking execution, praying that an order be issued directing the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. T-18846. In respondent Posadas' Manifestation-Motion[10] dated August 6, 1993, he manifested his willingness to abide by the court's order for him to surrender the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-18846 once the amount of P23,300.00 is consigned by petitioners. Thus, upon both parties' motion, the RTC issued the Order[11]  dated August 12, 1993, ordering petitioners to consign the amount of P23,300.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Agoo, La Union. This directive was reiterated by the RTC in its Order[12] dated June 24, 1996. All those court Orders were not complied with by petitioners, who only acted on their case again by filing the Second Motion for Consignation on October 25, 2005, or almost nine long years after the last Order issued by the RTC.

In Arra Realty Corporation v. Paces Industrial Corporation,[13] the Court reiterated that �[t]he finality of decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the party." There is no question whatsoever that the RTC Order dated February 28, 1991 has attained finality, and by the time petitioners filed said Second Motion for Consignation, the judgment can only be enforced by independent action, no longer by mere motion, in accordance with Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides, thus: 

SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.

The next question then is, when was the date of its entry, from which the five-year period should be counted? Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court provides that "[t]he date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of entry x x x." As stated by the RTC in its Order[14] dated November 8, 2005, its judgment became final and executory on March 15, 1991. Said date, therefore, is also deemed to be the date of entry of the RTC Order dated February 28, 1991, from which the five (5)-year period should be counted. Petitioners incorrectly argue that it is the old provisions of the Rules of Court, stating that �[t]he recording of the judgment or order shall constitute the entry," which should be applied in this case. It has long been established that procedural rules have retroactive effect. The Court expounded on the retroactive effect of procedural rules in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals,[15]  to wit: 

x x x Elementary is the rule in this jurisdiction that one does not have a vested right in procedural rules, thus:

Statutes regulating the procedure of courts will be considered as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from procedural laws. It has been held that "a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure. (Emphasis ours.)[16]

The last argument raised by petitioners, that it was respondent who should have moved for execution of the RTC Order, is of no moment. Whether it is the petitioners or respondent who moves for execution has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether said order can still be enforced by mere motion. The five (5)-year prescriptive period for seeking execution by mere motion runs against both parties.cralaw

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., no part; Reyes, J., designated additional member per raffle dated January 11, 2012)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

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

Endnotes:


* The Court of Appeals and the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 31) of Agoo, La Union are deemed dropped as respondents in accordance with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which states that the petition shall not implead the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents. None of the parties moved for new trial or reconsideration of the afore-quoted Older.

[1] Penned by then Court of Appeals Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Associate Justice); with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring. 

[2] Id. 

[3] Records, p. 116. 

[4] Id. at 128. 

[5] Id. at 156. 

[6] Id. at 172. 

[7] 70 Phil. 380 (1940). 

[8] 76 Phil. 605 (1946). 

[9] Records, pp. 117-118. 

[10] Id. at 125. 

[11] Id. at 128. 

[12] Id. at 156. 

[13] G.R. No. 169701, December 1, 2010, 636 SCRA 339, 345. 

[14] Records, pp. 166-172; 172. 

[15] G.R. No. 131175, August 28, 2001, 363 SCRA 779. 

[16] Id. at 787.




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






January-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 199311 : January 16, 2012] CROSS COUNTRY OIL AND PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ALELI A. ARELLANO AND JEROME D. CA�ADA V. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL [AMLC]

  • [G.R. No. 195376 : January 16, 2012] SERGIO RA�A V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187691 : January 16, 2012] OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC. v. ALLAN LAPASTORA AND IRENE UBALUBAO

  • [G.R. No. 196712 : January 16, 2012] FLORENTINA SAMOY, LUISA SAMOY, EDUARDO SAMOY AND GERARDA SAMOY-NOQUILLO v. JUDGE MERVIN JOVITO S. SAMADAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF ALCALA, PANGASINAN, AND EFREN PEREZ Y GONZALES

  • [G.R. No. 188084 : January 16, 2012] RICARDO J.M. RIVERA v. PATRICIA F. PEREZ

  • [G.R. No. 198690 : January 16, 2012] EMMANUEL BERNABE v. RODOLFO "RUDY" CAOILI

  • [G.R. No. 198725 : January 16, 2012] J-PHIL MARINE, INC., AKRON TRADE AND TRANSPORT, ET AL. v. DOUGLAS S. LONGNO

  • [G.R. No. 199159 : January 16, 2012] ACD INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCY, INC., AND ALFONSO C. DILLA v. ROSENDO TOLEDO, MARIO GREGORIO, ABEL MACABALHIN, JERWIN MINTU, EDWIN ARICA, EDWARD CUSTODIO, ROMEO BOAYA, SANDY BOBADILLA, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, ARIES ARIAS, MELANIO TOLEDO AND RANDY JOYA

  • [G.R. No. 180644 : January 16, 2012] HON. VEDASTO B. MARCO, AS THE PAIRING JUDGE OF BRANCH 42, RTC MANILA, CARLOS RUBI AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL.

  • [G.R. No. 199602 : January 16, 2012] MERIDIAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INC. AND CLEOFE S. JANIOLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. ALPIO AND EDELYN CABARRUBIAS, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 199167 : January 16, 2012] FRANCISCO CARAS & FELIPE CABANGANAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 198740 : January 16, 2012] STARLUBE CORPORATION v. SEA ESCAPE SHIPPING

  • [G.R. No. 175611 : January 16, 2012] ENCARNACION M. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. RODRIGO T. POSADAS

  • [A.M. No. 01-2-18-MTC : January 17, 2012] RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS OF BANI, ALAMINOS AND LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. 14135-Ret. : January 17, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SANTIAGO M. BELTRAN, RTC, BR. 24, CABANATUAN CITY, MS. ROSITA M. MANALO-BELTRAN; JUDGE PETER L. AMORA, MCTC, ALICIA-MABINI, BOHOL, MS. JUANITA M. PLAZA-AMORA; JUDGE RAYMUNDO v. SEVA, RTC, BR. 38, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, MS. FE S. RICAFORT-SEVA; JUDGE MELECIO L. YAP, MCTC, PINTUYAN-SAN RICARDO, SOUTHERN LEYTE, MRS. HERMINIA T. TIMARIO-YAP; AND JUDGE EDGAR D. GUSTILO, RTC, BR. 28, ILOILO CITY, MS. MA REGINA JEAN M. JALANDONI-GUSTILO

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-329-RTC : January 17, 2012] RE: CREATION OF FIVE [5] ADDITIONAL BRANCHES OF THE RTC IN ALABEL, SARANGANI

  • [G.R. No. 155027 : January 17, 2012] THE VETERANS FEDERATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ESMERALDO R. ACORDA VS. HON. ANGELO T. REYES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 190524 : January 17, 2012] MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS VS. PATRICIA B. MONAYAO

  • [G.R. No. 191787 : January 17, 2012] MACARIO CATIPON, JR. VS. JEROME JAPSON

  • [G.R. No. 199802 : January 17, 2012] CONGRESSMAN HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS, MAYOR EFREN B. DIONA, MAYOR ANTONINO A. AURELIO, KAGAWAD MARIO ILAGAN, BARANGAY CHAIR PERLITO MANALO, BARANGAY CHAIR MEDEL MEDRANO, BARANGAY KAGAWAD CRIS RAMOS, BARANGAY KAGAWAD ELISA D. BALBAGO AND ATTY. JOSE MALVAR VILLEGAS VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SECRETARY CESAR PURISIMA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARY FLORENCIO H. ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, COMMISSIONER KIM JACINTO-HENARES, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND NATIONAL TREASURER ROBERTO TAN, BUREAU OF TREASURY

  • [G.R. No. 198890 : January 17, 2012] MARIA TERESA S. BONDOC, ET AL. VS. HON. RAMON J.P. PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 176830 : January 17, 2012] SATURNINO OCAMPO v. JUDGE EPHREM ABANDO, ET AL.

  • [A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-194-CA-J : January 17, 2012] EDGARDO M. RICO, COMPLAINANT, VERSUS JUSTICE EDGARDO T. LLOREN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165806 : January 17, 2012] KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO (KAMPI), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL. AND G.R. NO. 165807 (KABALIKAT NG MALAYANG PILIPINO (KAMPI), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL. V. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 179188 : January 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FELIX ESPIRITU @ "BALOT," DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 193422-24 : January 18, 2012] RUBEN B. ECLEO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 194229 : January 18, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS WILSON GAMEZ Y BULAWAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193923 : January 18, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ARLY RESTUM Y RAQUID, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 197724 : January 18, 2012] JESUS SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, GERARDO V. MUNDA AND NILO L. PACHECO.

  • [G.R. No. 199259 : January 18, 2012] EVELYN LAMANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DANIEL G. MACATLANG, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 199286 : January 18, 2012] MAXIMUM SECURITY AND SERVICES CORP./MR. VIRGILIO GONZALES v. NESTOR C. FONTANILLA

  • [G.R. No. 199273 : January 18, 2012] HEIRS OF JULIA BALDEVIA, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY TIRSO E. ARDON, AND JUAN BALDEVIA, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY FRANCISCO N. ESCARLAN INSTEAD OF NENA B. BALDEVIA v. DOMINGA ARDON, FLORENCIA CABUAY AND DONATELA GALERO SABIDAL

  • [G.R. No. 199137 : January 18, 2012] BRITOIL OFFSHORE PHILIPPINES, INC., EDGAR A. PASCUAL, AND NIMSA CREWSHIP SOLUTIONS, LIMITED v. RICARDO B. NI�OFRANCO

  • [G.R. No. 199244 : January 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JEFFREY ORTILE Y REBUA

  • [G.R. No. 190274 : January 18, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HEIRS OF LORETO LAZATIN NAMELY: CARMELO F. LAZATIN AND VICTORIA L. ANGELES

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2274 : January 18, 2012] LAARNI FABELLA TAGNONG v. JUDGE RUTH D. CRUZ-SANTOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72, ANTIPOLO CITY

  • [G.R. No. 195713 : January 18, 2012] MARGINITO A. MOVIDO VS. SPOUSES JOSELITO AND LUZMINIA PASCUAL, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE

  • [G.R. No. 191334 : January 18, 2012] ERNESTO FIGUEROA, ARMANDO FIGUEROA, THE HEIRS OF LEONILA FIGUEROA, NAMELY, SARAH JANE COBB-ESTEVIS, RUBY ANGELINE COBB-AGUILAR, HELEN GRACE COBB-CAMPOS, ALLAN FRANK F. COBB AND JAMES ARTHUR F. COBB, ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN FACT, ATTY. JULIO H. OZAMIZ; AND PURIFICACION FIGUEROA-TIONGSON AND AMELIA FIGUEROA ANGELES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JAIME F. TIONGSON VS. SPOUSES LEONARDO B. FIGUEROA AND JULIANA V. FIGUEROA, INSULAR BAKERY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY

  • [G.R. No. 191725 : January 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN MERCA Y BORELA @ "BENTOT"

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2409 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2322-P) : January 24, 2012] RUFINA CHUA VS. ELEANOR A. SORIO, CLERK OF COURT, METC, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY

  • [A.M. No. 14144-Ret. : January 24, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE FLORANTE S. ABASOLO, JUDGE DANIEL P. ALFONSO, JUDGE RENO R. GONZALES, JUDGE MANUEL E. AUTAJAY, JUDGE ALEJO G. ROLA, JUDGE RICARDO F. TORNILLA, JUDGE EDGAR N. ALBA, JUDGE JACINTO J. PE�AFLOR AND JUDGE MIRARDO R. ARMEA

  • [G.R. No. 197311 : January 24, 2012] STRADCOM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO, PETITIONER, VERSUS HON. EDGAR DALMACIO SANTOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 222, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY VIRGINIA TORRES AND BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, REPRESENTING HIMSELF TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF STRADCOM CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197269 : January 24, 2012] DAVID E. SO V. HON. DINA PESTA�O TEVES AND NBI DIRECTOR MAGTANGGOL GATDULA

  • [G.R. No. 196519 : January 25, 2012] JEFFREY R. MEDINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188152 : January 25, 2012] ARTURO T. ESPEJO, SR. AND THE MEDICAL DEVICES INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED IN THIS INSTANCE BY DAUGHTER SHARRON E. MANZANO v. ANITA N. TY AND THE ALABANG MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION

  • [A.C. No. 6044 : January 25, 2012] ASUNCION R. ESPINOSA v. ATTY. WENCESLAO C. BARCELONA.

  • [G.R. No. 185603 : January 25, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA

  • [G.R. No. 179908 : January 25, 2012] CHRISTIAN PUA Y PARAISO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199235 : January 25, 2012] TESMA CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND TESMA SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED v. EDDIE C. TABULDAN

  • [G.R. No. 196965 : January 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JIMMY SO

  • [G.R. No. 173651 : January 25, 2012] CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. MARY ANN MONGCAL, GREGORIA/GLORIA YUSON, VICENTE LEGASPI, RAYMUNDO ASAR, LINET CRUZ, VICENTE DESALES, JOSEPH TUTOP, DANNY OBERIO, LUISITO VILLAMOR, JOSE ROBERTO REGALADO, RUFO DEITA, JR., ROUSINNI KIM HISONA, LOLITA CASTRO, ANANITA TANGENTE, EMILY DE GUZMAN, CAROLINA LADRILLO, WILMA SUGATON, ROSEBEL NARCISO AND ELNA DE PEDRO

  • [G.R. No. 197678 : January 25, 2012] A. GOLINGAN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ADRIANO GOLINGAN, JR. v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. AND THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 172296 : January 25, 2012] FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND/OR BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPOUSES ROMULO PLAZA AND WILMA PLAZA

  • [G.R. No. 195101 : January 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO JOSE Y FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 151993 : January 25, 2012] MARITIME FACTORS, INC. v. BIENVENIDO HINDANG

  • [G.R. No. 194374 : January 25, 2012] JOSE ALEJANDRO C. CRISOLOGO v. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JUSTO R. ORTIZ AND EDWIN R. BAUTISTA

  • [G.R. No. 177111 : January 30, 2012] MA. CRISTINA F. ASIS v. 680 HOME APPLIANCES

  • [G.R. No. 196576 : January 30, 2012] NAPOLEON M. CRUZ v. SPOUSES MARIANO BASISTER AND ANA BASISTER, AND IRENE ALEJANDRO

  • [G.R. No. 182717 : January 31, 2012] LEYMARS P. DECAP v. ROEL G. ENTOC AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 192987 : January 31, 2012] EDDIE U. TAMONDONG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; G.R. NO. 193327 (ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA-GARAFIL v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. AND SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE ANSELMO L. CADIZ); G.R. NO. 193519 (BAI OMERA D. DIANALAN-LUCMAN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.); G.R. NO. 193867 (ATTY. DINDO G. VENTURANZA, AS CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO v. OCHOA, JR., ET AL.); G.R. NO. 194135 (MANUEL D. ANDAL v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND JUNIO M. RAGRARIO); G.R. NO. 194398 (ATTY. CHARITO PLANAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., TOURISM SECRETARY ALBERTO A. LIM, & ATTY. APOLONIO B. ANOTA, JR.)

  • [G.R. No. 189631 : January 31, 2012] EPHRAIM OLIDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SATURNINO GUANGA

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2716 : January 31, 2012] TERESITA GUERRERO-BOYLON v. ANICETO BOYLES, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, CEBU CITY

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2229 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-7-460-RTC) : January 31, 2012] MARLYN M. OLAVIDES, RTC, BRANCH 5, DINALUPIHAN, BATAAN VS. JUDGE JOSE ENER S. FERNANDO, RTC, BRANCH 5, DINALUPIHAN, BATAAN

  • [A.M. No. 10-7-221-RTC January 31 : 2012] RE: REQUEST OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION, METROPOLITAN AND CITY JUDGES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE TRIAL JUDGES LEAGUE FOR FIFTEEN [15] DAYS VACATION LEAVE AS "WELLNESS PROGRAM" FOR TRIAL COURT JUDGES

  • [A.M. No. 12-1-14-SC : January 31, 2012] RE: PROCUREMENT OF GLOBAL DISTANCE LEARNING NETWORK [GDLN], GDLN/STRUCTURED CABLING AND ELECTRONIC COURT ROOM FOR THE PHILJA TRAINING CENTER

  • [A.C. No. 9339 : January 31, 2012] AGUSTIN S. SUNDIAM VS. ATTYS. EDWIN LACIERDA AND LEILA DE LIMA

  • [A.M. No. 12-1-06-RTC : January 31, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE BIENVENIDO M. MONTALLA, RTC, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, BILIRAN, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL IN HIS BEHALF IN CIVIL CASE NO. B-10-09-642, RTC, BRANCH 15, BURAUEN, LEYTE

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO