Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA :




EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012]

BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 6, 2012, which reads as follows:  cralaw

"A.C. NO. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores v. Atty. Enrique S. Chua)

RESOLUTION 

Before Us is the Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement dated October 24, 2011 interposed by respondent Atty. Enrique S. Chua in connection with the Decision of the Court dated April 30, 1999,[1] ordering his disbarment for grave misconduct.

As may be recalled, the Court sustained the finding of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Jaime Vibar, on the culpability of respondent for acts constituting grave misconduct. In particular, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of the following inculpating acts: forum shopping; committing falsehood; injurious, willful, and unprofessional conduct of publishing, or causing the publication, of a pending case in a newspaper of general circulation; causing undue delay in the court proceedings; and notarizing a document without the party being present. We reproduce excerpts of the investigative report of Atty. Vibar: 

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 

I. On the first charge (GROUND I) that respondent was guilty of fraud against a person in his deathbed by falsification and forgery of a deed of sale, there is no evidence that he actively conspired with any party, or actively participated, in the forgery of the signalize of one Chua Beng, a purported party to the contract. However, complainant's evidence supports the conclusion that the signature of Chua Beng on a Deed of Sale (Exhibit "E") was forged. While the wife, Silvina Chua, admits that she signed a document during the wake of her husband, she denies that her husband signed a "Deed of Sale" (ANNEX "E") on 5 December 1989, or one (1) day before her husband's death, concerning a property covered by TCTNo.T-151706. 

We find the testimony of the wife on the forgery, which is supported by a handwriting expert, as truthful and credible. We cannot ignore the circumstances of the execution of the said deed of sale which purports to have been signed by Chua Beng before a Notary Public one day before his death. We find the statement in the "Acknowledgment" appearing on the second page of the deed stating that Chua Beng personally appeared before the Notary Public is an untruthful statement that amounts to falsification. While we note that there is a criminal case of falsification pending against respondent (Criminal Case No. 12036), the lack of a decision from the trial court on the matter should not dissuade us from making a finding of liability in this administrative proceedings against respondent, as, in fact, we find respondent Chua failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to his office by attending to the fact that the alleged party, Chua Beng, appeared before him and signed the deed when in truth and in fact said person did not so participate in the execution thereof. Emphatically, this finding does not in any way preempt the trial court on whatever decision it will issue on the criminal cases against respondent Chua. 

II. We shall jointly discuss the second ground (Ground II) together with Ground VI, VI-A, VI-B, and VI-C, as said charges emanate from, or is related to, the filing of a case with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC Case No. 3328), involving the Uy family members and another case with the civil court (Case No. 95-9051) involving their properties. 

Complainant charges respondent Chua, under the second ground of her complaint, of foisting falsehood and falsified a document to obtain a notice of lis pendens. We find documentary evidence to sustain the conclusion that indeed a Notice of Lis Pendens was filed in relation to SEC Case No. 3328 (Exhibit "J", Annex "F", Complaint), to which was attached a copy of the Petition with page one thereof containing an apparent erasure to omit the statement that it is "For: Turn over of Books of Account, Sums of Money and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction". However, the Petition and the Notice of Lis Pendens have been prepared and executed by Ramon Encarnacion or his law firm. It does not appear from the documents, neither is there credible testimonial evidence, that respondent Chua directly participated in the unlawful acts complained of. The fact that respondent Chua was not the lawyer for the petitioners in the said SEC case is even admitted by complainant in her complaint (Complaint, paragraph 15, page 11). 

However, there is evidence that respondent Chua subsequently took action to appeal the denial by the Registry of Deeds of the application for the registration of the Notice of Lis Pendens to the Land Registration Commission, which eventually sustained the decision of the former, in a Resolution dated September 21, 1995, which denied the application on the ground that the real party in interest in the SEC case, the registered property owner SK Realty, Inc., was not impleaded in the suit. 

It also appears that respondent Chua filed a similar action in the civil court while the SEC case was pending adjudication, an action claimed to amount to forum shopping, intended to enable respondent's clients to annotate a notice of lis pendens on the titles of the properties which were the same subject of an earlier SEC petition and application for a notice of lis pendens. Respondent Chua cannot deny the institution of the civil complaint (Annex "Q", Complaint for Disbarment). The civil complaint, Civil Case No. 95-9051, shows that SK Realty, Inc., which was not a party in the SEC case, was impleaded this time as party plaintiff. The causes of action and the reliefs sought therein seem to differ from those stated in the SEC case. In the civil case, the plaintiffs seek judgment specifically as follows: 

x x x x 

We cannot, however, ignore the resolution of the trial court in Civil Case No. 95-9051 dated November 9, 1995, which found that while ostensibly the causes of action in the civil action is different from the SEC Case, it held that "in the final analysis the same x x x issues confront these cases." (Exhibit �P� at page 5) and it, therefore, concluded that respondent's clients were guilty of forum shopping. 

Indeed, while it would appear that respondent Chua was not the counsel of the petitioners in SEC CASE No. 3328, his action to have a notice of lis pendens annotated at the Register of Deeds and his appeal to the LRC indicate his clear knowledge of the pending action. Clearly, while there is no sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for the charge of committing fraud in the filing of notice of lis pendens in relation to the SEC case, or for falsification of page one of the SEC petition as attached to the notice, respondent not being privy thereto, we are not prepared, however, to say that he is "off the hook" on the forum shopping charge. As we have earlier pointed out, the pleadings in the SEC case and in Civil Case No. 95-9051, may appear to have different causes of action and parties. But here is the catch. The SEC rendered a decision, dated May 3, 1995, which directed, among others, the cancellation and annulment of "the transfer certificate of titles in the name of Soon Kee Commercial, Inc. if any, the certificate of titles in the name of SK Realty, Inc., if any, and the certificate of titles in the name of New Challenge Resources, if still there is, and all the properties formerly belonging to and in the name of UBS, presently totalling eight (8) lots TCT No. 141057, TCT No. 141058, TCT No. 141059, TCT No. 141060, TCT No. 141061, TCT No. 141062, TCT No. 141063, TCT No. 14106 and reverting them back to UBS Marketing Corporation." The Decision was published and even quoted in the Visayan daily Star, the issue of June 6, 1995, at respondent Chua's behest and expense. The decision was later appealed to the SEC Commission en banc. Respondent Chua was undoubtedly aware that white the SEC petition did not make any references to the real properties, the decision of the SEC gave reliefs in relation thereto. Therefore, when respondent filed a complaint, Civil Case No. 95-9051 (Annex "Q", Disbarment complaint), on September 18, 1995, he was aware that the forum shopping prohibition could be violated and yet he submitted a "Verification" in his civil complaint, which was for reconveyance and cancellation of titles, that there is no "'prior action or proceedings involving the same issues, as herein raised has been filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court or any other tribunal or agency." He knew that the controversy on the properties was pending with the SEC, or was pending appeal, initiated by SK Realty and New Challenge Resources, Inc., with the Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. No. 37541 and SEC Case No. 520]. The fact that the relief granted by the SEC gearing officer has not yet been set aside when respondent initiated the civil case and that he was aware of this fact should be enough reason for him to be made answerable for making false representation and forum shopping. It is also worth noting the fact that when the civil complaint was filed on September 18, 1995, the appeal in Consulta No. 2334, with respect to the Notice of Lis Pendens, was still unresolved. The decision of the LRC Administrator came only on September 21, 1995 (Annex "K", Disbarment Case). Ignorance of a pending action on the properties subject of the SEC case cannot, therefore, be invoked by respondent. Respondent is answerable for misconduct under Canon 12.02. 

III. On the third ground (Ground III, III-A and III-B) that respondent Chua caused the publication of new reports and paid advertisement/notice about the issuance of a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission, there is sufficient evidence to sustain complainant's charges. 

Undeniably, respondent Chua did not act as counsel for any of the parties in the SEC case, although it is safe to say that he represented some of the protagonist in other matters or cases. It is likewise undenied that the decision of the SEC hearing officer in Case No. 3328 was favorable to respondent Chua's clients. Respondent Chua, being a lawyer, should have known that the said decision was appealable. When he published the decision, he courted a possible sanction for contempt. Here, we cannot excuse him from such misconduct for it behooves him to even exert earnest efforts towards the settlement of family disputes and certainly he should be the last to exacerbate and complicate the controversial situation in which family members are embroiled. By his publication, [respondent] has violated the canons of professional ethics and professional responsibility, particularly Canon 19, 27, 3.01, 13.02, 1.03 and 1.04. 

x x x x 

In view of our observation and finding that the charges against respondent for forum shopping, committing falsehood, injurious, willful and unprofessional conduct of publishing, or causing the publication, in a newspaper of general circulation, of a pending case, causing undue delay in the court proceeding and for notarizing a document without the party being present, to be supported by evidence and meritorious, it is hereby recommended that respondent be suspended for a total of three (3) years for all his acts of misconduct. Respondent Chua has, by his unprofessional conduct, violated Rule 10.01, 12.02, 12.04 (foisting or commission of false hood, forum shopping and causing delay in court proceedings), Canon 19 (failing to resort to lawful means in representing client), 27, 3.01, 13.02 (causing undue publication of pending action). Having been previously found guilty of misconduct by the Hon. Supreme Court and warned of a more stern penalty should he commit another breach of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, respondent's penalty would even seem light.[2] (Emphasis supplied.)

On the basis of the foregoing report, a unanimous Court in its Decision of April 30, 1099 adjudged respondent guilty of grave misconduct and meted upon him the penalty of disbarment, noting as follows: 

We fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in his findings of facts and conclusion of culpability x x x. Indeed, the misconduct of respondent, which this case has unfolded, is grave and serious that brings dishonor to the legal profession. Committed in succession and within a short time, the misconduct exposes a habit, attitude, and mindset not only to abuse one's legal knowledge or training, but also to deliberately defy or ignore known virtues and values which the legal profession demands from its members.[3]

On September 3, 2002, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment. In it, respondent beseeched the Court to readmit him to the Bar, claiming that he had been sufficiently disciplined and punished and undertaking to prove himself to be worthy once again to be a member of the legal profession. Not finding any reason to grant his plea, this Court, by Resolution of November 19, 2002, denied respondent's motion for lack of merit.

Respondent is again before this Court via the instant Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement dated October 24, 2011, reiterating his request to be readmitted to the Bar. In this present petition, respondent alleges the following: complainant Ban Hua Flores herself is sympathetic to his plight; his age and the long period of his disbarment have afforded him sufficient time and occasion to cleanse himself of his conduct; he had been acquitted of the criminal charge for falsification[4] arising from his notarization of the Deed of Sale by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City; the case for libel[5] filed against him arising from the publication of the Decision in SEC Case No. 3328 had resulted in his acquittal; the perjury charge against him for his alleged forum shopping in filing Civil Case No. 93-9051 despite the pendency of SEC Case No. 3328 has been quashed,[6] and since this Court had declared that "the controversy subject of SEC Case No. 3328 is an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC under Section 5(b) of PD No. 902-A,"[7] then "Civil Case No. 95-9051, where respondent was the counsel, filed during the pendency of SEC Case No. 3328/520, is not covered by the rule against forum shopping."[8]

In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu City, this Court held that the "sole object of the Court upon an application for reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is to determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust."[9]

While respondent may have been acquitted of the criminal charges arising from the same acts for which he was disbarred, We see no reason to grant his request for readmission to the practice of law. His acquittal in the case for falsification against him was based on the compromise agreement entered into among the parties concerned in the execution of the deed of sale, particularly, private complainant Silvinia Chua and respondent's co-defendant, Yu Seng. It was not due to a categorical finding by the trial court that he did not commit the crime charged. Similarly, his acquittal in the libel case was attributable to the prosecution's failure to meet the quantum of evidence necessary for a criminal conviction�proof beyond reasonable doubt. It need not be emphasized that the evidence required in disbarment cases is only a clear preponderance of evidence,[10]  a less demanding requirement in the hierarchy of evidence. Hence, while respondent may not be criminally liable, Our findings of his administrative liability still stand. Indeed, We have repeatedly held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not determine the results of a disbarment proceeding, since "the standards of [the] legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal law."[11]

Parenthetically, this Court has seriously considered giving respondent a second chance to prove himself worthy of membership in the legal profession. After all, as he has repeatedly pointed out, the penalty of disbarment is imposed "on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle."[12] However, respondent's less than candid assertion that he has not committed forum shopping leaves this Court sceptical of the sincerity of his claim that he has "cleansed himself of his conduct," or at the very least, of his remorse.

Respondent stressed that his filing of Civil Case No. 95-9051, despite the pendency of SEC Case No. 3328, did not violate the rule against forum shopping, because this Court held in UBS Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals that SEC Case No. 3328 is an "intracorporate controversy which falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC x x x."[13] Respondent, however, failed to mention that the case did not treat of the issue of the existence of forum shopping or of Civil Case No. 95-9051, but merely ruled on the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission to hear and decide SEC Case No. 3328. Worse still, respondent neglected to mention Our ruling in SK Realty, Inc. v. Uy,[14] where We categorically stated that Civil Case No. 95-9051 was filed in contravention of the rule on forum-shopping: 

The decisive issue posed by petitioners is whether respondents' filing of the complaint for reconveyance of properties, cancellation of titles (TCT Nos. T-141057 to T-141064), damages and accounting, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-9051 in the RTC, Branch 43, Bacolod City, constitutes forum-shopping. It bears stressing that prior to the filing of this civil case, the same respondent filed with the SEC a complaint against petitioners for recovery of the same parcels of lands, books of accounts and funds. This SEC case finally reached this Court as G.R. No. 130328 now pending resolution. 

This very issue has been resolved by this Court in Adm. Case No. 4500, entitled "Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Atty. Enrique S. Chua," wherein respondent was declared guilty, among others, of forum-shopping and ordered disbarred from the practice of law. In our Per Curiam Decision, we sustained not only the charges of falsification, forgery of a deed of sale, and unprofessional conduct against him, but also of forum shopping. He was the former counsel of the respondents in the instant case. Although he knew that his clients had filed SEC Case No. 3328 for recovery of corporate books, funds and properties, he still filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 for reconveyance of the same properties and cancellation of titles against petitioners. We adopted the finding of the IBP Investigating Commissioner that he (Atty. Chua) is guilty of forum-shopping, thus: 

x x x x 

Going back to the instant case, it may be recalled that the SEC Hearing Officer rendered a decision in favor of respondents. However, it was reversed by the SEC En Banc. Hence, they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, and later, a petition for review on certiorari with this Court. 

Meanwhile, although respondents' petition was still pending before the SEC En Banc, they filed with the RTC Civil Case No. 95-9051 against petitioners. In doing so, respondents' intention was to obtain a favorable decision in another forum. Apparently, they filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 on the supposition that they would win in this case. 

It bears emphasis that when respondents filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 for reconveyance of properties and cancellation of titles, they knew that there was a similar case between the same parties pending before the SEC En Banc (later elevated to the Court of Appeals and this Court). 

Clearly, respondents resorted to forum-shopping, one of the reasons why Atty. Enrique S. Chua, their former counsel, was disbarred from the practice of law. Indeed, the trial court was correct in dismissing respondents' complaint in Civil Case No. 95-9051 on the ground of forum-shopping.[15]  (Emphasis supplied.)

Membership in the legal profession is an office of trust. The adverted dubious omissions in respondent's Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement fail to convince this Court that respondent is worthy of the public's trust and confidence, and, thus, fit to discharge the duties of a member of the Philippine bar. Bluntly, there is not a scintilla of compelling proof that respondent has reformed and cleansed himself of his conduct. cralaw

WHEREFORE, respondent's Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement is hereby DENIED."

Del Castillo, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, 306 SCRA 465.

[2] Id. at 477-483. 

[3] Id. at 483-484. 

[4] People v. Chua, Criminal Case No. 12036 and People v. Yu Seng, Criminal Case No. 12037, February 24, 2010. 

[5] People v. Chua,  Criminal Case No. 09-32938, May 30, 2011. 

[6] Enrique S. Chua v. Judge Rojo, Civil Case No. 02-11838, March 12, 2004. 

[7] Second Ex-Parte  Petition for Reinstatement, p. 5; citing UBS Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130328, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 534, 538. 

[8] Id. 

[9] A.C No. 270, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 240, 241. 

[10] Commission on Higher Education v. Dasig, G.R. No. 172776, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 227, 242-243; Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1, 20-21. 

[11] Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406, 412. 

[12] Gatmaytan, Jr. v. Ilao, A.C. No. 6086, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 269, 270, citing De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939). 

[13] Supra note 7. 

[14] G.R. No. 144282, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 239. See also SK Realty v. Uy, G.R. No. 144282, January 17, 2005 (Resolution)




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






March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

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

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.