Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > December 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 133575 December 15, 2000 - MARTIN A. OCAMPO v. SUN-STAR PUBLISHING:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133575. December 15, 2000.]

JUDGE MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. SUN-STAR PUBLISHING, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:


Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set aside the April 20, 1998 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57, which dismissed petitioner’s Complaint for Libel.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Petitioner is the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7. He filed a Complaint 2 for Libel on account of two articles which appeared in the August 28, 1997 and August 30, 1997 issues of Sun-Star Daily, a provincial newspaper published and circulated by respondent in Cebu.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The August 28, 1997 article, which appeared on pages two (2) and twenty two (22) of the aforesaid newspaper, reads in full as follows —

"Judge Ocampo facing graft raps at Ombud

"BRANCH 7 Judge Martin Ocampo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) faces graft charges before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas.

Lawyer Elias Tan who also accused Ocampo of conduct unbecoming a judge asked the Supreme Court to bar Ocampo’s retirement pending an investigation and deny the retirement benefits due him should he be convicted by final judgment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Tan said Ocampo violated the provisions of judicial canons when he granted petition for relief from judgment on a dismissed case against the Millennium Industrial Commercial Corp. (MICC).

MICC, chaired by Tan, was sued for foreclosure of mortgage by Jackson Tan, a stockholder. The case, according to Tan, was already dismissed by Ocampo on July 12, 1996.

However, Tan added in his affidavit, Ocampo granted Jackson’s petition for relief which alleged a "mistake" in that he has not received the certificate of stock worth P10 million from defendant MICC.

MICC counsel Romeo Tagra said: "The circumstances which plaintiff referred to as either fraud or mistake were already known and existing long before he filed the instant petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ocampo, in an interview yesterday, down-played the filing of the case saying it is "natural" for the losing party to "hate" the judge.chanrob1es virtual law library

He considers the case as "pure harassment."cralaw virtua1aw library

"It’s part of the professional hazards of a judge. Naturally, a losing party gets mad at the judge," he said.

He said he is just waiting for the time the anti-graft office asks him to comment on the complaint. "That’s the time to really give my explanations on this harassment."cralaw virtua1aw library

Tagra said of the grounds on the petition for relief: "The fraud under Rule 38, Sec. 2 (of the Rules of Court) contemplates an extrinsic fraud to be a ground to annul a final judgment; and mistake under the rules and jurisprudence cited does not contemplate a mistake committed by judicial error of law which may arise in the trial of the case. But a mistake of the party."cralaw virtua1aw library

Tan added Ocampo set the hearing on the petition for relief on April 8, 1997, "However, during the scheduled date no actual hearing was conducted and MICC was not allowed to present its witness." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Instead, Tan said, Judge Ocampo adjudged counsel Tagra guilty of direct contempt on May 9, 1997 for filing a motion for reconsideration to the order granting the relief.

Tagra was also fined P10,000 and ordered imprisoned for five days.

On May 22, Tagra filed his motion for reconsideration citing that the "power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 21, Ocampo issued his decision on the case in favor of the plaintiff Jackson Tan and filed before the Supreme Court an administrative complaint against Tagra and his law firm, A.S. Dy and Associates.

On the same date, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a temporary restraining order on a petition for certiorari filed by MICC enjoining Ocampo from further proceeding with the case and for Jackson Tan to explain why a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On August 15 this year, MICC filed a supplemental petition before the CA, "for notwithstanding the TRO issued by the CA, Judge Ocampo on July 21 issued a declaration of default and judgment by default despite MICC’s manifestation and motion informing Ocampo that a petition for certiorari will be filed with the CA."cralaw virtua1aw library

The August 30, 1997 article, appearing on pages two (2) and twenty six (26) of the paper, reads —

"No jurisdiction, says Judge on Ombudsman

However, Ombudsman’s office says it will raffle Complaint filed by lawyer against judge

JUDGE Martin Ocampo of the Cebu Regional Trial Court (RTC) yesterday fumed over a news report about a complaint filed against him by a losing litigant, lawyer Elias Tan.

He said the Visayas Ombudsman’s Office "has no jurisdiction whatsoever to investigate graft charges against judges for alleged ‘violations of judicial canons’." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The complaint, however, will take the normal route of being raffled to a graft investigator for evaluation, according to Ombudsman Director Virginia Santiago.

If there is administrative liability involved, she told Sun-Star Daily, the results will be sent to the Supreme Court. If the investigator finds a criminal case, the anti-graft office will proceed to investigate, review and possibly prosecute it, depending on the approval of Ombudsman Aniano Desierto.

"It will be evaluated first to determine if it is to be docketed as an administrative case or a criminal case, or both," Santiago said.

Judge Ocampo, in a letter to Sun-Star Daily, complained that the news report was "libelous" and damaging to his reputation.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

He said the paper should have known better that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the case, only the Supreme Court.

The complaint on which the news report was based was filed with the Visayas Ombudsman’s Office by Tan, a 64-year-old lawyer.

Sun-Star Daily delayed publication for one day to get the judge’s comment. He was quoted in the report as describing the case as "pure harassment" and "part of the professional hazards of a judge."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Naturally, a losing party gets mad at the judge," Martin earlier said in an interview.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Tan, the complainant, is president of Millennium Industrial Commercial Corp., which was sued for foreclosure of mortgage by a stockholder.

The case was dismissed on July 12, 1996, but Judge Ocampo later granted a petition for relief from judgment when the stockholder, Jackson Tan, pointed to a "mistake" in that he had not received the certificate of stock worth P10 million from the company.

Elias Tan hit back by filing a complaint against the judge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, and for "conduct unbecoming of a judge."cralaw virtua1aw library

Tan cited Sec. 3(e) — "Causing any undue injury to any party, or giving any private party, any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

On the matter of turf, Santiago affirmed that the anti-graft office has jurisdiction over the lawyer’s complaint under Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

"It’s not true (that we can’t entertain complaints against judges). We can act on any complaints against all government officials even impeachment proceedings," she said.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Santiago added that the office recently recommended the filing of a criminal case against a judge. She gave no details but said the resolution is still with Ombudsman Desierto for approval."cralaw virtua1aw library

Following the filing by respondent of its Answer to the Complaint as well as its Answer to Written Interrogatories posed by petitioner, the latter filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 22, 1997. During the hearing thereon, the parties agreed that the only issue for adjudication was whether or not the subject articles were attended by malice. They also agreed to submit their respective memoranda on the issue instead of going to trial. Accordingly, after the parties submitted their respective Memoranda, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. On April 20, 1998, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s Complaint, finding that there was no malice on the part of respondent in publishing the subject articles.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review on the sole issue of —" (W)hether or not — on the basis of the facts admitted in the pleadings and Respondent’s affidavits submitted to the Court a quo — Petitioner is entitled to a judgment for civil libel as a matter of law considering that only a preponderance of evidence is required to prove Respondent’s liability." 3chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

We find no merit in the instant Petition.

While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, there are exceptions to this general rule, set forth in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit —

"ARTICLE 354. Requirement of publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions."cralaw virtua1aw library

We agree with the lower court that the subject articles fall under the second exception for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First, the articles complained of are fair and true reports of a judicial/administrative proceeding, which is not confidential in nature. They quoted directly from the affidavit-complaint filed before the Ombudsman. Indeed, a perusal of the first article would readily show that it merely reported the filing of graft charges against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas. In so reporting, the article quoted from the affidavit-complaint filed by the complainant lawyer, Elias Tan, and narrated the antecedent facts leading to the filing of the graft charges. On the other hand, the second article presented petitioner’s own reactions against the graft charges filed against him; with explanatory statements from Office of the Ombudsman Director Virginia Santiago refuting petitioner’s claims that the said office had no jurisdiction over graft charges against judges for alleged violations of judicial canons.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Second, there were no comments or remarks made by the reporter of private respondent in both instances. The articles were pure reports of the graft charges filed against petitioner.

Third, they were both fair reports. The fairness and balance exercised by private respondent is evident in the fact that petitioner was given a chance to air his side on the graft charges filed against him. In fact, before the first article was published, private respondent’s reporter took pains to interview petitioner on the matter; and his reactions were equally published in both articles.

Finally, the reports were also true accounts of a newsworthy event, the filing of graft charges against a local judge. It cannot be denied that petitioner did face "graft raps" at the Ombudsman as the complaint filed against him was for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 4 Neither can the narration in the articles be denied as these were merely culled from the subject affidavit-complaint.

Petitioner cannot insist that the case against him is confidential in nature because it has already been ruled that complaints are public records which may be published as such unless the Court directs otherwise in the interest of morality or decency. 5 Neither should the case of In Re: Abistado, 6 relied upon by petitioner, be applied to the instant case since, unlike In Re: Abistado where the proceedings were on charges of malpractice against a lawyer which are confidential in nature, the charge filed before the Ombudsman against petitioner is not administrative in nature, such as to fall under the confidentiality rule of the Rules of Court, but criminal in nature, being a graft charge under Republic Act No. 3019. Unlike the proceedings in this Court, which expressly mandates that its disciplinary proceedings for lawyers and judges are confidential in nature, the Office of the Ombudsman has no such confidentiality rule.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman allows the Office of the Ombudsman to publicize in a fair and balanced manner the filing of a complaint before it, among others. 7

While the administrative nature of proceedings before us allows the protection of the personal and professional reputation of our colleagues in the profession of law and justice against baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible clients and litigants, the criminal nature of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not allow the same protection to our brethren in the judiciary, who are placed on the same level, without distinction, as other government employees. Violations of this law partake of an infinitely more serious nature, touching as it does on what has been perceived to be an endemic social cancer eroding our system of government. It cannot be denied that this is a matter in which the public has a legitimate interest and as such, media must be free to report thereon. 8

We take judicial notice of the fact that petitioner Judge Martin A. Ocampo had already died. This, however, does not affect our decision to dismiss the instant Petition.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons aforestated, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., I vote to dismiss the petition because of the death of petitioner.

Endnotes:



1. In civil case No. CEB-20841, penned by Judge Victorino U. Montecillo; Rollo, pp. 51-61.

2. Rollo, pp. 7-41.

3. Petition. p. 4; Rollo, p. 5.

4. Republic Act No. 3019.

5. Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45031, 203 SCRA 110 [1991].

6. 57 Phil. 668, December 10, 1932.

7. Sec. 2, Rule V of Administrative Order No. 7; Re: Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman provides, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 2. Public Disclosure; Exemption. — When circumstances so warrant and with the due prudence, the Office of the Ombudsman may publicize in a fair and balanced manner the filing of a complaint, grievance or request for assistance, and the final resolution, decision or action taken thereon; Provided, however, that prior to such final action, no publicity shall be made of matters which may adversely affect national security or public interest, prejudice the safety of witnesses or the disposition of the case, or unduly expose the persons complained against to ridicule or public censure.

8. Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Noel, G.R. No. L-76565, 167 SCRA 255 [1988].




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






December-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1248 December 1, 2000 - FABIANA J. PADUA v. EUFEMIO R. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115247-48 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GASPAR S. SINDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117749 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARDO C. ESPERO

  • G.R. No. 133569 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO K. TEMPLO

  • G.R. No. 134245 December 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY CIRILO

  • G.R. No. 134284 December 1, 2000 - AYALA CORPORATION v. ROSA-DIANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 134431 December 1, 2000 - DAVAO ABACA PLANTATION COMPANY v. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 134888 December 1, 2000 - RAM’S STUDIO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142507 December 1, 2000 - ALFREDO U. MALABAGUIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115755 & 116101 December 4, 2000 - IMELDA B. DAMASCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120985 December 4, 2000 - ROMEO J. MIZONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122479 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELLESOR T. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 126102 December 4, 2000 - ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128606 December 4, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129365 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MALACURA

  • G.R. No. 130601 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DIOPITA

  • G.R. No. 130630 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALIWANG BUMIDANG

  • G.R. Nos. 132239-40 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NAVIDA

  • G.R. No. 134530 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAMONTAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 136254 December 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DAGPIN

  • G.R. No. 139875 December 4, 2000 - GREGORIO PESTAÑO, ET AL. v. TEOTIMO SUMAYANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141931 December 4, 2000 - ANICETO RECEBIDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1439 December 5, 2000 - MARIANO HERNANDEZ v. SAMUEL ARIBUABO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1602 December 5, 2000 - ANGEL A. GIL v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO

  • G.R. No. 112014 December 5, 2000 - TEODORO L. JARDELEZA v. GILDA L. JARDELEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129189 December 5, 2000 - DONATO C. CRUZ TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133472 December 5, 2000 - CONSOLACION A. LUMANCAS, ET AL. v. VIRGINIA B. INTAS

  • G.R. No. 134735 December 5, 2000 - ANGEL CHICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137118 December 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE REX PABURADA

  • G.R. No. 137675 December 5, 2000 - NOVERNIA P. NAGUIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139272 December 5, 2000 - FLORENTINA D. DAVID v. MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 139292 December 5, 2000 - JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116220 December 6, 2000 - ROY PO LAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128359 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO E. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134847 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135385 December 6, 2000 - ISAGANI CRUZ, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF DENR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139382 December 6, 2000 - SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL. v. ATTY. JOSEFINA G. BACAL

  • G.R. No. 139822 December 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CAGUING

  • G.R. Nos. 71523-25, 72420-22, 72384-86 & 72387-89 December 8, 2000 - ROLANDO SANTOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111102 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME MACABALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116290 December 8, 2000 - DIONISIA P. BAGAIPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117412 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117416 December 8, 2000 - AVELINA G. RAMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 134692 December 8, 2000 - ELISEO FAJARDO v. FREEDOM TO BUILD

  • G.R. No. 134974 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ARAPOK

  • G.R. No. 137143 December 8, 2000 - NERIO SALCEDO y MEDEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137408-10 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 138046 December 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL D. TORRES JR.

  • G.R. No. 139437 December 8, 2000 - LANGKAAN REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140358 December 8, 2000 - PCGG v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140975 December 8, 2000 - OFELIA HERNANDO BAGUNU v. PASTORA PIEDAD

  • G.R. No. 125306 December 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAFGU FRANCISCO BALTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127753 December 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132810 December 11, 2000 - ESPERANZA SALES BERMUDEZ v. HELEN S. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138731 December 11, 2000 - TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda. DE BIASCAN v. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN

  • G.R. Nos. 134163-64, 141249-50 & 141534-35 December 13, 2000 - MUSLIMIN SEMA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140335 December 13, 2000 - THELMA P. GAMINDE v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144197 December 13, 2000 - WILLIAM P. ONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100388 December 14, 2000 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113796 December 14, 2000 - CRESENCIANO C. BOBIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123504 December 14, 2000 - RODOLFO SAMSON, ET AL. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128622 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALMA GARALDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131022, 146048 & 146049 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER ANIVADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132047 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE PECAYO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 133001 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMERSON B. TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134308 December 14, 2000 - SUSANA MENGUITO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135051-52 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITO ARIZOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135495 December 14, 2000 - GENARO CORDIAL v. DAVID MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. 137693 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARWIN BANTAYAN

  • G.R. No. 137806 December 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN KENNETH DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140243 December 14, 2000 - MARILYN C. PASCUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4980 December 15, 2000 - JESUSIMO O. BALDOMAR v. JUSTO PARAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1256 December 15, 2000 - VIRGILIO & LUZVIMINDA CABARLOC v. JUAN C. CABUSORA

  • G.R. Nos. 113022-24 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127842 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONORA DULAY

  • G.R. No. 127843 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMAN D. BATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127930 December 15, 2000 - MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130281 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX CELESTE

  • G.R. No. 132153 December 15, 2000 - FRANCISCO SAPAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133575 December 15, 2000 - MARTIN A. OCAMPO v. SUN-STAR PUBLISHING

  • G.R. No. 134004 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 135045 December 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO GAKO

  • G.R. No. 135784 December 15, 2000 - RICARDO FORTUNA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 136502 & 135505 December 15, 2000 - RUFINA GREFALDE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137823 December 15, 2000 - REYNALDO MORTEL v. KASSCO

  • G.R. No. 137898 December 15, 2000 - CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138518 December 15, 2000 - MARCELINA GACUTANA-FRAILE v. ANGEL T. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139844 December 15, 2000 - SALOME D. CAÑAS v. LERIO C. CASTIGADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116572 December 18, 2000 - D.M. CONSUNJI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117660 December 18, 2000 - AGRO CONGLOMERATES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123096 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO DUMANON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132625-31 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL SANDOVAL

  • G.R. No. 135109-13 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PAJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138881 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEILA JOHNSON

  • G.R. No. 140520 December 18, 2000 - JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS v. JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. 143013-14 December 18, 2000 - TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135109 December 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PAJO, ET AL.

  • AM. No. MTJ-00-1336 December 19, 2000 - PETRA M. SEVILLA v. ISMAEL L. SALUBRE

  • G.R. Nos. 107297-98 December 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128058 December 19, 2000 - MARGUERITE J. LHUILLIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136818 December 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN BAYOTAS

  • G.R. No. 127495 December 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLITO BORAS

  • G.R. Nos. 136138-40 December 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO BISCO

  • G.R. No. 139548 December 22, 2000 - MARCOPPER MINING CORP. v. ALBERTO G. BUMOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131924 December 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133439 December 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO PANADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137551, 138249, 139099, 139631 & 139729 December 26, 2000 - CHARLES D. COLE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125533 December 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY ALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125796 December 27, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126817 December 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILBERT ARCILLAS

  • G.R. No. 128513 December 27, 2000 - EMMA OFFEMARIA MARCELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.