Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > October 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 120539 October 20, 2000 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120539. October 20, 2000.]

HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, In her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and JACINTO T. MARCELO, Petitioners, v. HON. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, Presiding Judge of Branch 76, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


BUENA, J.:


On March 22, 1995, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, then Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO) No. 8 95. 1 Pursuant thereto, private respondent Estrella V. Martinez, along with others, was reassigned from Assistant Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 34 — Paco — Pandacan — San Andres — Sta. Ana area — to Assistant Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office in Quezon City, and assigned in her place, as Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34 was Jacinto T. Marcelo, erroneously referred to as Juanito T. Marcelo in RTAO 8-95.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On account of such reassignment, private respondent filed on April 4, 1995, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, a petition for injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 95-23498 with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, to restrain petitioner Marcelo from assuming the post of Assistant Regional District Officer of RDO No. 34.

In that petition, private respondent alleged that prior to the questioned RTAO 8-95, the retiring Revenue Officer of RDO No. 34, Jose T. Jacalan, wrote the BIR Commissioner endorsing and strongly recommending private respondents’ promotion as Revenue Officer of RDO 34. 2 Notwithstanding such recommendation, another BIR employee Isidro Tecson Jr., was assigned by the Commissioner in place of Jose T. Jacalan. This prompted private respondent to file with the Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance a complaint for violation of Merit Promotion Plan under BIR Memorandum Order No. 39-93. On July 10, 1995 the Grievance Committee issued a resolution enjoining the BIR to strictly adhere to the established and CSC-approved merit promotion plan in making the appointment to create equal opportunities for advancement to all qualified and competent employees of the BIR. According to private respondent, instead of complying with the said resolution, petitioner Chato, in a clear act of spite, whim, and vindictiveness against a subordinate employee who dared to question petitioners’ unlawful acts, issued the now questioned RTAO 8-95. Private respondent now claims that the questioned RTAO 8-95, is tantamount to a demotion since the position she was transferred to — Assistant Division Chief, Collections Program Division Chief, National Office — does not involve assessment and is totally alien to the past experience and skills of private respondent as an Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO 34. Besides private respondent asserts that she will be dislocated since she has no experience in the collection service, in violation of Executive Order No. 132 dated October 26, 1993 which prohibits the transfer of personnel resulting in dislocation.

Acting on the petition, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order in an Order dated April 28, 1995. Thereafter, in an Order dated May 18, 1995, respondent Judge granted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of RTAO 8-95. The full text of the Order is quoted as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For resolution is the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction contained in the instant verified petition as well as the comment thereon filed by defendants [herein petitioners], through counsel, on May 5, 1995, and the reply with prayer to restore parties to the status quo filed by plaintiff [herein private respondent], through counsel, on May 17,1995.

"Plaintiff alleges that a certain Isidro Tecson Jr. was designated as Revenue District Officer of RDO 34 by herein defendant [petitioner] Commissioner despite the recommendation of the retiring RDO of RDO 34, Jose T. Jacalan, for plaintiff [Martinez] to be assigned in his place; that on the belief that she had superior qualifications than Tecson and being the next-in-rank, she lodged a complaint with the Selection Board of the BIR; that considering the length of time during which defendant Commissioner failed to act on her complaint, she subsequently filed a protest with the Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance which resolved that herein defendant Commissioner appoint a permanent RDO for RDO 34 and adhere to the established and CSC approved merit promotion plan in making the appointment; that instead of complying with said resolution, herein defendant Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 wherein plaintiff [Martinez] was assigned from Assistant RDO of RDO 34 to Assistant Division Chief, Collection Programs Division, National Office and assigning in her place as Assistant RDO of RDO 34 (Paco — Pandacan — Sta. Ana — San Andres) defendant Jacinto Marcelo. She argues that her reassignment puts her in a freezer position tantamount to a demotion and dislocation; that defendant Commissioner’s act of issuing the questioned Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 was made in clear bad faith intended to harass her in violation of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 32-93; and that this court has jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction in this case.

"As prayed for, this Court in its Order dated April 28, 1995, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining defendant Commissioner or her subordinates from enforcing Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 as it pertains to plaintiff [Martinez] and defendant Jacinto Marcelo.

"Defendants, in their comment, qualified the material allegations in the petition arguing among others that plaintiff brought her complaint to the Grievance Committee of the DOF without waiting for the BIR’s final action on her complaint pending receipt of Tecson’s scholastic records from the Far Eastern University; that the (sic) February 9, 1995, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Resolution No. 95-0785 dismissing plaintiff’s protest against Tecson’s designation; that in view of the said CSC’s ruling, defendant Commissioner found no basis for taking further action on the resolution of the Grievance Committee of the Department of Finance; that it was in pursuance of her authority to transfer and assign BIR personnel in the exigency of the service that defendant Commissioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95; that Tecson’s designation was not violative of the BIR’s merit promotion plan as said Tecson was merely designated and not issued an appointment; that defendant Commissioner’s exercise of her prerogative to assign/reassign personnel to meet exigencies of the service is beyond judicial interference.

"After weighing the arguments raised by the parties in support of their respective claims, this Court determines that the grounds set forth in Rule 58, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present, hence, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is warranted under the premises.

"It appears that plaintiff [Martinez] was reassigned by defendant Commissioner by virtue of Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 after she filed a complaint with the Selection Board of the BIR over the designation of one Isidro Tecson, Jr. as Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office No. 34 (Paco — Pandacan — San Andres — Sta. Ana), a position which plaintiff [Martinez] sought to be appointed to. The issue of whether or not said Revenue Travel Assignment Order is valid and legal would still be threshed out during the trial on the merits. Thus, unless defendant Commissioner or her subordinates are enjoined from implementing Revenue Travel Assignment No. 8-95 as it pertains to plaintiff [Martinez] and defendant Marcelo, plaintiff [Martinez] would thereby suffer great and irreparable injury if it is determined that her assignment is irregular and illegal.

"This Court resolves to grant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00 which bond shall answer for damages which may be sustained by reason of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, if it turns out that the plaintiff [Martinez] is not entitled thereto.

SO ORDERED." 3

Hence, on June 28, 1995, petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the above Order.

Petitioners argue that the reassignment of revenue district officers was made pursuant to Executive Order No. 132 for the purpose of improving revenue collection. The writ hampers the serious efforts of the Government to re-organize the BIR to meet the urgent need for increased and efficient tax collection to support the economic development and growth of the Philippines, as embodied in Executive Order No. 132 (October 26, 1993). Besides, private respondent allegedly failed to show any legal or vested right to her position as Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 since she was merely assigned thereto and neither did private respondent show any right to be exempted from the reorganization. Private respondent holds the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II and, whether she be assigned to another revenue district, revenue region or to the national office, she remains Chief Revenue Officer II, the position she was appointed to. Thus, there was no demotion in the reassignment since there was no reduction in duties, responsibilities, status, rank or salary.

On July 31, 1995, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the respondents from implementing the questioned Order of May 18, 1995 issued by the respondent court in Civil Case No. Q-95-23498.

Meanwhile, on August 11, 1995, private respondent Martinez wrote a letter to the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 6, Manila as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Please be informed that the undersigned through her counsel received a copy of the Supreme Court Resolution dated July 31, 1995 on August 1, 1995. Court Orders takes effect fifteen (15) days after issuance should there be no motion for reconsideration filed of such order.

"Since the fifteen (15) day period has not yet elapsed, the said Supreme Court Resolution is not yet final and executory. Please be informed likewise that within the said fifteen day period, I will be taking the appropriate legal remedies available to me by law." 4

Thereupon, private respondent Martinez went on leave of absence on August 21, 1995.

By reason of petitioner’s failure to comply with RTAO 8-95, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) rendered a Decision dated May 9, 1996 suspending private respondent Martinez for one (1) month on the ground of gross insubordination in accordance with Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. It was likewise ruled that private respondent need not to go on leave of absence because she is ipso facto considered on leave of absence upon her failure to comply within ten (10) days from the receipt of RTAO 8-95, citing BIR Field Circular No. V-75 dated October 21, 1953.

Because of the suspension, on July 9, 1996, private respondent filed a motion to cite Chato in contempt of Court alleging therein that the suspension order issued by petitioner Chato pre-empts any decision of this Court on the validity and legality of RTAO 8-95. On October 16, 1996, this motion of private respondent to cite petitioner Chato in contempt of court was denied for lack of merit, 5 which denial became final after the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Martinez was denied by this Court on January 13, 1997. 6

In the third urgent motion for early resolution filed by private respondent on November 10, 1998, she claims that she was compelled to use her accumulated leave credits amounting to over 350 working days in order to resist the order of petitioner Chato. Thus, she prays for the nullification of the unlawful orders of Petitioner Chato so that private respondent’s accumulated leave credits will be restored.

The petition is meritorious.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to assign or reassign internal revenue officers and employees of the BIR as the exigencies of service may require, without demotion in rank and salary in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulation. The primary reason why private respondent refuses to comply with RTAO 8-95 was because she took it as an act of vindictiveness and reprisal on the part of the Commissioner, consequent to her filing a complaint against the assigned RDO of RDO No. 34 Isidoro Tecson, Jr. (now deceased), on the basis of a prior assignment order issued by the Commissioner. Nowhere in the assignment order, RTAO 8-95, can it be gleaned that the reassignment was for the purpose of harassing private Respondent. In fact, private respondent was not the only one reassigned to a new post.

Private respondent holds the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer II and such appointment will not be altered by her subsequent reassignment as Assistant Division Chief of the Collection Programs Division, National Office. Such reassignment is not a demotion for there is no diminution of rank, salary, status and responsibilities. Private respondent was merely assigned as Assistant Revenue District Officer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 34 and the Commissioner may assign or reassign revenue officers, as the exigencies of the service may require. Such reassignment of revenue officers entails the prevention of familiarity and patronage between BIR officers and taxpayers of a particular area. Accordingly, the injunction issued against the implementation of RTAO 8-95 was unwarranted because private respondent failed to establish a valid claim or a vested right to the post of Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34. Therefore, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction because private respondent has no actual existing right which is infringed upon by RTAO No. 8-95.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

There is no merit in the argument of private respondent that she will be demoted by her transfer to the National Office, Collection Programs Division because she was reassigned to a position totally alien to her proven area of expertise in assessment. The authority of the BIR Commissioner to issue reassignment order has been upheld by this Court in an En Banc Decision dated June 2, 1995, in the case of Hon. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Hon. Eli G. C. Natividad, 7 where we held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Private respondent failed to show patent illegality in the action of the Commissioner constituting violation of his right to security of tenure. To sustain his contention that his transfer constitutes a demotion simply because the new assignment is not to his liking would be to subordinate government projects, along with the great resources and efforts they entail, to the individual preferences and opinions of civil service employees. Such contention would negate the principle that a public office is a public trust and that it is not the private preserve of any person." (Emphasis Supplied)

In line with the said Decision, this Court cannot sustain the contention of private respondent that she was forced to use more than three hundred fifty (350) days of her accumulated leave credits in order to resist the assailed RTAO 8-95, and prays that her leave credits be restored. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, which enjoined the transfer of private respondent, was countermanded by the temporary restraining order subsequently issued by this Court, with the result that petitioner’s transfer became effective again. We therefore find that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed writ of preliminary injunction.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the order dated May 18, 1995 of respondent judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 8-95 (March 22, 1995) The exigencies of the revenue service so requiring, the following personnel are hereby relieved of their present duties directed to report to their new assignments as indicated hereunder:

NAME FROM TO

ESTEBAN P. BATTUNG Regional Director Regional Director

Revenue Region No. 14 Revenue Region No. 3

Tacloban City Tuguegarao

PERCIVAL T. SALAZAR Asst. Regional Director Regional Director

Revenue Region No. 7 Revenue Region No. 14

Quezon City Tacloban City

RENATO L. MANALILI Assistant Region Director Asst. Regional Director

Revenue Region No. 5 Revenue Region No. 7

Valenzuela Quezon City

TEOFISTA A. SAPITULA Assistant Regional Director Assistant Regional Director

Revenue Regulation No. 9 Revenue Region No. 5

San Pablo City Valenzuela

LUCIANO S. MALAPITAN Assistant Regional Director Assistant Regional Director

Revenue Region No. 2 Revenue Region No. 9

Cordillera Administrative San Pablo City

Region

PRISCILA B. PAGARIGAN Asst. Regional Director Asst. Regional Director

Revenue No. 16 Revenue Reg. No. 2

Cagayan De Oro City Cordillera Administrative

Region

DANILO A. DUNCANO Revenue District Officer OIC-Asst. Regional Director

Rev. Dist. Office No. 80 Revenue Region No. 16

Mandaue City Cagayan de Oro City

EDILBERTO I. CAUSON Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Revenue District Officer

Rev. Dist. Office No. 47 Rev. Dist. Office No. 80

East Makati Mandaue City

GERARDO R. FLORENDO Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Revenue District Officer

Rev. Dist. Officer No. 39 Rev. Dist. Office No. 98

South Quezon City Cagayan de Oro City

GRAVE EVELYN A.

LACERNA Executive Assistant Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer

Office of the Commissioner Rev. Dist. Office No. 39

National Office South Quezon City

ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer Asst. Division Chief

Rev. Dist. Office No. 34 Collection Programs Div.

Paco - Pandacan National Office

JUANITO T. MARCELO Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer Asst. Rev. District Officer

Rev. Dist. Office No. 21 Rev. Dist. Office No. 34

San Fernando, Pampanga Paco-Pandacan

HORACIO D. ETORMA Technical Assistant Asst. Rev. Dist. Officer

Office of DCIR Rualo Rev. Dist. Office No. 50

South Makati

EDILBERTO C. RADAZA Asst. Revenue Dist. Officer Revenue District Officer

Rev. Dist. Office No. 103 Rev. Dist. Office No. 106

Butuan City Tandag, Surigao del Sur"

2. Rollo, p. 56. The letter reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Commissioner

Bureau of Internal Revenue

Diliman, Quezon City

Madam:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 39-93 dated May 14, 1993, I have the honor to recommend Atty. ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ, Assistant Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 (Paco - Pandacan - Sta. Ana - San Andres), presently with an item of Chief Revenue Officer II to full-pledged REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER of RDO No. 34. This recommendation is in line with the mandate of the above-mentioned RMO invoking the next-in-rank policy of said order which will officially take effect upon the official retirement of the incumbent RDO, ATTY. JOSE T. JACALAN, on June 19, 1994.

ATTY. ESTRELLA V. MARTINEZ is a Certified Accountant and a Lawyer and she has finished her Master of Laws, major in Taxation from the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. When she was the Assistant Revenue District Officer in Marikina (RDO No. 35-A), her District was adjudged the most outstanding Revenue District Office in the whole Philippines, per decision of the Handang Maglingkod Committee.

I hereby strongly recommend her for promotion as Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 34 (Paco - Pandacan - Sta. Ana - San Andres).

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JOSE T. JACALAN

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Sgd). ROMEO S. PANGANIBAN

Regional Director

APPROVED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Sgd). BEETHOVEN L. RUALO

Deputy Commissioner for Operations."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. Annex "A" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 45-46.

4. Rollo, p.350.

5. Ibid., p. 378-A.

6. Ibid., p. 403.

7. 244 SCRA 787 [1995].




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






October-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108552 October 2, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109305 October 2, 2000 - INSURANCE SERVICES and COMMERCIAL TRADERS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121182 October 2, 2000 - VICTORIO ESPERAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121408 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO DECILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122733 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASAN BARIQUIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123130 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129211 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129315 October 2, 2000 - OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138584 October 2, 2000 - MARIA VICTORIA CANO-GUTIERREZ v. HERMINIO A. GUTIERREZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1213 October 2, 2000 - FRANK LAWRENCE A. CARIÑO v. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1469 October 2, 2000 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1263 October 3, 2000 - EDUARDO MA. QUINTERO, ET AL. v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-00-1430 October 3, 2000 - ATTY. JOSEPHINE MUTIA-HAGAD v. IGNACIO DENILA

  • G.R. No. 106873 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119794 October 3, 2000 - TOMAS SEE TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125005 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CABILES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126881 October 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000 - LEAH ALESNA REYES, ET AL. v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138544 October 3, 2000 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA

  • G.R. No. 140823 October 3, 2000 - MELVYN U. CALVAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. OCA-00-03 October 4, 2000 - LIWAYWAY G. BANIQUED v. EXEQUIEL C. ROJAS

  • A.M. No. P-99-1285 October 4, 2000 - TERESITA REYES-DOMINGO v. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

  • G.R. No. 127405 October 4, 2000 - MARJORIE TOCAO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128559 & 130911 October 4, 2000 - SEC. OF EDUC., CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL VS. COURT OF APPEALS; ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129371 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GEMOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134480-82 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGTRAYO

  • G.R. No. 137798 October 4, 2000 - LUCIA R. SINGSON v. CALTEX (PHILS.)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1296 October 5, 2000 - ALBERT R. SORDAN v. ROLANDO B. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 115251-52 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN O. DEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111904 October 5, 2000 - AGRIPINO GESTOPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129532 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE HILOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130613 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131942 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO BAWANG

  • G.R. No. 133904 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA CUESTA

  • G.R. Nos. 134143-47 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CATUBIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139592 October 5, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112792-93 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000 - WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133448-53 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136781, 136786 & 136795 October 6, 2000 - VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108615 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO VEDRA

  • G.R. No. 125468 October 9, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128110-11 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128121 & 128993 October 9, 2000 - PHIL. CREOSOTING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138979 October 9, 2000 - ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140904 October 9, 2000 - RENE S. ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-2-27-MTCC October 10, 2000 - EDELITO I. ALFONSO. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247 October 10, 2000 - CHARLES N. UY v. NELIDA S. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 128002 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BONITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132168 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 133511 October 10, 2000 - WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, ET AL. v. OFELIA D. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698 October 10, 2000 - BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109143 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. TALIMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109853 October 11, 2000 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. C A

  • G.R. No. 120897 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO DAYUHA

  • G.R. No. 130177 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BARRAMEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139020 October 11, 2000 - PAQUITO BUAYA v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO.

  • A.M. No. 00-1395 October 12, 2000 - FRANCIA MERILO-BEDURAL v. OSCAR EDROSO

  • G.R. No. 97913 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CARROZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106634 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NINOY MALBOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119832 October 12, 2000 - RAYMUNDO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122047 October 12, 2000 - SERAFIN SI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122451 October 12, 2000 - CAGAYAN ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127130 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. EBIAS

  • G.R. No. 127316 October 12, 2000 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC October 12, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BRANCH 20

  • G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000 - PHIL. ALUMINUM WHEELS v. FASGI ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 138596 October 12, 2000 - FIDELIS ARAMBULO v. HILARION LAQUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139524 October 12, 2000 - PHILIP C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135695-96 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TUNDAG

  • G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000 - MANILA HOTEL CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120350 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE YAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 120546 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO OPERAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 120787 October 13, 2000 - CARMELITA G. ABRAJANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123147 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH MANENG

  • G.R. No. 123176 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR RAFAEL

  • G.R. No. 128230 October 13, 2000 - ROCKWELL PERFECTO GOHU v. ALBERTO GOHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134628-30 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARVES

  • G.R. No. 137269 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MULLER BALDINO

  • G.R. No. 140825 October 13, 2000 - CIPRIANO CENTENO, ET AL. v. IGNACIA CENTENO

  • G.R. No. 115813 October 16, 2000 - EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120367 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BARRETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120697 October 16, 2000 - STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121971 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129892 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BARRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130610 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 132071 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL DE GUZMAN

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 October 16, 2000 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1234 October 16, 2000 - JESUS G. CHAVEZ v. PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN

  • A.M. RTJ 00-1593 October 16, 2000 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JOSE S. SAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131518 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO R. ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 134761 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUINALDO CATUIRAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136003-04 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ADAJIO

  • G.R. No. 138113 October 17, 2000 - EMILIO BUGATTI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138516-17 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMA DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 October 17, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140453 October 17, 2000 - TRANSFARM & CO., INC. ET AL. v. DAEWOO CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC October 18, 2000 - JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT

  • A.C. No. 5333 October 18, 2000 - ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS

  • G.R. No. 114028 October 18, 2000 - SALVADOR SEBASTIAN, SR. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116417 October 18, 2000 - ALBERTO MAGLASANG, JR. v. MERCEDES GOZO DADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121994 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ANGELES TEVES

  • G.R. No. 123545 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELO PALIJON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127846 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO G. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127851 October 18, 2000 - CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128134 October 18, 2000 - FE D. LAYSA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 128703 October 18, 2000 - TEODORO BAÑAS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 129573 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. No. 130590 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANILLO PONCE HERMOSO

  • G.R. No. 131144 October 18, 2000 - NOEL ADVINCULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131280 October 18, 2000 - PEPE CATACUTAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF NORMAN KADUSALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135517 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELITO BRONDIAL

  • G.R. No. 136393 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADIO ITDANG

  • G.R. No. 138842 October 18, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140942 October 18, 2000 - BENIGNO M. SALVADOR v. JORGE Z. ORTOLL

  • A.M. No. P-00-1432 October 19, 2000 - JOSE C. SARMIENTO v. ROMULO C. VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 119002 October 19, 2000 - INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS TRAVEL & TOUR SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129380 October 19, 2000.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 133696 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR CALlWAN

  • G.R. No. 135337 October 19, 2000 - CITY OF OLONGAPO v. STALLHOLDERS OF THE EAST BAJAC-BAJAC PUBLIC MARKET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135527 October 19, 2000 - GEMINIANO DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135699-700 & 139103 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CLADO

  • G.R. No. 135775 October 19, 2000 - EMERENCIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 - BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 112924 October 20, 2000 - EDUARDO P. BALANAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120539 October 20, 2000 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120931 October 20, 2000 - TAG FIBERS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129651 October 20, 2000 - FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION v. BIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131141 October 20, 2000 - VICTORINA MOTUS PEÑAVERDE v. MARIANO PEÑAVERDE

  • G.R. No. 131541 October 20, 2000 - THERMOCHEM INC., ET AL. v. LEONORA NAVAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131806 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO CABIGTING

  • G.R. No. 132677 October 20, 2000 - ISABELA COLLEGES v. HEIRS OF NIEVES TOLENTINO-RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 136252 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 117949 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BANTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121438 October 23, 2000 - FELIX UY CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128127 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 125692 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GADFRE TIANSON

  • G.R. No. 132428 October 24, 2000 - GEORGE YAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136456 October 24, 2000 - HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, ET AL. v. ANGELES SEPULVEDA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138938 October 24, 2000 - CELESTINO VIVERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143325 October 24, 2000 - RAUL SANTOS v. JOSE P. MARIANO; ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-97-1132 & MTJ-97-1133 October 24, 2000 - MARIO CACAYOREN v. HILARION A. SULLER, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1396 October 24, 2000 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO v. RODOLFO PAYUMO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595 October 24, 2000 - LUZ CADAUAN, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & RTJ 99-1484 October 24, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 125542 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO TALO

  • G.R. No. 126135 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA

  • G.R. No. 128114 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. CANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134768 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 143398 October 25, 2000 - RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134581 October 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN N. DEL ROSARIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1330 October 27, 2000 - ELIZABETH ALEJANDRO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 135551 October 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMPIE C. TARAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118608 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULYSSES CAPINPIN

  • G.R. No. 126126 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALES SABADAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132783 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. LAGUERTA

  • G.R. No. 132784 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO VILLARBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136185 October 30, 2000 - EDUARDO P. LUCAS v. MAXIMO C. ROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137557 October 30, 2000 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138826 October 30, 2000 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.