Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > June 2005 Decisions > Vicente v. Majaducon : AM RTJ-02-1698 : June 23, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution:




Vicente v. Majaducon : AM RTJ-02-1698 : June 23, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1698. June 23, 2005]

DANTE VICENTE, Petitioner, v. . JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

In a letter-complaint dated July 21, 2000, addressed to then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Dante Vicente charged respondent Judge Jose S. Majaducon of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 23, with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and manifest partiality, praying that he be administratively disciplined and terminated from the service.

The instant administrative complaint stemmed from a series of criminal cases involving a certain Evelyn Te of General Santos City. The factual and procedural antecedents leading to the instant administrative case is summarized in this Court's Resolution of February 19, 2001, in G.R. NOS. 145715-18 entitled, People of the Philippines v. Evelyn Te, pertinent portions of which read as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

In a joint decision dated May 31, 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City, found Evelyn Te guilty on four counts of violation of B. P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, and sentenced her to two (2) months of imprisonment on each count. The decision became final and executory after this Court had denied Te's Petition for Review from the affirmance of the trial court's decision by the Court of Appeals.

On March 11, 2000, Te sought clarification from the trial court whether she should serve her sentences successively or simultaneously. In an order, dated May 25, 2000, the trial court clarified that she should serve her sentences successively, but 'for humanitarian reason and in accordance with Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, it held that 'instead of serving imprisonment of EIGHT months, the prisoner EVELYN TE should serve only six months.

On June 2, 2000, Te filed a motion for reconsideration, which she prayed be also considered as a petition for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Citing Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 656 (1998), in which the sentence of imprisonment of a party found guilty of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was reduced to a fine equal to double the amount of the check involved, Te prayed that her sentence be similarly modified and that she be immediately released from detention. In a supplemental motion, Te argued that she had been denied equal protection of the law because the trial judge in another case involving multiple counts of robbery directed the accused to simultaneously serve his sentences.

On June 20, 2000, the trial court denied Te's petition for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Te was detained by virtue of a final judgment.

On June 22, 2000, Te filed an omnibus motion praying for her release on the ground that she had been in jail since March 15, 2000 and had fully served the three months minimum of her total sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In the alternative, Te prayed for release on recognizance.

On June 23, 2000, Te moved for reconsideration of the trial court's order of June 20, 2000, alleging that the finality of the joint decision against her did not bar her application for the writ of habeas corpus. She prayed that pending determination as to whether the Vaca ruling applied to her, she also be allowed to post bail pursuant to Rule 102, '14.

On July 5, 2000, the trial court allowed Te to post bail in the amount of one million pesos, holding that it would order her release upon the approval of her bail bond and thereafter certify the proceedings to the Court as the latter has concurrent jurisdiction over proceedings for habeas corpus.

On July 7, 2000, the trial court approved Te's bail bonds in the reduced amount of P500,000.00 and ordered her release. The trial court also directed its clerk of court to certify the proceedings to the Court.

On July 11, 2000, Assistant City Prosecutor Marie Ellengred L. Baliguiat moved for reconsideration of the trial court's resolution of July 5, 2000.

On July 18, 2000, Te filed a notice of appeal from the order, dated June 20, 2000, and the resolution, dated July 5, 2000, of the trial court.

On July 31, 2000, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration of the Assistant City Prosecutor. It also denied due course to Te's notice of appeal on the ground that there was no necessity for the appeal to the Court of Appeals because it had already ordered that the whole records be forwarded to this Court pursuant to Rule 102, '14.1 ςrνll

In the present case, complainant, who claims to be the station manager of Radyo Bombo, General Santos City, alleges that while Te was in prison, respondent judge allowed her to be released and confined at a local hospital in the guise that she was suffering from certain illnesses. Complainant further alleges that respondent judge approved Te's application for bail as part of habeas corpus proceedings even though no petition for habeas corpus in favor of Te was filed and docketed. As a result of respondent judge's order allowing the provisional liberty of Te, the local media in General Santos City made an uproar and criticized respondent judge for his action on the said case. In retaliation, respondent judge cited for indirect contempt a group of mediamen who published a critical article against him. Complainant contends that respondent judge will not hesitate to use his clout and power to stifle criticism and dissent. In addition, complainant alleges that in a separate case, respondent judge allowed the release of the accused without the posting of the necessary bail. On the basis of the above allegations, complainant prays that respondent judge be investigated and if warranted, be terminated and removed from service.2 ςrνll

In his Comment, dated October 17, 2000, respondent judge submitted the following contentions which we quote verbatim:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

1. The certified records of the above-mentioned cases against Evelyn Te were forwarded to the Supreme Court on August 5, 2000, upon the order of undersigned by the Branch Clerk of Court for review of our questioned Order (attached as ANNEX '1 of letter Complaint);chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2. On June 2, 2000, Evelyn Te's counsel filed not only a motion for reconsideration denying our previous order denying her motion for release from detention but also a petition for Habeas Corpus in the same cases;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3. In the exercise of sound discretion and after hearing the comment of the public prosecutor, we issued the questioned Order, which is self-explanatory;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4. We believed then that we had the discretion to allow her to be released on bail, based on Sec. 14, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

5. We were thinking then that in such a dilemma, whether or not to release her on bail, it was a better judgment to release her from bail on a writ of habeas corpus, because, Evelyn Te might be right in her contention that she is considered to have served her sentences simultaneously. If we denied her petition for Habeas Corpus, and on appeal, she could get a favorable decision from the Supreme Court, surely, she could return and charge us with a graver offense of ignorance of the law and abuse of discretion. She could even file other cases against us under the Revised Penal Code, such as rendering an unjust order, or under the Civil Code for moral damages in millions of pesos;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6. To obviate such a possible move on Te's part, we opted to allow her release on bail through the writ of habeas corpus proceedings. Anyway, the Supreme Court has the last say on that matter;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7. Therefore, we are of the view that the letter complaint of Mr. Dante Vicente is legally premature as it concerned cases which are still sub judice;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

8. Besides, we are of the opinion that Mr. Vicente has no personality as a third party to charge us with anything as he has not shown any damage that he could have suffered because of our Order;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

9. We are convinced that Mr. Vicente is trying to pre-empt our move to charge his radio station for libel or cite the announcer for indirect contempt of Court when his radio station and announcer had been reviling and attacking us for many days on the air for having allowed Evelyn Te to be treated and confined in a hospital upon recommendation of a government doctor and for having allowed her release from imprisonment on bail; a certified Xerox copy of the letter of the Regional Director of the Department of Transportation and Communication (National Telecommunications Commission) dated August 9, 2000, in reply to our request for copies of the broast tapes, is attached herewith as ANNEX '1;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

10. As to the charge that we are stifling criticism by the print and broast media, we are of the view that if media has the privilege to criticize the Courts and the Judges, we have also the right to charge them for indirect contempt of Court and libel, because there are laws regarding this matter. The article of a certain Joseph Jubelag is now a subject of an indirect contempt charge before us, which we are about to resolve;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

11. Regarding our Order in Criminal Case No. 14072 in the case of 'People v. Jhoyche Gersonin-Palma', RTC Br. 36, it was done with sound discretion on our part because it was already 6:30 in the evening and the offices were closed and being a Friday, the accused would be detained for two days and three nights, unless we accepted and approved the bail bond. Besides, the law requires judges to approve bail even during the holidays. Immediately, on Monday, the money in the amount of P6,000.00 was deposited with the Clerk of Court as shown in the official receipt (ANNEX '6 of letter complaint);chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

12. Regarding our competence, honesty and integrity, modesty aside, as a judge for the last thirteen years in General Santos City, the records of the Municipal Trial Court and RTC, Branches 23 and 22 (being a pairing judge of the latter court since October last year) show that most of our decisions appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have been sustained or affirmed;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

13. As to our reputation in the community, let other members of the media and a member of the Philippine Bar speak about it. We are enclosing herewith a Xerox copy of a news clipping of Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 8, 2000 issue (attached herewith as ANNEX '2'), about how we tried and decided the celebrated case of People v. Castracion, et. al. when the Supreme Court assigned us to hear the evidence of the defense and decide the case. We did our work in that case as best we could as we have done in all cases being tried and decided by us, mindful of our duty to do our work with faithful diligence, honesty, and integrity. We do not expect praises from others as we do not also wish to be criticized or attacked by Radio Bombo station in General Santos City especially by its manager, Mr. Dante Vicente, without basis or competent proof and evidence. Atty. Rogelio Garcia, who vouched for our honesty, competence and integrity is a former assemblyman of South Cotabato and General Santos City, and an ex-Assistant Minister of Labor. He has known us in the community for almost twenty five years;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

14. Complainant Dante Vicente is just a newcomer to General Santos and he and his radio station have a bad and notorious reputation of attacking the character and good name of some people here as shown by cases for libel filed in our courts.3 ςrνll

In its Report dated March 11, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) confirmed that Criminal Cases Nos. 9456-9460 were indeed certified by respondent to this Court.4 However, this Court in its Resolution of February 19, 2001 in G.R. NOS. 145715-18, resolved to return the records of the consolidated cases to the RTC of General Santos City, Branch 23, and to order the said court to give due course to Evelyn Te's notice of appeal from the Order denying her petition for habeas corpus and from the Order requiring her to post bail in the amount of one million pesos for her release from detention. This Court made the following pronouncements:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Rule 102, '14 provides:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail. If it appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly and specifically charged in the warrant of commitment with an offense punishable by death, he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed. If he is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not so punishable, he may be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of the court or judge. If he be admitted to bail, he shall forthwith file a bond in such sum as the court or judge deems reasonable, considering the circumstances of the prisoner and the nature of the offense charged, conditioned for his appearance before the court where the offense is properly cognizable to abide its order or judgment; and the court or judge shall certify the proceedings, together with the bond, forthwith to the proper court. If such bond is not so filed, the prisoner shall be recommitted to confinement.

The foregoing provision, however, applies to cases where the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus is restrained by virtue of a criminal charge against him, not where, as here, he is serving sentence by reason of a final judgment. Indeed, Rule 102, '4 disallows issuance of the writ where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is 'suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

The certification of a case under Rule 102, '14, moreover, refers to cases where the habeas corpus court finds that the applicant is charged with the noncapital offense in another court. Thus, the certification of this case to this Court is clearly erroneous.5 ςrνll

On the basis of the above-quoted Resolution and the provisions of Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the OCA, in its Report in the present case, found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended that he be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.6 ςrνll

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA except for the recommended penalty.

Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is plain and clear in prohibiting the grant of bail after conviction by final judgment and after the convict has started to serve sentence. It provides:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

SEC. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. - An accused shall not be allowed bail after the judgment has become final, unless he has applied for probation before commencing to serve sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of the Probation Law. In case the accused has applied for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail, but if no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. (Emphasis supplied)

The only exception to the above-cited provision of the Rules of Court is when the convict has applied for probation before he commences to serve sentence, provided the penalty and the offense are within the purview of the Probation Law.

In the case of Evelyn Te, the judgment finding her guilty of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 on four counts and imposing upon her the penalty of imprisonment for two months on each count has already become final and executory. She did not apply for probation. At the time respondent judge granted her bail she was already serving her sentence.

From the foregoing, it is evident that Te is not entitled to bail. Respondent judge contends that under Section 14, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, he has the discretion to allow Te to be released on bail. However, the Court reiterates its pronouncement in its Resolution of February 19, 2001 in G.R. NOS. 145715-18 that Section 14, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court applies only to cases where the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus is restrained by virtue of a criminal charge against him and not in an instance, as in the case involved in the present controversy, where the applicant is serving sentence by reason of a final judgment.

The Court agrees with the observation of the OCA that respondent judge's ignorance or disregard of the provisions of Section 24, Rule 114 and Section 14, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law and procedure. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules.7 It is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines.8 He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law.9 When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be gross ignorance of the law.10 ςrνll

In the present case, considering that the granting of bail is common in the litigation of criminal cases before trial courts, we are not impressed with the explanation of respondent judge in granting bail to Te. Respondent judge contends that he was caught in a dilemma whether or not to grant bail in favor of Te. However, he thought that it would be better for him to release Te on bail rather than deny her application; for if such denial is later found out by the appellate courts to be erroneous, Te could charge him with gross ignorance of the law and abuse of discretion, or hold him liable for rendering an unjust order or for damages. Hence, to obviate such possible move on Te's part, he simply allowed her to be released on bail and relieved himself of any burden brought about by the case of Te by certifying the same to this Court contending that, '[a]nyway, the Supreme Court has the last say on (the) matter.

The Court finds respondent's reasoning shallow and unjustified. He cannot simply shirk responsibility by conveniently passing the buck, so to speak, to this Court on the pretext that we have the final say on the matter. This is hardly the kind of trait expected of a judge. Rule 3.02, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that in every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. In Dimatulac v. Villon ,11 we held that:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The judge, on the other hand, 'should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice. He must view himself as a priest for the administration of justice is akin to a religious crusade. Thus, exerting the same devotion as a priest 'in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of religious liturgy, the judge must render service with impartiality commensurate with public trust and confidence reposed in him.12 ςrνll

In the present case, respondent judge fell short of the above-cited ideals expected of a magistrate.

Complainant's allegation that no petition for habeas corpus was filed does not hold water. As borne by the records, the Certification issued by one Atty. Elmer D. Lastimosa, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, shows that Evelyn Te's petition for habeas corpus was incorporated in the pleadings she filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9456-9460, although no docket fees and other charges were paid.13 There is no showing that respondent should be held administratively liable for the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees. At any rate, the matter may be considered in the appeal taken by Te, as earlier adverted to in G.R. NOS. 145715-18.

Complainant further claims that on several occasions, respondent judge allowed Te to be released and confined at a local hospital on account of false illnesses. However, the Court does not find sufficient evidence to prove this charge. On the contrary, records on hand show that the confinement of Te in the hospital is recommended by a panel of government doctors and that such confinement is made without the objection of the public prosecutor.14 Hence, the Court finds respondent judge's act of allowing the temporary confinement of Te in the hospital as justified. The Court agrees with the observation of the OCA that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should be upheld in favor of respondent judge.15 ςrνll

The Court likewise finds no sufficient evidence to find respondent judge guilty of the charge that he uses his clout and power to stifle criticism and dissent. In the present case, the Court finds nothing irregular or arbitrary in his act of requiring a number of journalists to show cause why they should not be cited for indirect contempt. Freedom of speech and of expression, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is not absolute.16 Freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests such as the maintenance of the integrity of courts and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.17 In the instant case, the Court finds nothing whimsical or despotic in respondent judge's act of issuing the subject show-cause order. Instead, respondent is merely exercising his right to protect his honor and, more importantly, the integrity of the court which he represents.

As to the issue that respondent judge allowed the release of an accused in Criminal Case No. 14072, entitled People v. Jhoyce Gersonin-Palma, without the required bail bond being posted, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to resolve the same on the basis of the OCA Report as it is already the subject of a separate administrative case against respondent.18 ςrνll

Having found respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as discussed earlier, the Court now determines the proper imposable penalty. Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, classifies gross ignorance of the law or procedure as a serious charge. Under Section 11(A) of the same Rule, the imposable penalties, in case the respondent is found culpable of a serious charge, range from a fine of not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00 to dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, except accrued leaves, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including government-owned or controlled corporations.

However, on February 24, 2002, respondent retired upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of 70.19 Considering that respondent can no longer be dismissed or suspended, the Court is left with no recourse but to impose the penalty of fine.

Further, it is noted that on July 8, 2002, the Third Division of this Court, in Administrative Matter No.10874-Ret., concerning the compulsory retirement of respondent, resolved to release his retirement benefits but set aside P100,000.00 thereof in view of several administrative cases still pending against him.20 ςrνll

In the administrative complaints filed against respondent, two cases have, so far, resulted in his being fined. In Chan v. Majaducon ,21 respondent was found guilty of violating among others, Rules 1.01 and 2.01 and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial conduct and was meted the penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00. In the more recent case of Alconera v. Majaducon,22 respondent was found guilty of gross ignorance of procedure and was fined P40,000.00. In view of the foregoing, it is proper to impose the maximum fine of P40,000.00 to be deducted from the P100,000.00 set aside from respondent's retirement benefits in A.M. No. 10874-Ret.

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law or procedure. He is ordered to pay a FINE of P40,000.00 to be deducted from the P100,000.00 set aside from his retirement benefits in A.M. No. 10874-Ret.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1 Rollo, pp. 122-123.

2 Id., pp. 1-2.

3 Id., pp. 84-85.

4 The cases, as earlier mentioned, were docketed as G.R. NOS. 145715-18, assigned to the Second Division.

5 Rollo, pp. 123-124.

6 Id., pp. 93-98.

7 A.M. No. RTJ-99-1488, June 20, 2000, Marzan-Gelacio v. Flores, 334 SCRA 1, 10.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 A.M. No. MTJ-03-1496, July 10, 2003, Delos Santos v. Mangino, 405 SCRA 521, 527.

11 G.R. No. 127107, October 12, 1998, 297 SCRA 679.

12 Id., pp. 713-714.

13 Rollo, p. 14.

14 Rollo, pp. 41-47.

15 Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court.

16 Choa v. Chiongson, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063, August 9, 1996, 260 SCRA 477, 484-485, citing Zaldivar v. Gonzales, Nos. L-79690-707, October 7, 1988, 166 SCRA 316, 353-354.

17 Ibid.

18 Docketed as OCA IPI No. 00-1040-RTJ, entitled, 'Concerned Taxpayer v. Judge Majaducon.

20 Ibid.

21 A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 354.

22 Supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-2005 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. NO. 123638 - INSULAR SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112140 - JESUS D. MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125585 - HEIRS OF EDUARDO MANLAPAT v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129552 - P.C. JAVIER & SONS, INC., ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128859 - AIDA POBLETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132561 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130913 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL, ET AL. v. SOLID HOMES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 133033 - PAMANA, INC. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132993 - LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS.), INC. v. VOGUE TRADERS CLOTHING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 135378 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134219 - SPOUSES MARIO AND ELIZABETH TORCUATOR v. SPOUSES REMEGIO AND GLORIA BERNABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136207 - HEIRS OF THE LATE FLOR TUNGPALAN v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136888 - PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 137232 - ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 138553 - ENRIQUE \ TOTOY\' RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 139167 - HEIRS OF WILFREDO C. DELOS SANTOS v. FELISA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139369 - NESTOR SULLON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139540 - WHEELERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JOVITO BONIFACIO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139658 - PO3 WILLIAM M. MENDOZA v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140081 - TYSON'S SUPER CONCRETE INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140086 - TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140349 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 141255 - LUCIANO ELLO, ET AL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141323 - DAVID V. PELAYO, ET AL. v. MELKI E. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 141485 - PABLITO MURAO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 141735 - SAPPARI K. SAWADJAAN v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141523 - DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 141966 - ISRAEL G. PERALTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141796 and 141804 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142284 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141973 - PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 143193 - MELBAROSE R. SASOT, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143313 - PANDIMAN PHILIPPINES, INC. v. MARINE MANNING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143404 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE BULAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143606 - RUBEN S. SIA v. HEIRS OF JOSE P. MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144256 - ALTERNATIVE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REFORMS AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL. v. HON. RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144661 and 144797 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144689 - RAYMUNDO VILLAMOR, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEBASTIAN TOLANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144755 - SPOUSES ELISEO F. ESTARES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145561 - HONDA PHILS., INC. v. SAMAHAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA HONDA

  • G.R. No. 146137 - HAYDEE C. CASIMIRO v. FILIPINO T. TANDOG

  • G.R. No. 146197 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146234 - TOLENTINO MENDOZA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147530 - PABLO B. CASIMINA v. HON. EMILIO B. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147043 - NBI - MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JUDY C. HWANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148174 - BONIFACIO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. THE HON. ESTELA PERLAS-BERNABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148220 - ROSENDO HERRERA v. ROSENDO ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148372 - CLARION PRINTING HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149281 - NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149636 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BANK OF COMMERCE

  • G.R. No. 149011 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. PROSPERO A. ABALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149974 - PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION v. PERCIVAL AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 150304 - QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT, ET AL. v. FULGENCIO DACARA

  • G.R. No. 150591 - NORTHWEST TOURISM CORP. v. FORMER SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150755 - RENE GANILA, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150994 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. ANDRES R. AMANTE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150869 - LEONARDO M. ANDRES, ET AL. v. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151037 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. v. TROY FRANCIS L. MONASTERIO

  • G. R. No. 151242 - PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

  • G.R. No. 151325 - D' ARMOURED SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. v. ARNULFO ORPIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151342 - CELSO VERDE v. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

  • G. R. No. 151849 - G & M (PHILS.) INC., v. WILLIE BATOMALAQUE

  • G.R. No. 152123 - ALADDIN TRANSIT CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151876 - SUSAN GO, ET AL. v. FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA

  • G.R. No. 152199 - LUIS S. MISTERIO, ET AL. v. CEBU STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152336 - MTM GARMENT MFG., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152410 - COMPUTER INNOVATIONS CENTER, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152550 - BORJA ESTATE, ET AL. v. SPOUSES ROTILLO BALLAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152609 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (PHILIPPINE BRANCH)

  • G.R. No. 153033 - DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES., INC, v. NAPOLEON N. ARAGONES

  • G.R. No. 153267 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153514 - SPOUSES LAZARO M. ZULUETA, ET AL. v. JOSE WONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153942 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. v. NOE LEVANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154026 - SPOUSES CERILO AND FRANCISCA PASNGADAN v. SPOUSES VICTOR AND SANGSANGIYO NGAMILOT

  • G.R. No. 154188 - MONDRAGON LEISURE AND RESORTS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154472 - ALEXANDER R. LOPEZ, ET AL. v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 154973 - THE PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. HON. WILFREDO D. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155102 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. LIZA T. ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154994 - JOCELYN PABLO-GUALBERTO v. CRISANTO RAFAELITO GUALBERTO V.

  • G.R. No. 155432 - CRISPINA UNIDA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF AMBROSIO URBAN

  • G.R. No. 155690 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156098 - HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. v. HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO FACULTY UNION - KAMAPI

  • G.R. No. 156589 - DYNAMIC SIGNMAKER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO POTONGAN

  • G.R. No. 156841 - GF EQUITY, INC. v. ARTURO VALENZONA

  • G.R. No. 156893 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL

  • G.R. No. 157010 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FLORENCE O. CABANSAG

  • G.R. No. 157098 - NORKIS FREE AND INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION v. NORKIS TRADING COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 157214 - PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. RICARDO DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 157320 - KABANKALAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE v. KABANKALAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE UNION-PACIWU-TUCP

  • G.R. No. 157603 - NEECO II v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157757 - ELSIE T. LAVADOR v. J MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157801 - PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC. v. HON. LYNDON D. JUNTILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157950 - LIBRADA D. TAPISPISAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158064 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HU RUEY CHUN

  • G.R. No. 158148 - CRISANTA JIMENEZ v. JOSE JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158245 - MIGUELITO B. LIMACO, ET AL. v. SHONAN GAKUEN CHILDREN'S HOUSE PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 158275 - DOMINGO ROCO v. HON. EDWARD B. CONTRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158455 - SHERWILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SITIO STO. NI O RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158563 - AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, ET AL. v. APOLONIO GOPUCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 158646 - HEIRS OF JESUS M. MASCU ANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158753 - MINDORO LUMBER AND HARDWARE v. EDUARDO D. BACAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159190 - CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159139 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159469 - ZALDY G. ABELLA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159700 - ROHBERT A. AMBROS v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160404 - ROGELIO L. TOLENTINO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160479 - SPOUSES GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160753 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. HON. MA. LUISA C. QUIJANO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160798 - JUANITO A. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 160976 - SPOUSES ERNESTO ZARATE, ET AL. v. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161295 - JESSIE G. CHING v. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161397 and 161426 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 161656 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. LIM

  • G.R. No. 161693 - MANOLO P. SAMSON v. HON. VICTORIANO B. CABANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161943 - RUBEN ROMERO v. EDISON N. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162084 - APRIL MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. RODOLFO G. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 162571 - ARNEL L. AGUSTIN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162780 - SOFRONIO AMBAYEC, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163351 - ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPA A v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 163858 - UNITED LABORATORIES, INC. v. ERNESTO ISIP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163934 - SWIRE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. HYUNDAI CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 163996 - JUAN G. RIVERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 164268 - ARTEMIO T. TORRES, JR. v. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165420 - CONCEPCION R. AINZA v. SPOUSES ANTONIO PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165586 - CORNELIO C. CRUZ v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILS., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165677 - EDILWASIF T. BADDIRI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165691 - ROBERT Z. BARBERS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165821 - HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165973 - LACSON HERMANAS, INC. v. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO.

  • G.R. No. 165835 - MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166013 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANILA v. SPOUSES PEDRITO AND CARMENCITA ANI ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166229 - MS. BAIRANSALAM LAUT LUCMAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Cojuangco Jr v. Palma : AC 2474 : June 30, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Resolution

  • A.C. No. 4562 - DANIEL MORTERA, ET AL. v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN

  • A.C. No. 2474 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA

  • A.C. No. 5580 - SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. v. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS

  • A.C. No. 5712 - FRANCISCO LORENZANA v. ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO

  • A.C. No. 6192 - HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMAN REY ROMERO, ET AL. v. ATTY. VENANCIO REYES JR.

  • A.C. No. 6590 - JESUS M. FERRER v. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN

  • A.C. No. 6649 - MARINA C. GONZALES v. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS

  • Request of Mr Cuadra : AM 01-12-629-RTC : June 15, 2005 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Decision

  • Re: Criminal Case No MC-02-5637 against Peralta : AM 02-8-198-MeTC : June 8, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Report of Mr Itliong : AM 03-11-29-SC : June 8, 2005 : J. Azcuna : En Banc : Decision

  • Complaint of Mr Arrienda : AM 03-11-30-SC : June 9, 2005 : J. Corona : En Banc : Resolution

  • A.M. No. 03-11-29-SC - RE: REPORT OF MR. DOMINADOR P. ITLIONG

  • A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC - COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA ARRIENDA AGAINST JUSTICES REYNATO S. PUNO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 05-5-125-MCTC - RE: LETTER OF MR. JONATHAN S. PECHERA

  • Concerned Employee v. Valentin : AM 2005-01-SC : June 8, 2005 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision

  • Report On The On-The-Spot Judicial Audit conducted in MCTC Teresa-Baras Rizal : AM MTJ-02-1397 : June 28, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Resolution

  • Loss of Court Exhibits at MTC-Dasmarias Cavite : AM MTJ-03-1491 : June 8, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Almonte v. Bien : AM MTJ-04-1532 : June 27, 2005 : J. Garcia : Third Division : Resolution

  • Tan v. Estoconing : AM MTJ-04-1554 and A.M. No. MTJ-04-1562 : June 29, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : En Banc : Decision

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1397 - REPORT ON THE ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, TERESA-BARAS, RIZAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1491 - LOSS OF COURT EXHIBITS AT MTC-DASMARI AS, CAVITE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-04-1532 - THELMA ALMONTE v. JUDGE FRED A. BIEN

  • Pagulayan-Torres v. Gomez : AM P-03-1716 : June 9, 2005 : J. Panganiban : Third Division : Decision

  • A.M. No. MTJ-04-1554 and A.M. No. MTJ-04-1562 - DR. WILSON B. TAN v. JUDGE ANTONIO T. ESTOCONING

  • Re: Conviction of Fortus : AM P-04-1808 : June 27, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Dela Torre-Yadao v. Cabanatan : AM P-05-1953 and A.M. No. P-05-1954 : June 8, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Gotgotao v. Millora : AM P-05-2005 : June 8, 2005 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • Vilos v. Bato : AM P-05-2007 : June 8, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Sps Tagaloguin v. Hingco Jr : AM P-05-2008 : June 21, 2005 : J. Panganiban : Third Division : Decision

  • Anonymous Complaint Against Pershing T. Yared : AM P-05-2015 : June 28, 2005 : J. Callejo, Sr. : Second Division : Decision

  • Lopez v. Ramos : AM P-05-2017 : June 29, 2005 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • Cervantes v. Cardeo : AM P-05-2021 : June 30, 2005 : J. Chico-Nazario : Second Division : Decision

  • Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada Jr : AM P-99-1342 : June 8, 2005 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • A. M. No. P-03-1716 - ATTY. CORAZON C. PAGULAYAN-TORRES v. CARLOTA V. GOMEZ

  • A.M. No. P-04-1808 - RE: CONVICTION OF IMELDA B. FORTUS, CLERK III, RTC BRANCH 40, CALAPAN CITY, FOR THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF BP 22

  • A.M. No. P-05-1953 and A.M. No. P-05-1954 - JUDGE MA. THERESA L. DELA TORRE-YADAO v. MARILOU A. CABANATAN

  • A.M. No. P-05-2007 - SENEN VILOS v. EXPEDITO B. BATO

  • A.M. No. P-05-2008 - SPOUSES PRESCILO AND GOMERSINDA TAGALOGUIN v. CONRADO V. HINGCO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2015 - ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST PERSHING T. YARED

  • A.M. No. P-05-2017 - MILAGROS A. LOPEZ v. NICOLAS C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-05-2021 - JUDGE ALDEN CERVANTES v. EDWIN CARDE O

  • Vicente v. Majaducon : AM RTJ-02-1698 : June 23, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • A.M. No. P-99-1342 - CONCERNED TAXPAYER v. NORBERTO V. DOBLADA, JR.

  • Castillo v. Alonzo-Legasto : AM RTJ-03-1804 : June 23, 2005 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • Icao Jr v. Ramas : AM RTJ-04-1827 : June 30, 2005 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Mabutas v. Perello : AM RTJ-03-1817 and A.M. No. RTJ-04-1820 : June 8, 2005 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Ortiz v. Jaculbe Jr : AM RTJ-04-1833 : June 28, 2005 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Visitacion v. Libre : AM RTJ-05-1918 : June 8, 2005 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • Dantes v. Caguioa : AM RTJ-05-1919 : June 27, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698 - DANTE VICENTE v. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1804 - ATTY. JOSE M. CASTILLO, v. JUDGE ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1827 - ATTY. FRIOLO R. ICAO, JR. v. HON. REINERO B. RAMAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817 and A.M. No. RTJ-04-1820 - P.SR. SUPT. ORLANDO M. MABUTAS v. JUDGE NORMA C. PERELLO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1833 - ALEXANDER B. ORTIZ v. JUDGE IBARRA B. JACULBE, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1918 - MARILOU PUNONGBAYAN VISITACION v. JUDGE MAXIMINO MAGNO LIBRE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1919 - NESTOR F. DANTES v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA

  • A.M. No. 2005-01-SC - CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. ROBERTO VALENTIN