Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > November 2005 Decisions > A.M. No. P-05-2056 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P - Luz C. Adajar v. Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III, et al. :

A.M. No. P-05-2056 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P - Luz C. Adajar v. Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III, et al.



[A.M. NO. P-05-2056 November 18, 2005]

(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P)

LUZ C. ADAJAR, Complainant, v. Teresita O. Develos,* Clerk III, CELSA G. ELLORIN, Court Stenographer III, and CYRUS A. ELLORIN, Court Interpreter, RTC, Br. 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Respondents.



Before us is a sworn Affidavit-Complaint, dated March 13, 2002, executed and filed by Luz C. Adajar against Teresita Develos, Cyrus Ellorin and Celsa Ellorin, who are government employees stationed at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.

Complainant alleges:

That I am an incumbent Sangguniang Bayan Member of the Municipal Council of San Fernando, Bukidnon, having been voted as such during the May 2001 local elections;

That, primarily I am engaged in the business of buy and sell of palay and corn. I am also in construction business. As a sideline business, I am also engaged in the business of buy and sell of jewelry;

That sometime [in] October 2000, I delivered pieces of jewelries on a consignment basis amounting to Seventy Thousand (P70,000.00) Pesos to Mrs. Teresita Develuz at her office at RTC Branch 8 Staff Room, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon with the agreement that she will pay the said amount within Three (3) Months, copy of the receipt is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof;

That Mrs. Teresita Develuz is presently connected with the RTC Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon as Clerk III;

That initially Mrs. Develuz made partial payments in the total amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos;

That sometime [in] December 2001, I demanded from Mrs. Develuz her balance in the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, but she refused. Instead of paying her obligations, she angrily handed to me a list of her customers and told me to collect the balance by myself. To avoid further trouble, I left the office;

That on February 6, 2002 at about 10:45 A.M., I went inside RTC Branch 8 Staff Room to collect the account from Mrs. Develuz. When she saw me, Mrs. Develuz handed to me a check of Fiscal Phoebe Toribio which is a payment of a jewelry which the latter got from her;

That after receipt of the said check, I sat down on a bench facing Mrs. Develuz and asked her to pay me the balance of the jewelries that she got from me;

That in response of my plea, Mrs. Develuz in an angry and loud voice said, "Dili ba nga gihatagan ta naman ka sa listahan sa mga nakakuha sa alahas? Ikaw na ang maningil sa ila", (which in English literally means "IS IT NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THE LIST OF THOSE WHO GOT THE JEWELRIES? YOU COLLECT IT YOURSELF");

That I reacted because that was not our agreement. Besides, I explained to her that I delivered the jewelries to her and not to the people whose names appeared on the list that she handed to me;

That while having a verbal tussle, Mr. Cyrus Ellorin who is a co-employee of Mrs. Develuz, with the designation of court interpreter of Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, went nearer to me and shouted at me to go out I told him that I don't want any trouble and that I just want to collect from Mrs. Develuz the unpaid balance of the jewelries which she got from me;

That Mr. Cyrus Ellorin violently pushed me out of the staff room, practically driving me out as if I was a leper, I reacted and told him that I just want to collect my money. Besides, being a woman and a member of the Municipal Council of San Fernando, Bukidnon, I also deserve a little respect, but the same proved futile. While I was talking, Mr. Ellorin continued pushing me until we reached the door;

That during our verbal tussle, Mrs. Celsa Ellorin, wife of Mr. Cyrus Ellorin, and who is also an employee of Branch 8, got her tape recorder and positioned it near my mouth presumably to record my utterances;

That when I was out of the office, Mr. Ellorin slammed the door leaving me outside crying;

That the employees of the office of the Clerk of Court, particularly Mrs. Parreño, brought me to their office and gave me water and comforted me. While being comforted, Mrs. Celsa Ellorin got inside the office of the Clerk of Court and hurled insults. She was rebuked by Mrs. Parreño and ordered to leave the room.

That I was extremely humiliated and hurt by the actuations of the respondents. I have been in business for 33 years but that was the first time I encounter such horrible experience;

That the incident was reported to the police and entered into the blotter, copy of the police blotter is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B";1

In their joint Comment, respondents contend that the instant Affidavit-Complaint is identical to the complaint for Misconduct filed by complainant with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, docketed as OMB-M-A-02-126-E; in said case, respondents filed their Joint Counter-Affidavit With Counter-Complaint. They incorporated said Counter-Affidavit in their joint Comment to the instant complaint narrating therein their version of the incidents leading to the instant case as follows:

a) That sometime in October, 2000, complainant ADAJAR was in the court office selling jewelries, wherein respondents DEVELOS and CELSA, and some other court employees bought jewelries on a three-month term credit, at which time respondent DEVELOS facilitated the transaction by listing the names of the employees who bought complainant's jewelries on credit; andcralawlibrary

b) That complainant ADAJAR left the said list of the debtor employees to respondent DEVELOS together with jewelry items to make available the same to other potential employee buyers, to which respondent Develos accepted the said list, and the unsold jewelry items as a matter of good will between friends;

c) Thus, respondent DEVELOS strongly denies complainant ADAJAR'S allegation that complainant "delivered pieces of jewelries on consignment basis amounting to seventy Thousand (P70,000.00) Pesos to Mrs. Develos with the agreement that she (Develos) will pay the said amount within Three (3) months,"; for the following reasons:

1) There was no consignee-consignor relationship between complainant ADAJAR and respondent DEVELOS as there was never any agreement to that effect, verbal or in any form;

2) Complainant ADAJAR was the one who introduced her jewelries to the persons then present and complainant ADAJAR was the one conducting the sale on credit, with respondent DEVELOS only facilitating the listing of complainant's customers, to save the complainant the trouble of going through the tedious process of asking the names of each of her customers, most of whom are respondent DEVELOS' co-employees;'

3) Respondent DEVELOS did not earn any centavo from the jewelry sales, including from the sales of the jewelries that were left to her, as the payments made by the debtor employees which was in accordance to the listed price provided by complainant, were indorsed in its exactness to the complainant;

a) That respondent DEVELOS was not angry when she handed to complainant ADAJAR the list of complainant's customers;

b) That, what prompted respondent DEVELOS to give to complainant the list of complainant ADAJAR'S debtor customers was because of the collection work being added to complainant's heavy work as Docket Clerk of court cases, and others, that she had to stop giving favor to complainant LUZ ADAJAR by way of making the collection for her;

c) Moreover, respondent DEVELOS herein aver THAT complainant ADAJAR received from her the list of her customer-debtors sometime on December, 2000, as stated in complainant's seventh paragraph of her Affidavit Complaint; and in effect had nothing more to do with the collection work from complainant's jewelry customers;

'When respondent DEVELOS uttered the following words which slightly differed from how complainant narrated in Par. 11 of her Affidavit-Complaint, it was neither with any iota or anger or loudness, but with the normal tone of respondent DEVELOS' voice, which was in stark contrast to how respondent Develos speaks with anger which we have oftentimes witnessed.'

'That respondent CYRUS, sensing a possible fight that may ensue, decided to intervene and said to complainant Adajar: "Time pa, unsa kana nga mag-away? Mrs. Dili kana mahimo nga mangaway ka, denhi sa opisina" WHICH IN ENGLISH IS: "IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED THAT YOU MAKE A FIGHT INSIDE THE OFFICE." To which complainant ADAJAR shouted back saying: "Nganong ga-apil apil ka nga wa ka may labut?" WHICH IN ENGLISH IS: "WHY ARE YOU INTERVENING WHEN YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE MATTER?"

'That at this point respondent CYRUS ELLORIN stood from where he was seated and approached complainant and said: Mrs. Dili mahimo nga dili ako manghilabut kay opisina kini.", which in English is "MRS. IT CANNOT BE THAT I SHOULD NOT INTERVENE BECAUSE THIS IS AN OFFICE."

'That in fit of harassing anger, complainant ADAJAR said: "Nahibalo ko sa balaod kay Kagawad ko sa San Fernando; nganong gapagawason ko nimo nga wa ka may labut; nahibalo ra ba ko sa inyong binuhatan denhi, I-report ko kamo ni Judge Villanueva!", WHICH IN ENGLISH IS: "I KNOW THE LAW BECAUSE I AM A kagawad OF SAN FERNANDO, WHY ARE YOU GETTING ME OUT WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS MATTER; I KNOW YOUR WRONGDOINGS (the nuance of the word "binuhatan" by its usage) HERE, I AM GOING TO REPORT THESE TO JUDGE VILLANUEVA (Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of the municipality of San Fernando, province of Bukidnon.")

'That because complainant continued to insist that respondent Ellorin has nothing to do with what she was doing, respondent Ellorin decided to let complainant get out of the office by saying: "Mrs. gawas na lang denhi kay opisina man kini, dili mahimo nga mangaway ka denhi." WHICH IN ENGLISH IS: "Mrs, you better get outside because this is an office, you cannot be permitted to make a fight inside."

'That respondent Cyrus led complainant out of the court office, without any harm or violence inflected on her person;

'That respondent Ellorin only did his inherent responsibility as the most senior employee of the said court office then present; the Acting Presiding Judge Hon. Jesus M. Barroso, Jr. being then presiding the court session at the session hall of RTC branch 10; and the Legal Researcher/ OIC, and Acting Branch Clerk of Court was not around;

'That the manner whereby herein respondent Cyrus led Complainant ADAJAR out of the court office was by placing his body in front of complainant whose back was towards the alley leading to the entrance door of the court office, such that herein respondent stepped forward towards complainant, complainant stepped back to prevent her body from contact with the body of respondent CYRUS, until the point when Complainant's body was already outside the door, that respondent CYRUS then closed the door and locked it to prevent complainant from coming back to the court office of RTC 8;

'That respondent Celsa Ellorin came near complainant, and positioned her tape recorder on the table of Sheriff Benjamin Dael and later on the table of Process Server Rodolfo Bacawag, both tables being near where complainant Adajar was located, for the purpose that complainant will stop her verbal abuse against respondent Develos and Cyrus, and to have her threatening and harassing utterances recorded if she continues with it; but the said tape recorder was never positioned near complainant's mouth;

'That when the body of complainant Adajar was already outside the court office, respondent Cyrus closed the court office door in a natural manner without emitting any sound;

'That when complainant went inside the Office of the Clerk of Court, Mrs. Nenita Pareño was not inside, and that while it is true that respondent CELSA went inside the said office, it was for the purpose of reporting to the Clerk of Court Atty. Gloria Magtulis-Ariño, the incident that awhile ago then happened inside the court office of the RTC 8, BUT, because respondent CELSA failed to see the person of the Clerk of Court, who was in a corner of the said office that cannot be seen from the point where respondent Celsa reached, respondent Celsa immediately went outside, BUT had never hurled insults to the complainant, nor has respondent Celsa spoken any word to complainant while still inside'

'That respondent Celsa upon reaching the alley, and near the entrance door of the court office of RTC 8, respondent Celsa met Mrs. Nenita Pareño coming from the opposite direction, who without having been provoked by respondent Celsa, insultingly said: "Nganong nag apil apil ka nga wa ka may labut?", (WHICH IN ENGLISH IS: WHY DID YOU INTERVENE WHEN YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE MATTER?"), to which respondent CELSA ELLORIN DID NOT ANSWER BACK, BUT INSTEAD PROCEEDED INSIDE THE COURT OFFICE OF RTC 8;

'That if complainant ADAJAR experienced "humiliation and hurt" as she alleged in the 17th paragraph of her Affidavit-Complaint, the same came about because of complainant's failure to impose her improper and unwarranted demands in spite of the harassment she employed to which respondent Cyrus Ellorin properly intervened, so that such humiliation and hurt did not directly result from any misconduct, jointly or individually, from herein three respondents, as complainant maliciously wanted to portray;2

Respondents contend that the acts of respondents Celsa Ellorin and Teresita Develos being complained of by complainant were not in relation to their functions as court employees but were in connection with the pecuniary activity of complainant. Respondents further assert that complainant is guilty of dishonesty for certifying that she did not commence any other action before any tribunal or body except before this Court when in fact she also filed a complaint for misconduct with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao.3 Respondents also submitted in evidence a Joint-Affidavit executed by persons who were indebted to complainant stating therein that respondent Develos simply facilitated the sale of jewelry made by complainant.4

On August 16, 2002, complainant filed her Reply Affidavit reiterating her allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint. She insists that her arrangement with Develos is not an accommodation between friends but a purely business transaction with the common objective of earning profit for both of them. To prove her contention that Develos actually received from her pieces of jewelry on consignment basis, complainant submitted in evidence a piece of paper allegedly signed by Develos and purportedly acknowledging receipt of jewelry from complainant. Complainant denies having flaunted her office and engaged in name-dropping for purposes of harassing respondents; and asserts that if ever she mentioned her office and the name of a certain Judge Villanueva, it was done out of frustration due to Develos's unjust refusal to pay her obligation.5

Meanwhile, on July 8, 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, acting on the complaint for misconduct filed by herein complainant, rendered a Decision dismissing the administrative case against herein respondents as well as the counter-complaint filed by the latter against herein complainant.6

In a Resolution dated December 16, 2002, this Court referred the instant case to Executive Judge Jesus M. Barroso,7 Jr. of the RTC, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon for investigation, report and recommendation.8

Subsequently, the Investigating Judge allowed the parties to submit additional evidence to support their respective allegations.

In his Report and Recommendation dated April 1, 2003, the Investigating Judge adopted the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao and, accordingly, recommended that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed.9

On July 30, 2003, this Court issued a Resolution referring the Investigating Judge's Report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.10

In a Memorandum dated November 17, 2003, addressed to Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairman of the Second Division of this Court, the OCA found respondents guilty of violating Administrative Circular Nos. 09-99 and 1-99.11 Administrative Circular No. 09-99 prohibits smoking and selling of goods within court houses and offices while Administrative Circular No. 1-99 enjoins court officials and employees from committing acts which would constitute grounds for disciplinary action and directs them to faithfully comply with the norms of conduct and performance of duties prescribed in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713). The OCA recommended that respondents be reprimanded and warned to conduct themselves with the required degree of professionalism and to strictly adhere to the prescribed norms of conduct prescribed for public servants.12

On January 26, 2004, this Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to manifest if they are willing to submit this case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.13

On March 16, 2004, respondents filed their Manifestation indicating their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.14 Praying that the instant case be resolved as soon as possible, respondents further informed this Court that respondent Celsa G. Ellorin who retired on August 28, 2002 is suffering from osteoporosis and can no longer afford further medical attention because her retirement benefits are withheld pending resolution of the instant administrative matter; that her financial woe is worsened by the fact that her husband, respondent Cyrus A. Ellorin, underwent two medical surgeries and was hospitalized from August 10-12, 2003 and October 9-14, 2003.15

On the other hand, despite due notice, complainant failed to comply with this Court's resolution of January 26, 2004. Hence, on December 8, 2004, this Court issued a Resolution requiring complainant to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure.16 Complainant still failed to comply. On August 10, 2005, this Court issued another Resolution imposing upon complainant a fine of P1,000.00 to be paid within ten (10) days from notice or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if such fine is not paid within the prescribed period, and considering complainant to have waived her right to manifest whether or not she is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.17 In a letter dated September 9, 2005, complainant informed this Court that she has already paid the fine of P1,000.00 imposed upon her. Attached to her letter is a receipt issued by this Court evidencing her payment of said fine. Complainant also manifested that respondent Develos and the persons who executed the Joint-Affidavit in her favor have not yet paid their obligations to her.

We shall first dwell on the observations made by the OCA with respect to the actions of the Ombudsman, Mindanao and Investigating Judge Barroso.

First, the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao should not have taken cognizance of the instant case the same being administrative in nature. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, it has been settled as early as the case of Maceda v. Vasquez18 that:

Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.19

Pursuant to the above-settled rule, the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao should have referred the instant complaint to this Court for appropriate action, instead of resolving the same. Hence, we agree with the OCA that the Decision rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao in OMB-M-A-02-126-E does not have any force and effect on the present administrative case before us.

Second, in conducting his investigation, the Investigating Judge simply relied on the pleadings already filed by the contending parties. While he required them to present additional evidence, he did not conduct a full-blown investigation by issuing summons and conducting hearings which would have given the parties the opportunity to further substantiate their respective allegations. As observed by the OCA, Judge Barroso could have easily summoned the court employees who witnessed the incident involving the complainant and respondents to give him a clearer picture of the case, but he did not. Instead, he simply reproduced in his Report and Recommendation the full text of the Affidavit-Complaint and the joint Comment and Additional Defenses submitted by respondents. Moreover, in making his recommendation, Judge Barroso adopted the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao by simply stating that he finds no reason to deviate therefrom without caring to elaborate his own evaluation of the case. This is hardly the kind of inquiry and report expected from the Investigating Judge when this Court referred the instant case to him for investigation, report and recommendation.

Nonetheless, we agree with the OCA that to require a further investigation of the case would unduly prolong its resolution. Considering the respondents' prayer for the early resolution of the case and their manifestation of willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed as well as the waiver of the complainant to submit to this Court her own manifestation, we deem it proper to decide the case on the basis of the records on hand.

It is not disputed that the quarrel from which the present case arose took place within the premises of the RTC, Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon during office hours (around 10:45 a.m.) on February 6, 2002, and that the bone of contention are the unpaid accounts which complainant seeks to collect by reason of her business of selling jewelry to court personnel. It is not also disputed that respondents Develos and Celsa bought jewelry from complainant when the latter was in their office in October 2000, and that Develos helped complainant by listing the names of the employees who bought items from her.

Respondents Develos and Celsa's contention that their acts being complained of are not in relation to their duties as court employees does not exonerate them from administrative liability. Their dealings with complainant regarding items being sold by the latter during office hours and within court premises contravene the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 1-99, pertinent portions of which read as follows:



As courts are temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must, at all times, be preserved and enhanced. In inspiring public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees must:

1...In general: (a) avoid committing any act which would constitute grounds for disciplinary action under, as the case may be, the Canons of Judicial Ethics; Code of Judicial Conduct; and Section 46, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292); and (b) faithfully comply with the norms of conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713).

6...Never use their offices as a residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions.

7...Never permit the following to be done within the premises of the court: gambling, drinking of alcoholic beverages or any other form of improper or unbecoming conduct. (Emphasis ours)

and Administrative Circular No. 09-99, to wit:



Conformably with Administrative Circular No. 1-99 issued by the Chief Justice on 15 January 1999 on the enhancement of courts as temples of justice, the following shall not be allowed within court houses and, more specifically, session halls and offices of court officials and personnel except in designated smoking areas or areas assigned to food concessionaires, as the case may be:

1. Smoking, which is established to be hazardous to health both for the smokers and the passive smokers.

2. Selling of goods of any kind, especially by persons who are not court employees.

The Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the Court Administrator, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, the Executive Judges of multi-sala courts, the Presiding Judges of single-sala courts, and all Clerks of Court shall strictly implement this Circular.

The Office of the Court Administrator shall forthwith furnish copies of this Circular to all Executive Judges, Presiding Judges of single-sala courts, and Clerks of Court of lower courts. (Emphasis ours)

Administrative Circular No. 09-99 directly forbids the selling of goods within courthouses and offices. Since selling is not allowed, logic only dictates that buying of merchandise within court premises is also prohibited because it is an act which abets selling, for there can be no seller without a buyer. In fact, Administrative Circular No. 1-99 expressly prohibits the use of court offices for any purpose other than for court or judicial functions. In the present case, Develos's and Celsa's act of buying jewelry from complainant in their office as well as Develos's conduct of facilitating complainant's sale of jewelry is a violation of the above-quoted provisions of Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99.

Time and again, this Court has held that court personnel must, at all times, act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn the public's regard for the judiciary.20

However, we agree with the OCA that complainant failed to substantiate her allegation that respondent Develos still owes her P20,000.00.

With respect to respondent Cyrus Ellorin, we also agree with the OCA that there is no substantial evidence to prove complainant's allegations that he engaged in a shouting match with complainant. Neither do we find proof that Cyrus violently pushed complainant out of their office.

In the same manner, we find no sufficient evidence to show that Celsa hurled insults at complainant. Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant.21 He must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.22 Otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed. In the instant case, complainant failed to meet this burden.

Under Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,23 violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is classified as a light offense with a punishment of reprimand for the first offense, suspension for 1 to 30 days for the second infraction and dismissal for the third offense. Based on the records on hand, this is Develos's and Celsa's first offense of this nature. Hence the penalty of reprimand is proper.

WHEREFORE, Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, and Celsa G. Ellorin, Court Stenographer III, are found guilty of Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99. They are REPRIMANDED and in the case of Develos, with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

The complaint against Cyrus A. Ellorin, Court Interpreter, is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.



* Spelled as Develuz or Develoz in other parts of the Rollo.

1 Rollo, pp. 2-3.

2 Id., pp. 20-23.

3 Id., pp. 12-13.

4 Id., pp. 71-72.

5 Id., pp. 26-28.

6 Id., pp. 66-70.

7 Spelled as Boroso in other parts of the Rollo.

8 Rollo, p. 35.

9 Id., p. 39.

10 Id., p. 77.

11 Id., p. 78.

12 Id., p. 84.

13 Id., p. 85.

14 Id., pp. 88-89.

15 Ibid.

16 Id., p. 99.

17 Id., p. 103.

18 G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464.

19 Id., pp. 466-467.

20 Gratela v. Yonzon, Jr., A.M. Nos. P-91-590 & P-93-818, April 29, 1996, 256 SCRA 587, 591; Tablate v. Tanjutco-Seechung, A.M. No. 92-10-425-OMB, July 15, 1994, 234 SCRA 161, 167.

21 Gotgotao, et al. v. Millora, A.M. No. P-05-2005, June 8, 2005.

22 Ibid.

23 Civil Service Resolution No. 991936.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

November-2005 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5039 - Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia v. Atty. Rolando S. Bala.

  • A.C. No. 5708 - Bernardo A. Tadlip v. Atty. Fidel H. Borres, Jr.

  • A.C. No. 6026 - Godofredo C. Pineda v. Atty. Teddy C. Macapagal.

  • A.C. No. 6296 - Atty. Evelyn J. Magno v. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba.

  • A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al.

  • A.M. No. 05-8-539-RTC - Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1617 Formerly A.M. No. 02-1342-MTJ - Perfecto K. Estrada, Jr., v. Judge Kames Stewart Ramon E. Himalaloan, et al.

  • ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Docket Clerk, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2056 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P - Luz C. Adajar v. Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2088 - Hernando O. Sibulo v. Muriel S. San Jose, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Naga City.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2090 - Estrella V. Alvarez v. Joy Albert B. Bulao, Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan Cabusao, Camarines Sur.

  • A.M. No. P-93-808 - Court Employees of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Ramon Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur v. Earla C. Sy, Court Stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Ramon Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1738 Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1325-RTJ - Atty. Juliana Adalim-White v. Hon. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-04-1875 - Silas Y. Ca'ada v. Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1961 Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2077-RTJ - Cua Shuk Yin v. Judge Norma C. Perello, Regional Trial Court, Muntinlupa City, Branch 276.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1964 - Henry D. Arles v. Judge Rolindo D. Beldia, Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Bacolod City.

  • G.R. NOS. 118757 - Roberto Brillante v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 52341-46 - Delia Preagido et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 124779 - Danilo Antonio, et al., v. Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal. et al.

  • G.R. No. 123346, G.R. NO. 134385 and G.R. NO. 148767 - Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 134787 - Nicanor T. Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 133640, G.R. NO. 133661 and G.R. NO. 139147 - Rodolfo S. Beltran, et al., v. The Secretary of Health.

  • G.R. No. 135507 - Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Nelson Goimco, Sr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 136371 - Prudential Bank v. Chonney Lim.

  • G.R. No. 139158 - Chandra O. Cacho v. Joaquin O. Bonifacio, et al.

  • G.R. No. 136897 - Private Development Corporation of the Philippines, et al., v. The Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 139233 - Spouses Alfredo and Brigida Rosario v. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc.

  • G.R. No. 139290 - Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 140752 - Dionisio Caraan, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 141241 - Republic of the Philippines, through its trustee, the Asset Privatization Trust v. "G" Holdings, Inc.

  • G.R. NO. 141484 - GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon. Abraham Y. Principe, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 141675-96 - Jesus T. Tanchanco, et al., v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Second Division).

  • G.R. No. 142729 - Mamsar Enterprises Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Varley Trading, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 142308 - Sps. Rev. Elmer J. Ba es, et al. v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. NO. 143023 - Eastern Overseas Employment Center, Inc., v. Cecilia Bea.

  • G.R. NO. 142937 - Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Marita A. Angara, et al.

  • G.R. No. 143510 - Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of Manuel Abella, et al.

  • G.R. No. 143647 - Yusuke Fukuzume v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 143772 - Development Bank of the Philippines v. Prudential Bank.

  • G.R. NOS. 143803 - Creser Precision Systems, Inc., v. Commission on Audit.

  • G.R. No. 144244 - Ester Deloso v. Sps. Alfonso Marapao, et al.

  • G.R. NO. 144374 - Romeo Teston, et al. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 144619 - C. Planas Commercial, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 144705 - Nancy L. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.

  • G.R. No. 144900 - Domingo Marcial v. Hi-Cement Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 145276 - Rolando Agulto, et al. v. William Z. Tecson.

  • G.R. No. 145568 - Heirs of Enrique Tan Sr., et al., v. Reynalda Pollescas.

  • G.R. No. 145578 - Jose C. Tupaz IV, et al., v. The Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 145821 - Spouses Rosauro Ocampo, Jr. and Fe Ocampo v. First Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation, et .al.

  • G.R. No. 146424 - Albino Josef v. People of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147861 and G.R. NO. 155252 - Philippine Ports Authority v. Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 148152 and G.R. NO. 149450 - International Broadcasting Corporation v. Jose T. Jalandoon.

  • G.R. No. 148361 - Rafael Bautista, et al., v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 148411 - Martha R. Horrigan v. Troika Commercial, Inc.

  • G.R. NOS. 148682-85 - People of the Philippines v. Angel A. Enfermo.

  • G.R. No. 150920 - Child Learning Center, Inc., et al., v. Timothy Tagario, et al.

  • G.R. No. 149628 - Edgardo B. Alcazaren v. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 151266 - Spouses Raymundo and Marilyn Calo v. Spouses Reynaldo and Lydia Tan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 151326 - St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City.

  • G.R. No. 152346 - Isaias F. Fabregas, et al. v. San Francisco Del Monte, Inc.

  • G.R. NOS. 151373-74 - Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela and Associates, Architects (CVCAA), et al.

  • G.R. No. 152545 and G.R. NO. 165687 - R-II Builders, Inc., v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), et al.

  • G.R. No. 152578, G.R. NO. 154487 and G.R. NO. 154518 - Republic of the Philippines, et al., v. Estate of Hans Menzi, et al.

  • G.R. No. 152663 - Edgardo D. Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D. Monfort North) of the Municipality of Dumangas, herein represented by Its Punong Barangay, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154115 - Philip S. Yu v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154460 - Lauro C. Degamo v. Avant Garde Shipping Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 154185 - Amelia J. Delos Santos v. Jebsen Maritime, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 154554 - Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Anthony Sy, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155014 - Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. v. M/V "LoK Maheshwari, et al.

  • G.R. No. 156969 - Baron Express, et al. v. Roberto F. Umanito, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155309 - Josephine M. Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Company.

  • G.R. No. 157306 - Republic of the Philippines v. Anatalia Actub Tiu Estonilo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157399 - People of the Philippines v. Jose Ting Lan Uy (Acquitted), et al.

  • G.R. No. 157812 - Rodolfo Santos v. Ronald C. Manalili, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157656 - Arnulfo C. Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 157830 - Dante M. Pascual, et al., v. Marilou M. Pascual.

  • G.R. No. 158857 - Pfeger R. Dulay, et al. v. Rodrigo S. Dulay.

  • G.R. No. 159696 - Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 159969 & 160116 - Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160032 - Estela L. Berba v. Josephine Pablo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160109 - Spouses German and Elisa Balanoba, et al., v. Manuel D. Madriaga.

  • G.R. No. 160145 - Republic of the Philippines v. Pedro O. Enciso.

  • G.R. No. 160118 - Norberto Rimasug, et al., v. Melencio Martin, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160315 - Lourdes D. Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 160324 - International Finance Corporation v. Imperial textile Mills, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 160892 - Spouses Antonio and Lolita Tan v. Carmelito Villapaz.

  • G.R. No. 160893 - Sonia P. Ruiz v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 161357 - Elena P. Dycaico v. Social Security Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161629 - Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161720 - Heirs of Flores Restar, et al., v. Heirs of Dolores R. Cichon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161973 - Francisco Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 162461 - Amos P. Francia, Jr., et al., v. Power Merge Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 162187 - Criste B. Villanueva v. The Hon. Secretary of Justice, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162727 - Ssangyong Corporation v. Unimarine Shipping Lines, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 162890 - Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz, et al., v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162934 - Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo, et al. v. Dolores Lacuata-Gabriel.

  • G.R. NOS. 163619-20 - In the Matter of the Petition for Disqualification of Tess Dumpit-Michelena, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164635 - Majurine L. Mauricio v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163988 - Valentina A. Nu ez, et al., v. GSIS Family Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164798 - China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines Inc., et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 164684-85 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc., v. Antonio Q. Tiamson.

  • G.R. No. 164865 - Roberto P. Fuentes Jr., v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165125 - Cesar T. Villanueva, et al., v. Mayor Felix V. Ople, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165268 - Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165767 - Spouses William G. Friend and Maria Renee Friend, et al., v. Union Bank of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 166333 - Jose E. Honrado v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165842 - Eduardo P. Manuel v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 166606 - Guillermo T. Domondon, et al., v. Hon. First Division, Sandiganbayan.

  • G.R. No. 166550 - Robert C. Casol, et al., v. Purefoods Corporation.

  • G.R. No. 166645 - Vicente D. Herce Jr., v. Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166753 - Angelita Morcal v. Antonio Lavi a, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166755 - Elmer F. Cervantes v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166883 - Angela Taguinod, et al. v. Maximino Dalupang, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167206 - Jaime F. Villalon v. Ma. Corazon N. Villalon.

  • G.R. No. 167474 - Conrado Banal III v. Hon. Delia H. Panganiban, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Makati, Branch 64, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167748 - Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. Herminigildo de Jesus, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168445 - People of the Philippines v. Capt. Florencio O. Gasacao.