Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2008 > June 2008 Decisions > A.M. No. P-06-2192 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2165-P - JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO, ET AL. v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY:




A.M. No. P-06-2192 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2165-P - JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO, ET AL. v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. NO. P-06-2192 : June 12, 2008]
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2165-P)

JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City, and ATTY. ANDREI BON C. TAGUM, Complainants, v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

For resolution is an administrative complaint1 filed by Judge Luisito C. Sardillo, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 130, Caloocan City, and Atty. Andrei Bon C. Tagum, against respondent Sherwin M. Baloloy, Process Server, RTC, Branch 130, Caloocan City, for Grave Misconduct.

The antecedents are as follows:

Pending before the RTC, Branch 130, Caloocan City was Civil Case No. C-21018 entitled "Catherine Antonio v. Rico Ramirez," for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.

On November 25, 2004 therein petitioner, Antonio, filed a Second Motion for Service of Summons with Manifestation on the Unbecoming Conduct of the Branch Process Server.2 Movant Antonio outlined the improper conduct of respondent regarding the latter's failure to serve summons in connection with her Civil Case No. C-21018. Antonio alleged that on November 14, 2004, she filed an Urgent Motion for Service of Summons citing the fact that since September 14, 2004 no summons had yet been served upon Ramirez; that respondent misrepresented that he could personally and immediately serve the summons on Ramirez; that respondent asked for the amount of P4,000 from Antonio's counsel as fare money; that her counsel reluctantly negotiated the reduction of the amount to P3,000, only to discover later that summons could not yet be issued in view of the resignation of the branch presiding judge; that despite the appointment of a presiding judge and numerous requests to respondent for the service of summons, no summons was served; and that despite the non-service of summons, respondent did not even volunteer to return the P3,000 given to him.3 Ultimately, Antonio prayed that summons be immediately served and respondent's improper conduct be considered for appropriate action.4

Consequently, a Complaint dated February 21, 2005 was filed charging respondent with Grave Misconduct due to his failure to serve summons in connection with Civil Case No. C-21018. The complainant prayed that respondent be recommended for dismissal from service.5

In his Comment dated May 10, 2005,6 respondent alleged that in September 2004, Atty. Andrei Bon C. Tagum, Antonio's counsel, inquired about their pending case. Respondent informed him that since a judge was yet to be assigned to the RTC, Branch 130, no summons could be issued to Ramirez. He added that once a judge was appointed, summons would then be issued and sent by mail to Ramirez's residence in Naga City. He claimed that Atty. Tagum wanted him to personally deliver the summons to Ramirez to ensure fast and effective service. Consequently, Atty. Tagum gave him P3,000 for his fare to Naga City.7

He admitted that when summons was eventually issued on November 12, 2004, he failed to immediately serve it because from November 18 to November 20, 2004, Naga City was struck by Typhoon "Yoyong." Four days later, he attended a three-day National Convention and Seminar Workshop sponsored by the Process Servers Association of the Philippines in Baguio City.8

He added that he unfortunately spent the P3,000 given to him for his fare to Naga City. After saving for his fare to Naga City, he personally served a copy of the summons to Ramirez on December 11, 2004.9

In a Resolution10 dated July 5, 2006, this Court required the parties to manifest within fifteen days if they were willing to submit the administrative matter for decision based on the pleadings filed.

Judge Sardillo and respondent manifested their willingness to submit the matter for decision, embodied in their Manifestations dated August 1, 200611 and August 11, 2006,12 respectively.

Thereafter, respondent informed the Court that Judge Sardillo died on June 8, 2007.13 He further notified the Court that he had just completed serving six (6) months suspension without pay in connection with another case and pleaded for the Court's mercy and understanding in the resolution of the instant administrative complaint.14

In its Report15 dated April 10, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be held guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and be meted the penalty of suspension for three (3) months, without pay.

The issue for resolution is whether or not respondent was remiss in performing his duties warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions.

This Court resolves the issue in the affirmative.

The importance of the process server's duty must be underscored. A process server plays a vital role in the administration of justice.16 It is through him that defendants learn of the action brought against them by the complainant.It is also through the service of summons by the process server that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant.17

Understandably, no summons could be served from the inception of the suit up to November 11, 2004 since no summons had yet been issued. However, when summons was eventually issued on November 12, 2004, it took respondent until December 11, 2004 to personally serve it on Ramirez. Respondent admitted that there was a delay in the service of the summons, but would justify it by reasoning that from November 18 to November 20, 2004 Naga City was struck by Typhoon "Yoyong" and from November 24 to November 26, 2004 he attended a three-day National Convention for process servers in Baguio City. He even added that he had spent the P3,000 given to him as fare to Naga City, and it took time for him to save for the fare money.

This Court is not swayed by respondent's lame excuses. There is too much disparity between the number of days when he could not serve the summons and the number of days when he could. Not only was respondent remiss in the performance of his duties; he failed to follow the procedure in instances in which a party litigant wanted personal service of summons, namely, to submit a statement of estimated expenses for the court's approval and a statement of liquidation after service.18

Moreover, this is not the fist time that respondent has been administratively charged. In no less than four instances, this Court applied administrative sanctions on respondent; and in each instance, it sternly warned respondent that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

In Baloloy v. Flores,19 respondent was fined for fighting with a co-worker employed in another branch of the trial court. In Chiong v. Baloloy,20 respondent was suspended for six months without pay for punching a woman several times during office hours in the building where the courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Office were located. In Robles v. Baloloy,21 respondent was reprimanded for compromising the public's trust in the justice system though his unauthorized presence at a demolition site. In Sardillo, et al. v. Baloloy,22 involving circumstances similar to the present case, this Court, in a Resolution dated December 5, 2007, found respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct and fined him P2,000 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. In said case, respondent also admitted receiving money for his fare from one of the parties and there was also an undue delay in the delivery of the summons for more than two months.

As reiterated in Maxino v. Fabugais:23

A process server should be fully cognizant not only of the nature and responsibilities of his task but also of their impact in the speedy administration of justice. It is through the process server that a defendant learns of the action brought against him by the complainant. More importantly, it is through the service of summons of the process server that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. As a public officer, the respondent is bound virtute oficii to bring to the discharge of his duties the prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. Relevant in the case at bar is the salutary reminder from this Court that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel - hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.24

Thus, conformably to the mandate of speedy dispensation of justice stressed by the Constitution, it is crucial that summons, writs and other court processes be served expeditiously and without delay.25

No less than the Constitution provides that "[p]ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."26 This central tenet in a government official's career is more than just a moral imploration. It is a legal imperative. There is a constant need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.27

Sadly, despite numerous warnings, respondent still failed to keep his actions within due bounds, acting beyond the scope of his authority. Despite this Court's warning in Sardillo, et al. v. Baloloy28 against the same or similar acts of impropriety, respondent again failed to expeditiously serve the summons and admittedly received P3,000 from Antonio for travel expenses in serving the summons to Naga City, which is clearly against the procedure for obtaining travel expenses for service of summons laid down in Rule 41, Sec. 10 (e), A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC.29

Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.30 The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. In the present case, it has been sufficiently proven that respondent willfully violated established rules. Despite being warned, respondent's improper conduct of accepting P3,000 to defray his travel expenses in serving the summons and the unreasonable delay in its service, against the clear mandate of the rules, subjected the court's image to distrust. For this, the Court finds respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct.

Section 52(A)(3) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies grave misconduct as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first (1st) offense.

WHEREFORE, respondent SHERWIN M. BALOLOY is found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, and ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institution. This judgment is immediately executory.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Reyes, Leonardo-de-Castro, Brion, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave.

Endnotes:


1 Rollo, pp. 2-6 with enclosures.

2 Id. at 4-6.

3 Id. at 4-5.

4 Id. at 6.

5 Id. at 2-6.

6 Id. at 8-9.

7 Id. at 8.

8 Id. at 11.

9 Id. at 10.

10 Id. at 15.

11 Id. at 17.

12 Id. at 18.

13 Id. at 21.

14 Id. at 20.

15 Id. at 12-14.

16 See Cañete v. Manlosa, A.M. No. P-02-1547, October 3, 2003, 412 SCRA 580, 586.

17 Nery v. Gamolo, A.M. No. P-01-1508. February 7, 2003, 397 SCRA 110, 117.

18 Rule 41, Sec. 10 (e), A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC.

19 A.M. No. P-99-1357, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 317.

20 A.M. No. P-01-1523, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 528.

21 A.M. No. P-07-2305, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 196.

22 A.M. No. P-06-2153, December 5, 2007.

23 A.M. No. P-05-1946, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 78.

24 Id. at 85.

25 Supra, note 17.

26 SECTION 1, ARTICLE XI.

27 Advincula v. Dicen, G.R. No. 162403, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 696, 711.

28 Supra, note 22.

29 In addition to the fees above fixed, the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos shall be deposited with the Clerk of Court upon filing of the complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other court-authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case. In case the initial deposit of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall be required to make an additional deposit. The sheriff, process server or other court authorized person shall submit to the Court for its approval a statement of the estimated travel expenses for service of summons and court processes. Once approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the money to said sheriff or process server. After service, a statement of liquidation shall be submitted to the Court for approval. After rendition of judgment by the Court, any excess from the deposit shall be returned to the party who made the deposit.

30 Mendoza v. Navarro, A.M. No. P-05-2034, September 11, 2006, 501 SCRA 354, 363.




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






June-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6909 - LUZ VECINO v. ATTY. GERVACIO B. ORTIZ, JR.

  • A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391 and A.C. No. 1543 - CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA v. ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW

  • A.C. No. 6962 - CHARLES B. BAYLON v. ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO

  • A.C. No. 7022 - MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO v. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER

  • A.C. No. 7494 - WILSON CHAM v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA

  • A.M. No. 07-10-254-MeTC - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE OF MERLIE N. YUSON, Court Stenographer, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 1, Manila

  • A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC - RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. ROLANDO FALLER AND ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA

  • A.M. No. 10654-Ret - RE: PETITION FOR THE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE FOUR (4) YEARS LENGTH OF SERVICE AS A SANGGUNIANG BAYAN MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER TO COMPLETE THE TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RECEIVING HIS MONTHLY LIFETIME

  • G.R. No. 161188 - HEIRS OF PURISIMA NALA, ETC. v. ARTEMIO CABANSAG

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1682 - ESTER F. BARBERO v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO, ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1686 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-1896-MTJ - ALBERTO SIBULO v. Judge LORINDA B. TOLEDO-MUPAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1703 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1875-MTJ - RICKY GARAY, ET AL. v. JUDGE NICASIO V. BARTOLOME, ETC.

  • A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-108-CA-J - ERLINDA BILDNER v. JUSTICE VICENTE Q. ROXAS

  • A.M. No. P-06-2192 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2165-P - JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO, ET AL. v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY

  • A.M. NO. P-05-1969 - AURORA B. GO v. TERESITA C. REMOTIGUE

  • A.M. NO. P-05-1971 Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1915-P - JORGE Q. GO v. VINEZ A. HORTALEZA, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2118 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2189-P - TEOFILA C. DE VERA v. ANTHONY E. RIMAS

  • A.M. NO. P-06-2121 Formerly OCA A.M. No. 05-12-746-RTC - IN-HOUSE FINANCIAL AUDIT, CONDUCTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF KHALIL B. DIPATUAN, RTC-MALABANG, LANAO DEL SUR

  • A.M. NO. P-06-2143 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2384-P - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST JESUSA SUSANA CARDOZO, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City

  • A.M. No. P-06-2192 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2165-P - JUDGE LUISITO C. SARDILLO, ET AL. v. SHERWIN M. BALOLOY

  • A.M. No. P-06-2201 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1649-P - JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ v. MARIO M. PABLICO, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2330 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. P-03-1538-P - LUDOVICO RAFAEL VS.BERNARDO G. SUALOG

  • A.M. No. P-07-2362 - MAGDALENA P. CATUNGAL v. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. P-07-2384 - KENNETH HAO v. ABE C. ANDRES, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2388 Formerly OCA-IPI No. 07-2558-P - SANNIE V. JUARIO v. NORBERTO LABIS, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2399 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2390-P - EDNA PALERO-TAN v. CIRIACO I. URDANETA, JR., ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2413 Formerly OCA-IPI No. 07-2627-P - JUDGE MANUEL V. GINETE v. VILLA M. CABALLERO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017 - LT. GEN. ALFONSO P. DAGUDAG (Ret.) v. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA, ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2035 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. JUDGE LEONCIO M. JANOLO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2037 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2540-RTJ - ATTY. NORITO E. TORRES, ET AL. v. JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR, ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067 - NILO JAY MINA v. JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, ETC.

  • A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2118 - REGIDOR GUTIERREZ v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119 Formerly A.M. O.C.A. IPI No. 07-2709-RTJ - ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 131903 - OSCAR R. BADILLO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137869 and G.R. NO. 137940 - SPS. MARCIAL VARGAS AND ELIZABETH VARGAS v. SPS. VISITACION AND JOSE CAMINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141020 - CASINO LABOR ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145044 - PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NEPTUNE ORIENT LINES/OVERSEAS AGENCY SERVICES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 145545 - PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA v. LUCIA D. ABENA

  • G.R. No. 145842 and G.R. NO. 145873 - EDSA SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., ET AL. v. BF CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 146175 - SIMEON M. VALDEZ v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 147559 - ARMED FORCES AND POLICE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. INES BOLOS SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 147782 - JUANITA A. AQUINO v. TERESITA B. PAISTE

  • G.R. No. 148123 - RENE SORIANO @ "RENATO" v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 148606 - CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 149787 - JUDGE ANTONIO C. SUMALJAG v. SPS. DIOSDIDIT & MENENDEZ M. LITERATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149801 - SPS RENATO & FLORINDA DELA CRUZ v. SPS GIL & LEONILA SEGOVIA

  • G.R. No. 150684 - ANDRES T. MELENCION v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150741 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE LAGRAMADA AND BONIFACIA LAGRAMADA

  • G.R. No. 151133 - AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NOEL MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152580 - CONSUELO METAL CORPORATION v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152859 - EUFROCINO C. IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. AFP RETIREMENT AND SERVICE BENEFIT SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 153287 - NOEL GUILLERMO y BASILIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 153517 - AMBEE FOOD SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154953 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC.

  • G.R. NOS. 156399-400 - VICTOR JOSE TAN UY v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157206 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPS. PLACIDO ORILLA & CLARA DY ORILLA

  • G.R. No. 158182 - SESINANDO MERIDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 158384 - JUAN OLIVARES, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 159404 - RIZZA LAO @ NERISSA LAPING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 159550 - LUCIA CARLOS ALINO, ETC. v. HEIRS OF ANGELICA A. LORENZO, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 159610 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 159889 - WALTER VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. FLORENTINO CHONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159934 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. v. JOSE B. TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160208 - RAFAEL R. MARTELINO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160795 - CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SPS. REYNALDO AND MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160898 - DAVID SIA TIO, ET AL. v. LORENZO ABAYATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161188 - HEIRS OF PURISIMA NALA, ETC. v. ARTEMIO CABANSAG

  • G.R. No. 161416 - MAUNLAD TRANSPORT, INC., ETC., ET AL. v. FLAVIANO MANIGO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 161539 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERTERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 161910 and G.R. NO. 161930 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ETC. v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162411 - NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES INC., ETC. v. NASIPIT EMPLOYEE LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162787 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES F. ALONTE

  • G.R. No. 163017 - HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163175 - CITY OF MAKATI, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164401 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164517 - BF CORPORATION v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. 164640 - CYNTHIA GANA v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164846 - STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164912 - PAG-ASA FISHPOND CORPORATION v. BERNARDO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165016 - DOLORES MONTEFALCONET AL. v. RONNIE S. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 165918 - QUINTIN LEE, JR. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166104 - RN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. A.I.I. SYSTEM, INC.

  • G.R. No. 166261 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ASTRID V. CORRALES

  • G.R. No. 166662 - AUTOCORP GROUP, ET AL. v. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166810 - JUDE JOBY LOPEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 167041 - PROVIDENT INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JOAQUIN T. VENUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167310 - THE PENINSULA MANILA, ET AL. v. ELAINE M. ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. 167330 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 167523 - NILDA V. NAVALES v. REYNALDO NAVALES

  • G.R. No. 167674 - PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 167765 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FMF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. NOS. 167860-65 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEDDY M. PAJARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168210 - COASTAL SAFEWAY MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. LEONISA M. DELGADO

  • G.R. No. 168799 - EUHILDA C. TABUADA v. HON. J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170181 - HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., ET AL. v. FELICITO IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171042 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LYNNETTE CABANTUG-BAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 171373 - LLOYD'S ENTERPRISES AND CREDIT CORPORATION v. SPS. FERDINAND & PERSEVERANDA DOLLETON

  • G.R. No. 171442 - ADING QUIZON, ET AL. v. LANIZA D. JUAN

  • G.R. No. 171481 - CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171534 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. WILCON BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 172573 - RICARDO SUAREZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172585 - CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN, ET AL. v. ANTONIA GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172752 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO SISON

  • G.R. No. 173023 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RESURRECCION RANIN, JR. y JAMALI

  • G.R. No. 173088 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. IMPERIAL CREDIT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 173308 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELMER DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173876 - VALCESAR ESTIOCA y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 173942 - FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL. v. HON. MARIETTA J. HOMENA-VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174205 - GONZALO A. ARANETA v. INES BOLOS SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 174479 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZALDY GARCIA y ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. 174925 - LOOC BAY TIMBER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. INTESTATE ESTATES OF VICTOR MONTECALVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174929 - ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN

  • G.R. No. 176150 - IBARRA P. ORTEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176296 - INDIRA R. FERNANDEZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176358 - BIENVENIDO LIBRES, ET AL. v. SPS. RODRIGO DELOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176434 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 176441 - HEIRS OF MARCELA NAVARRO, ETC. v. WILLY Y. GO

  • G.R. No. 176466 - TEGIMENTA CHEMICAL PHILS./VIVIAN D. GARCIA v. ROLAN E. BUENSALIDA

  • G.R. No. 176735 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY SANTOS y MACOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176742 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO ESPINO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 176795 - SPS. CAROLINA & REYNALDO JOSE v. SPS. LAUREANO & PURITA SUAREZ

  • G.R. No. 177136 Formerly G.R. NOS. 153295-99 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTURO DOMINGO y GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 177161 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM BUNAGAN y SONIO

  • G.R. No. 177822 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HILARIO OPONG y TAÑESA

  • G.R. No. 178236 - OLIGARIO SALAS v. ABOITIZ ONE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 178352 - VIRGILIO S. DELIMA v. SUSAN MERCAIDA GOIS

  • G.R. No. 178540 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO SORILA, JR. y SUPIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 178770 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO BUCAYO y MOJICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 178876 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION y CLEMENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 178884 - RICARDO P. PRESBITERO, JR., ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179030 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCELINO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 179150 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DELIA BAYANI y BOTANES

  • G.R. No. 179277 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMON COJA y SIMEON

  • G.R. No. 179712 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EFREN MAGLENTE y CERVANTES

  • G.R. No. 179817 - ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV v. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180164 - FLORENTINO P. BLANCO v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180884 - EMERLINDA S. TALENTO, ETC. v. HON. REMIGIO M. ESCALADA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 181097 - NORLAINIE MITMUG LIMBONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 181568 - SPS. MANALO P. HERNAL, JR., ET AL. v. SPS. PAULINO DE GUZMAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182484 - DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO, ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 182795 - ARMANDO Q. CANLAS, ET AL. v. NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS'N., I - XIII, INC., ET AL.