Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2008 > June 2008 Decisions > G.R. No. 167674 - PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC.:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 167674 : June 17, 2008]

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a reversal of the Decision1 dated June 30, 2004 and the Resolution2 dated March 30, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79230. The appellate court had affirmed the Order3 dated June 20, 2002 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in SEC Case No. 07-97-5693, denying petitioner's motion to lift the suspension of proceedings of the civil case for collection of a sum of money which petitioner had filed against respondent Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 148.

The facts culled from the records are as follows:

On March 7, 1997, petitioner Philippine Islands Corporation for Tourism Development, Inc. (PICTD) filed a complaint4 for collection of a sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against VMC before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 148. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-483. In its complaint, PICTD alleged that VMC obtained loans from the CICM Missionaries, Inc. in the amount of P3,259,988.08 and from the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer in the amount of P1,211,596.00 Both loans were assigned to PICTD by way of a deed of assignment.

When the loans matured on March 3, 1997, PICTD sought payment from VMC but the latter failed to pay, prompting PICTD to file the abovementioned complaint. The RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against VMC's properties. However, upon VMC's motion, the writ of attachment was lifted when VMC deposited a counter attachment bond.

Meanwhile, on July 4, 1997, VMC filed a petition5 before the SEC to declare itself in a state of suspension of payments, alleging that although it has sufficient property to cover all of its debts, it foresees its inability to pay them when they become due because of financial difficulties. VMC sought the appointment of a management committee that would oversee the implementation of its proposed rehabilitation plan so that it can continue its operations and thus enable it to meet its obligations and satisfy its liabilities.

On July 8, 1997, the SEC ordered the suspension of all actions or claims against VMC pending before any court, tribunal, office, board, body and/or commission.6 Pursuant to said order, VMC filed before the RTC an urgent motion to suspend proceedings in Civil Case No. 97-483.7 The RTC, in an Order8 dated September 26, 1998, granted VMC's motion and suspended proceedings in the civil case.

On December 29, 1999, PICTD filed before the SEC a motion to lift the suspension of proceedings.9 In an Order dated June 20, 2002, the SEC denied PICTD's motion. The SEC ruled that PICTD is merely a general creditor who was able to seize the property of the debtor through an attachment issued before judgment and did not have a prior security agreement with VMC that will ripen into a creditor's right in case of default. Thus, its claim against VMC could not take precedence over the secured creditors.10 The dispositive portion of the SEC Order states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, PIC's Motion to Lift [the] Suspension of Proceedings is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.11

PICTD then appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the SEC's Order. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED and the Order dated 20 June 2002 of the Securities and Exchange Commission in SEC Case No. 07-97-5693 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.12

Hence, this petition.

PICTD raises the following issues for our resolution:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN LIMITING THE ISSUE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION ISSUED BY THE SEC ON THE CLAIM OF PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE RTC.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO RESOLVE THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE VIS - À-VIS SECTION 4-10, RULE IV OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON CORPORATE RECOVERY[,] THE SEC HAS THE POWER TO LIFT OR MODIFY THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE CLAIM OF PETITIONER IN CIVIL CASE NO. 97 - [483] FROM THE STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE SEC IN SEC CASE NO. 07-97[-]5693.

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING.13

On the other hand, VMC posits the following issues for our resolution:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN CIVIL CASE NO. 97-483 IS INCLUDED IN THE COVERAGE OF THE SEC ORDER OF SUSPENSION.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING.14

In sum, the issues are (1) whether or not the proceedings of the complaint for collection of a sum of money filed by PICTD against VMC before the RTC of Makati City should be excluded from the SEC Order suspending all actions or claims against VMC pending before any court, tribunal, office, board, body and/or commission; and (2) whether or not PICTD is guilty of forum shopping.

PICTD argues that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the order of suspension suspends all actions or claims against VMC without qualification as to whether the claim is secured or unsecured. It also argues that the SEC, had it been objective and cognizant of the predicament of PICTD, should have lifted the order of suspension because under Section 4-10,15 Rule IV of the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Recovery of the SEC, the SEC can, on motion or motu proprio, grant, on a case-to-case basis, a relief from the stay order issued.16

On the other hand, VMC counters that under Section 6(c)17 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A18 as amended by P.D. No. 1799, all claims for actions against a corporation declared to be in a status of suspension of payments and under a management committee are suspended.19 VMC also argues that PICTD's effort to distinguish itself as a secured creditor exempt from the order of suspension of proceedings will not help its cause since P.D. No. 902-A makes no distinction and the Order dated July 8, 1997 of the SEC suspending all actions is explicit.20

Before ruling on the merits of the case, we first address the procedural issue of whether or not petitioner PICTD is guilty of forum shopping. Respondent VMC contends that PICTD is guilty of forum shopping because it wants to extirpate itself from the SEC Order dated July 8, 1997 directing the suspension of all claims or actions against VMC even though said order had already been upheld by the Court of Appeals in another case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61267 and that said decision had already become final and executory.21

After considering the circumstances of this case and the submissions of the parties, we are in agreement that PICTD is not guilty of forum shopping.

Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari . It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.22

Records show that CA-G.R. No. 61267 originated from a Motion to Set Case for Further Proceedings23 filed by PICTD before the RTC in Civil Case No. 97-483. When the motion was granted, VMC filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction24 before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC's Order. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and reversed the RTC's Order. In this case, PICTD filed a motion to lift the suspension of proceedings of Civil Case No. 97-483 before the SEC. This petition was filed solely to address the issue of whether or not PICTD should be exempted from the suspension order. Finding two related proceedings involving similar issues are to be expected, petitioner cannot be charged with deliberately seeking a friendlier forum when it was merely pursuing the next proper recourse permitted by the Rules.25

Coming to the merits of this petition, we agree to sustain the ruling of the appellate court upholding the SEC Order suspending the proceedings of the collection suit filed by PICTD against VMC.

Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A as amended by P.D. No. 1799, enumerating the powers of the SEC provides:

SEC. 6. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following powers:

x x x

c) To appoint one or more receivers of the property, real and personal, which is the subject of the action pending before the Commission whenever necessary in order to preserve the rights of the parties-litigants and/or protect the interest of the investing public and creditors: Provided, finally, That upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, pursuant to this Decree, all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly. (Emphasis supplied.)

The purpose for the suspension of the proceedings is to prevent a creditor from obtaining an advantage or preference over another and to protect and preserve the rights of party litigants as well as the interest of the investing public or creditors. Such suspension is intended to give enough breathing space for the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to make the business viable again, without having to divert attention and resources to litigations in various fora. The suspension would enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company. To allow such other action to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.26

We are not persuaded by PICTD's argument that it should be exempt from the suspension order because it is a secured creditor. Unlike the provisions in the Insolvency Law which exempts secured creditors from the suspensive effect of the order issued by the court in an ordinary suspension of payments proceedings, the provisions of P.D. No. 902-A, when it comes to the appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver, do not contain an exemption for secured creditors.

We likewise find no merit in PICTD's argument that the SEC should have exempted it from the suspension order. Although the SEC may, under Section 4-10, Rule IV of the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Recovery of the SEC, on motion or motu proprio, grant, on a case-to-case basis, a relief from the suspension order, we find that the determination of such issue is an administrative finding that this Court will not disturb absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SEC.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 30, 2004 and the Resolution dated March 30, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79230 are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


* Additional member in place of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. who is on official leave.

** Additional member in place of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales who is on official leave.

1 Rollo, pp. 27-38. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurring.

2 Id. at 40-42.

3 CA rollo, pp. 20-24.

4 Id. at 27-35.

5 Id. at 51-58.

6 Id. at 161-166.

7 Id. at 167-169.

8 Id. at 59-60.

9 Id. at 61-63.

10 Id. at 23.

11 Id. at 24.

12 Rollo, p. 37.

13 Id. at 625.

14 Id. at 421.

15 SECTION 4-10. Relief From, Modification, or Termination of Suspension Order. The Commission may, on motion or motu proprio terminate, modify, or set conditions for the continuance of the suspension order, or relieve a claim from the coverage thereof upon showing that (a) any of the allegations in the petition, or any of the contents of any attachment, or the verification thereof has ceased to be true, (b) a creditor does not have adequate protection over property securing its claim, or (c) the debtor's secured obligation is more than the fair market value of the property subject of the stay and such property is not necessary for the rehabilitation of the debtor.

For purposes of this section, the creditor shall lack adequate protection if it can be shown that:

A. the debtor is not honoring pre-existing agreement with the creditor to keep the property insured;

b. the debtor is failing to take commercially reasonable steps to maintain the property; or

c. depreciation of the property is increasing to the extent that the creditor is undersecured.

Upon showing of a lack of adequate protection, the Commission shall order the debtor to (a) make arrangements to provide for the insurance or maintenance of the property, (b) to make payments or otherwise provide an additional or replacement lien to the creditor to offset the extent that the depreciation of the property is increasing the extent that the creditor is undersecured. Provided, however, that the Commission may deny the creditor the remedies in this paragraph if such remedies would prevent the continuation of the debtor as a going concern or otherwise prevent the approval and implementation of a Rehabilitation Plan.

16 Rollo, pp. 626-627.

17 SEC. 6. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following powers:

x x x

c) To appoint one or more receivers of the property, real and personal, which is the subject of the action pending before the Commission in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court in such other cases whenever necessary in order to preserve the rights of the parties-litigants and/or protect the interest of the investing public and creditors: Provided, however, That the Commission may, in appropriate cases, appoint a rehabilitation receiver of corporations, partnerships or other associations not supervised or regulated by other government agencies who shall have, in addition to the powers of a regular receiver under the provisions of the Rules of Court, such functions and powers as are provided for in the succeeding paragraph d) hereof: Provided, further, That the Commission may appoint a rehabilitation receiver of corporations, partnerships or other associations supervised or regulated by other government agencies, such as banks and insurance companies, upon request of the government agency concerned: Provided, finally, That upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, pursuant to this Decree, all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly.

x x x

18 Reorganization of The Securities And Exchange Commission With Additional Powers And Placing The Said Agency Under The Administrative Supervision of The Office of The President, done on March 11, 1976.

19 Rollo, p. 423.

20 Id. at 424-425.

21 Id. at 451-452.

22 Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 156887, October 3, 2005, 472 SCRA 1, 6.

23 Rollo, pp. 474-476.

24 Id. at 499-511.

25 Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Dy, supra.

26 Sobrejuanite v. ASB Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165675, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 763, 770-771; BF Homes, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NOS. 76879 & 77143, October 3, 1990, 190 SCRA 262, 269.




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.