Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > October 2009 Decisions > G.R. No. 163033 - San Miguel Corporation v. Eduardo L. Teodosio :




G.R. No. 163033 - San Miguel Corporation v. Eduardo L. Teodosio

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 163033 : October 2, 2009]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Decision1 dated October 30, 2003, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60334 and its Resolution2 dated February 24, 2004 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

On September 5, 1991, respondent Eduardo Teodosio was hired by San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as a casual forklift operator in its Bacolod City Brewery.3 As a forklift operator, respondent was tasked with loading and unloading pallet4 of beer cases within the brewery premises. Respondent continuously worked from September 5, 1991 until March 1992, after which he was "asked to rest" for a while. A month after, or sometime in April 1992, respondent was rehired for the same position, and after serving for about five to six months, he was again "asked to rest." After three weeks, he was again rehired as a forklift operator. He continued to work as such until August 1993.5

Sometime in August 1993, respondent was made to sign an "Employment with a Fixed Period"6 contract by SMC, wherein it was stipulated, among other things, that respondent's employment would be "from August 7, 1993 to August 30, 1995, or upon cessation of the instability/fluctuation of the market demand, whichever comes first." Thereafter, respondent worked at the plant without interruption as a forklift operator.

On March 20, 1995, respondent was transferred to the plant's bottling section as a case piler. In a letter7 dated April 10, 1995, respondent formally informed SMC of his opposition to his transfer to the bottling section. He asserted that he would be more effective as a forklift operator because he had been employed as such for more than three years already. Respondent also requested that he be transferred to his former position as a forklift operator. However, SMC did not answer his letter.

In an undated letter,8 respondent informed SMC that he was applying for the vacant position of bottling crew as he was interested in becoming a regular employee of SMC.

On June 1, 1995, SMC notified the respondent that his employment shall be terminated on July 1, 1995 in compliance with the Employment with a Fixed Period contract.9 SMC explained that this was due to the reorganization and streamlining of its operations.

In a letter10 dated July 3, 1995, respondent expressed his dismay for his dismissal. He informed SMC that despite the fact that he would be compelled to receive his separation pay and would be forced to sign a waiver to that effect, this does not mean that he would be waiving his right to question his dismissal and to claim employment benefits as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and company policies.

Thereafter, respondent signed a Receipt and Release11 document in favor of SMC and accepted his separation pay, thereby releasing all his claims against SMC.

On July 4, 1995, respondent filed a Complaint12 against SMC before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City, for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages and other benefits.

After the filing of the parties' respective pleadings, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision13 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter concluded that the contract of employment with a fix period signed by respondent was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative. There was thus nothing illegal about respondent's transfer to the bottling section and the assignment of a regular employee to his former position. Considering that respondent failed to qualify in the bottling section and there was no longer any available position for him, his termination in accordance with the employment contract was valid. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter opined that since the respondent was not a union member and not a regular employee of SMC, he was not entitled to the benefits granted by the existing CBA.14

Aggrieved, respondent sought recourse before the NLRC, Fourth Division, Cebu City. On November 26, 1999, the NLRC rendered a Decision15 dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC anchored its decision on the fact that respondent signed a "Receipt and Release" upon receiving his separation pay from SMC. It upheld the validity of the said Receipt and Release document, finding the same to have been voluntarily executed by the respondent and the consideration therefor appears to be reasonable under the circumstances.16 The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in a Resolution17 dated May 26, 2000.

Respondent then filed before the CA a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60334, seeking to annul and set aside the said Decision and Resolution of the NLRC.18

On October 30, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision19 granting the petition, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 1999 and Resolution dated May 26, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Cebu City and Decision dated April 24, 1998 of the Labor Arbiter are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is rendered ordering:

1. The reinstatement of petitioner Eduardo Teodosio to his position as forklift operator without loss of seniority rights.

2. The private respondent San Miguel Corporation to pay the full backwages of the petitioner from the day of his illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. Said backwages shall be computed on the basis of the basic salary, allowances and other benefits granted to regular employees under the Collective Bargaining Agreement existing at the time. Public respondent NLRC is hereby directed to make the computation of said full backwages and inform soonest all parties as well as this Court, accordingly, within thirty days after receipt of this decision.

3. The private respondent San Miguel Corporation to pay the deficiency amount of salary, allowances and benefits that petitioner should have received as a regular employee from the time he attained the status of regular employee by operation of law on September, 1996 to the time he was illegally dismissed. Public respondent NLRC is likewise directed to make the necessary computation and inform all parties and this Court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this decision.

4. The private respondent San Miguel Corporation to pay petitioner the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages, TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as exemplary damages and ten percent (10%) of the total amount awarded to petitioner by this Court as attorney's fees. Costs against private respondent San Miguel Corporation.

SO ORDERED.20

In granting the petition, the CA ratiocinated that the Employment with a Fixed Period contract was just a scheme of SMC to circumvent respondent's security of tenure. The CA concluded that even before the respondent signed the employment contract, he already attained the status of a regular employee. Consequently, respondent's transfer to the bottling section and his subsequent dismissal were evidently tainted with bad faith. Moreover, the appellate court declared invalid the Receipt and Release document signed by the respondent, since the law proscribes any agreement whereby a worker agrees to receive less compensation than what he is entitled to recover. It added that a deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled.

SMC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution21 dated February 24, 2004.

Hence, this petition assigning the following errors:

First ground

The hon. Court of appeals committed serious errors when it did not uphold the validity of the contract of employment with a fixed period (hereinafter referred to as "EWFP", for brevity) between smc and respondent teodosio.

Second ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred in declaring that respondent had already attained status of a regular employee even before [THE] parties entered into the ewfp contract.

Third ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred in its conclusion that respondent's transfer to the bottling section and subsequent dismissal was tainted with bad faith since having acquired the status of a regular employee as early as 1992, respondent had a vested right to his position as foklift (sic) operator which could not be arbitrarily taken from him and given to accommodate another regular employee, mr. vaflor.

Fourth ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred when it declared that from September 1992 or one (1) year after respondent was hired and attained regular status by operation of law, he was entitled to receive the same basic salary and benefits granted by the collective bargaining agre[E]ment to respondent's co-workers/forklift operators who were regular employees.

Fifth ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred when it did not uphold the validity of the "receipt and release" signed by respondent.

Sixth ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred when it concluded that smc intentionally evaded its legal obligation of granting the benefits and privileges to which its loyal employee of five years is clearly entitled to and such act being oppressive to labor and contrary to the avowed public policy of protecting labor rights entitled the grant to respondent of moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and exemplary damages of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) as well as attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total award for expenses incurred by respondent to protect his rights and interests.

Seventh ground

The hon. Court of Appeals seriously erred when it granted the petition on certiorari filed by respondent and reversed and set aside the decision dated November 26, 1999 (not November 29, 1999 as erroneously stated) and resolution dated May 26, 2000 of the nlrc, fourth division, cebu city, and decision dated April 24, 1998 of the labor arbiter, and consequently ordered the following:

1) the reinstatement of petitioner Eduardo teodosio to his position as forklift operator without losss [sic] of seniority rights;

2) the private respondent san Miguel corporation to pay the full backwages of the petitioners from the day of his illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. Said backwages shall be computed on the basis of the basic salary, allowances and other benefits granted to regular employees under the collective bargaining agreement existing at the time;

3) The private respondent san Miguel corporation to pay the deficiency amount of salary, allowances and benefits that petitioner should have received as a regular employee from the time he attained the status of regular employee by operation of law on September, 1996 to the time he was illegally dismissed. x x x.;

4) the private respondent san Miguel corporation to pay petitioner the amount of fifty thousand PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages, ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) as exemplary damages and ten percent (10%) of the total amount awarded to petitioner by this court as attorney's fees. Costs against private respondent san Miguel corporation.22

Simply stated, the issues before us are the following: 1) whether the respondent was a regular employee of SMC; 2) whether the respondent was illegally dismissed; and 3) whether the respondent is entitled to his monetary claims and damages.

SMC argues that it did not have the slightest intention to circumvent respondent's right to security of tenure. When SMC employed respondent, it was in response to the business environment and operating needs prevailing at that time. It was made in good faith and in the exercise of business judgment. The option of SMC to fully mechanize its operations and to regularize the second shift of employees in the bottling section if favorable conditions prevail were known to the respondent when he voluntarily entered into the employment with a fixed period contract.

SMC adds that before the employment contract expired, respondent was given the opportunity to continue working and was transferred to the second shift operations of the bottling section. When it decided to regularize the second shift operations and accept 23 workers for regular positions, respondent was given the equal opportunity to apply. However, despite being already in the bottling section, respondent failed to perform. After an objective evaluation of the total performance of all the workers with employment contract, respondent failed to qualify for a regular position. Respondent should not, therefore, blame SMC for his failure to qualify for a regular position.

SMC also contends that respondent's employment contract was in accordance with Article 280 of the Labor Code. Respondent's employment has been pre-determined, in that the duration of the work was contingent upon the cessation of fluctuating or unstable market demand for beer products, coupled with the automation of brewery operations.

As regards respondent's claim for underpayment of salary and other benefits in accordance with the provisions of the existing CBA, SMC submits that respondent was not entitled to them. SMC maintains that being a contractual employee, by express provision of the CBA, he was excluded therefrom as he was not included in the appropriate bargaining unit defined in the CBA. Respondent was neither a union member nor one who paid any membership or agency fee to the union. Thus, he was not entitled to any benefits provided in the CBA to its union members.

Moreover, SMC insists that respondent was bound by the Receipt and Release contract that he executed. The terms and conditions of the document were clear and respondent understood and knew fully well the consequences thereof when he signed it. SMC adds that respondent wanted to squeeze more money from it despite the fact that it had already doubled respondent's separation pay.

SMC avers that although a waiver or quitclaim executed by a terminated employee upon receipt of his separation pay is not necessarily a bar to question the legality of his termination, still such conclusion does not apply to the instant case. SMC posits that respondent was not taken advantage of, since he did not receive a ludicrously low and unconscionable amount as separation pay. In fact, respondent was given separation pay in excess of what was stipulated in the employment contract.

Finally, SMC argues that respondent's dismissal from the company was based on legal and valid grounds, i.e., the termination of his employment contract.

For his part, respondent posits that he is already a regular employee of SMC considering that he has been working as a forklift operator for several years before he signed the employment contract. Respondent insists that his position as a forklift operator has never been redundant. In fact, he was replaced by another employee of SMC, who transferred from another plant. Also, the automation of some of SMC's operation does not affect his work as a forklift operator, because forklifts would still be utilized in lifting the pile of cases whether they were arranged manually or by palletizer machine. Respondent contends that his transfer to the bottling section was merely a ploy of SMC to legitimize the designation of another SMC employee to his former position as forklift operator.

Respondent maintains that the execution of the Receipt and Release agreement did not bar him from questioning the legality of his dismissal. He submits that the said agreement was unilaterally prepared by SMC and that prior to its execution, he was already dismissed by SMC. He adds that after receiving his separation pay, he immediately filed the complaint against SMC, thus, affirming his desire to assail the legality of his dismissal.

Respondent maintains that his dismissal was illegal. Hence, he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position as forklift operator, moral and exemplary damages, and payment of attorney's fees.

The petition is bereft of merit.

This Court finds the respondent to be a regular employee. Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.23 Simply stated, regular employees are classified into (1) regular employees - by nature of work and (2) regular employees - by years of service. The former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year.24 If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business.25

Based on the circumstances surrounding respondent's employment by SMC, this Court is convinced that he has attained the status of a regular employee long before he executed the employment contract with a fixed period. Although respondent was initially hired by SMC as a casual employee, respondent has attained the status of a regular employee. Respondent was initially hired by SMC on September 5, 1991 until March 1992. He was rehired for the same position in April 1992 which lasted for five to six months. After three weeks, he was again rehired as a forklift operator and he continued to work as such until August 1993. Thus, at the time he signed the Employment with a Fixed Period contract, respondent had already been in the employ of SMC for at least twenty-three (23) months.

The Labor Code provides that a casual employee can be considered as a regular employee if said casual employee has rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or broken. Section 3, Rule V, Book II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code clearly defines the term "at least one year of service" to mean service within 12 months, whether continuous or broken, reckoned from the date the employee started working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays, unless the working days in the establishment, as a matter of practice or policy, or as provided in the employment contract, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered one year. If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business of the employer.26

Moreover, the nature of respondent's work is necessary in the business in which SMC is engaged. SMC is primarily engaged in the manufacture and marketing of beer products, for which purpose, it specifically maintains a brewery in Bacolod City.27 Respondent, on the other hand, was engaged as a forklift operator tasked to lift and transfer pallets and pile them from the bottling section to the piling area. SMC admitted that it hired respondent as a forklift operator since the third quarter of 1991 when, in the absence of fully automated palletizers, manual transfers of beer cases and empties would be extensive within the brewery and its premises.

SMC would have wanted this Court to believe that circumstances have transpired to force it to implement full automation of its brewery and new marketing and distribution systems in its sales offices resulting in the reduction of personnel and termination of employees with a fixed period contract. However, even after the installation of the automated palletizers, SMC did not leave the position of forklift operator vacant. SMC even transferred one of its regular employees to the Bacolod City Brewery to replace respondent who was in turn transferred to the bottling section of the plant. This demonstrates the continuing necessity and indispensability of hiring a forklift operator to the business of SMC.

Undoubtedly, respondent is a regular employee of SMC. Consequently, the employment contract with a fixed period which SMC had respondent execute was meant only to circumvent respondent's right to security of tenure and is, therefore, invalid.

While this Court recognizes the validity of fixed-term employment contracts, it has consistently held that this is the exception rather than the general rule. Verily, a fixed-term contract is valid only under certain circumstances.28 In the oft-cited case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,29 this Court made it clear that a contract of employment stipulating a fixed term, even if clear as regards the existence of a period, is invalid if it can be shown that the same was executed with the intention of circumventing an employee's right to security of tenure, and should thus be ignored. Moreover, in that same case, this Court issued a stern admonition that where from the circumstances, it is apparent that the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.30

Since respondent was already a regular employee months before the execution of the Employment with a Fixed Period contract, its execution was merely a ploy on SMC's part to deprive respondent of his tenurial security. Hence, no valid fixed-term contract was executed. The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other.31

Having gained the status of a regular employee, respondent is entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and after he has been accorded due process.32

SMC insists that the termination of respondent's employment was in accordance with the Employment with a Fixed Period contract; and that respondent was given opportunities to become a regular employee when he was transferred to the bottling section of the plant. However, considering that respondent was already a regular employee of SMC at that time, the reason advanced by SMC for his termination would not constitute a just or authorized cause.33 ???�r?bl?�


Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 8242 - Rebecca J. Palm v. Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr.

  • A.M. No. 07-2-93-RTC A.M. NO. P-07-2320 - Re: Order dated 21 December 2006 issued by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Regional Trial Court, Branch 275, Las Pi as City, suspending Loida M. Genabe, Legal Researcher, same court

  • A.M. No. 09-3-50-MCTC - Re: Dropping from the rolls of Ms. Gina P. Fuentes, Court stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mabini, Compostela Valley

  • A.M. No. 2007-08-SC - In Re: Fraudulent release of retirement benefits of Judge Jose C. Lantin, former Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Felipe, Zambales

  • A.M. No. P-09-2620 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2517-P - Angelita I. Dontogan v. Mario Q. Pagkanlungan, Jr.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2385 Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 07-2556-P - Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales v. Clerk of Court and City Sheriff Alexander C. Rimando, et al.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2415 Formerly A.M. No. 07-10-279-MCTC - Office of the Court Administrator v. Alfredo Manasan, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Orani-Samal, Bataan

  • A.M. No. P-08-2567 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-670-P and A.M. NO. P-08-2568 Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 99-753-P - Joana Gilda L. Leyrit, et al. v. Nicolasito S. Solas, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Iloilo City

  • A.M. No. P-08-2569 - Judge Rene B. Baculi v. Clemente U. Ugale

  • A.M. No. P-09-2625 - Elisa C. Ruste v. Cristina Q. Selma

  • A.M. No. P-09-2670 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3051-P] - Office of the Administrative Services (OAS) - Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) v. Rodrigo C. Calacal, Utility Worker 1, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, (MCTC), Alfonso Lista-Aguinaldo, Ifugao

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781 and A.M. No. RTJ-03-1782 - State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco v. Hon. Erasto D. Salcedo, (Ret.) Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao Del Norte, Branch 31

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2204 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2137-RTJ - Juan Pablo P. Bondoc v. Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan, etc.

  • G.R. No. 114217 & G.R. No. 150797 - Heirs of Jose Sy Bang, Heirs of Julian Sy and Oscar Sy v. Rolando Sy, et al.

  • G.R. No. 151903 - Manuel Go Cinco and Araceli S. Go Cinco v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 152006 - Montano Pico and Rosita Pico v. Catalina Adalim-Salcedo and Urbano Salcedo

  • G.R. No. 152319 - Heirs of the late Joaquin Limense v. Rita vda. De Ramos, et al.

  • G.R. No. 153653 - San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc., etc. v. City of Mandaluyong, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 153820 - Delfin Tan v. Erlinda C. Benolirao, Andrew C. Benolirao, Romano C. Benolirao, Dion C. Benolirao, Sps. Reynaldo Taningco and Norma D. Benolirao, Evelyn T. Monreal and Ann Karina Taningco

  • G.R. No. 153923 - Spouses Tomas F. Gomez, et al. v. Gregorio Correa, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155622 - Dotmatrix Trading as represented by its proprietos, namely Romy Yap Chua. Renato Rollan and Rolando D. Cadiz

  • G.R. No. 154117 - Ernesto Francisco, Jr. v. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155716 - Rockville Excel International Exim Corporation v. Spouses Oligario Culla and Bernardita Miranda

  • G.R. No. 156981 - Arturo C. Cabaron and Brigida Cabaron v. People of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158467 - Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla v. People of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158734 - Roberto Alba'a, et al. v. Pio Jude Belo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158885 and G.R. NO. 170680 - Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160236 - ''G'' Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Locan 103 (NAMAWU), Sheriffs Richard H. Aprosta and Alberto Munoz, all acting sheriffs, Department of Labor and Employment, Region VI, Bacolod District Office, Bacolod City

  • G.R. No. 160409 - Land Center Construction and Development Corporation v. V.C. Ponce, Co., Inc. and Vicente C. Ponce

  • G.R. No. 160708 - Patronica Ravina and Wilfredo Ravina v. Mary Ann P. Villa Abrille, for behalf of Ingrid D'Lyn P. Villa Abrille, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161952 - Arnel Sagana v. Richard A. Francisco

  • G.R. No. 162095 - Ibex International, Inc. v. Government Service Insurance System, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162473 - Spouses Santiago E. Ibasco and Milagros D. Ibasco, et al. v. Private Development Corporation of the Philippines, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162474 - Hon. Vicente P. Eusebio, et al. v. Jovito M. Luis, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163033 - San Miguel Corporation v. Eduardo L. Teodosio

  • G.R. No. 163209 - Spouses Prudencio and Filomena Lim v. Ma. Cheryl S. Lim, for herself and on behalf of her minor children Lester Edward S. Lim, Candice Grace S. Lim, and Mariano S. Lim, III

  • G.R. NOS. 164669-70 - Liezl Co v. Harold Lim y Go and Avelino uy Go

  • G.R. No. 165332 - Republic of the Philippines v. Yang Chi Hao

  • G.R. No. 165544 - Romeo Samonte v. S.F. Naguiat, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 165679 - Engr. Apolinario Due as v. Alice Guce-Africa

  • G.R. No. 166383 - Associated Bank v. Spouses Justiniano S. Montano, Sr. and Ligaya Montano, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166508 - National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Mario Abayari, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167764 - Vicente,Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 168061 - Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Teofilo Icot, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168324 - Metro Costruction, Inc. and Dr. John Lai v. Rogelio Aman

  • G.R. No. 169541 - German Cayton, et al. v. Zeonnix Trading Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 169554 - Nieva M. Manebo v. SPO1 Roel D. Acosta, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 170122 and G.R. NO. 171381 - Clarita Depakakibo Garcia v. Sandiganbayan and Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 170525 - Baron Republic Theatrical Major Cinema, et al. v. Normita P. Peralta and Edilberto H. Aguilar

  • G.R. No. 170540 - Eufemia vda. De Agatep v. Roberta L. Rodriguez, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170738 - Rizal commercial Banking Corporation v. Marcopper Mining Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170790 - Angelito Colmenares v. Hand Tractor Parts and Agro-Industrial Corp.

  • G.R. No. 170925 - Rodolfo A. Aspillaga v. Aurora A. Aspillaga

  • G.R. No. 171088 - People of the Philippines v. Leonard L. Bernardino alias Onat

  • G.R. No. 171175 - People of the Philippines v. Arturo F. Duca

  • G.R. No. 171587 - Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Ferrer D. Antonio

  • G.R. No. 171832 - Antipolo Properties, Inc. (now Prime East Properties, Inc.) v. Cesar Nuyda

  • G.R. No. 172013 - Patricia Halague a, et al. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 172077 - Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, inc. (BAPCI) v. Edmundo O. Obias, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172359 - China Banking Corporation v. The Commsissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 172710 - People of the Philippines v. Alberto Buban

  • G.R. No. 172885 - Manuel Luis S. Sanchez v. Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports

  • G.R. No. 172925 - Government Service Insurance System v. Jaime Ibarra

  • G.R. No. 172986 - Arnulfo A. Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission and Commission on Elections

  • G.R. No. 173615 - Philippine National Bank v. Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 173923 - Pedro Mago (deceased), represented by his spouse Soledad Mago, et al. v. Juana Z. Barbin

  • G.R. No. 173990 - Edgardo V. Estarija v. People of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General and Edwin Ranada

  • G.R. No. 174451 - Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar v. Rey C. Alcazar

  • G.R. No. 174477 - People of the Philippines v. Renato Bracia

  • G.R. No. 174497 - Heirs of Generoso Sebe, et al. v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174642 - Dominador C. Villa v. Government Service Insurance System, (GSIS), represented by Angelina A. Patino, Fielf Office Manager, GSIS, Dinalupihan, Bataan Branch, and/or Winston F. Garcia, President and General Manager, GSIS

  • G.R. No. 174859 - People of the Philippines v. Jofer Tablang

  • G.R. No. 175317 - People of the Philippines v. Cristino Ca'ada

  • G.R. No. 175399 - Ophelia L. Tuatis v. Spouses Eliseo Escol and Visminda Escol, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175644 and G.R. No. 175702 - Department of Agrarian Reform, rep. OIC-Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman v. Jose Marie Rufino, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175855 - Celebes Japan Foods Corp. (etc.) v. Susan Yermo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176070 - People of the Philippines v. Anton Madeo

  • G.R. No. 176527 - People of the Philippines v. Samson Villasan y Banati

  • G.R. No. 176566 - Eliseo Eduarte Coscolla v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 176863 - Gregorio Destreza v. Atty. Ma. Garcia Ri oza-Plazo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176933 - The People of the Philippines v. Luis Plaza y Bucalon

  • G.R. No. 177024 - The Heritage Hotel Manila (Owned and operated by Grand Plaza Hotel Corp.) v. Pinag-isang galing and lakas ng mga manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (Piglas-Heritage)

  • G.R. No. 177113 - Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. v. Spouses Francisco & Emelia Buenaventura, as represented by Ricardo Segismundo

  • G.R. No. 177710 - Sps. Ramon Lequin and Virgina Lequin v. Sps. Raymundo Vizconde, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177809 - Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip v. Rosalie Pala'a Chua

  • G.R. No. 178083 - Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 178229 - Miguel A. Pilapil, et al. v. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 178199 - People of the Philippines v. Yoon Chang Wook

  • G.R. No. 178429 - Jose C. Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

  • G.R. No. 179063 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. United Coconut Planters Bank

  • G.R. No. 178479 - Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Nikko Sources International Corp. and Supermax Philippines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 179507 - Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet and/or Serafin Remirez v. Myrna B. Letran, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179537 - Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Edison (Bataan) CoGeneration Corporation

  • G.R. No. 179714 - People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Lopez

  • G.R. No. 179748 - People of the Philippines v. Feblonelybirth T. Rubio and Joan T. Amaro

  • G.R. No. 179756 - Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Royal Cargo Corporation

  • G.R. No. 179931 - People of the Philippines v. Nida Adeser y Rico

  • G.R. No. 180421 - People of the Philippines v. Domingo Alpapara, Pedro Alpapara, Alden Paya, Mario Bicuna

  • G.R. No. 180718 - Henlin Panay Company and/or Edwin Francisco/Angel Lazaro III v. National Labor Relations Commission and Nory A. Bolanos

  • G.R. No. 180778 - Rural Bank of Dasmari as v. Nestor Jarin, Apolinar Obispo, and Vicente Garcia in his capacity as Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite

  • G.R. No. 180803 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. J. L. Jocson and Sons

  • G.R. No. 181085 - People of the Philippines v. Nemesio Aburque

  • G.R. No. 181206 - Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. Mila S. Tanseco

  • G.R. No. 181232 - Joseph Typingco v. Lina Lim, Jerry Sychingco, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181528 - Hector T. Hipe v. Commssion on Elections and Ma. Cristina L. Vicencio

  • G.R. No. 181559 - Leah M. Nazareno, et al. v. City of Dumaguete, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 181562-63 and G.R. NO. 181583-84 - City of Cebu v. Spouses Ciriaco and Arminda Ortega

  • G.R. No. 181744 - The People of the Philippines v. Roy Bacus

  • G.R. No. 181869 - Ismunlatip H. Suhuri v. The Honorable Commssion on Elections (En Banc), The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Patikul, Sulu and Kabir E. Hayundini

  • G.R. No. 181969 - Romago, Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 182065 - Evelyn Ongsuco and Antonia Salaya v. hon. Mariano M. Malones, etc.

  • G.R. No. 182259 - Dionisio Ignacio, et al. v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 182499 - Concepcion Faeldonia v. Tong Yak Groceries, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182673 - Aqualab Philippines, Inc. v. Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182836 - Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan S. Montano, et al.

  • G.R. No. 183322 - Gov. Antonio P. Calingin v. Civil Service Commission and Grace L. Anayron

  • G.R. No. 183606 - Charlie T. Lee v. Rosita Dela Paz

  • G.R. No. 183619 - People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa

  • G.R. No. 184645 - Jose T. Barbieto v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184702 - People of the Philippines v. Christopher Talita

  • G.R. No. 184778 - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board and Chuci Fonancier v. Hon. Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 184792 - People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Dela Cruz y Miranda, alias "DINDONG"

  • G.R. No. 184874 - Robert Remiendo y Siblawan v. The People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 184957 - People of the Philippines v. grace Ventura y Natividad

  • G.R. No. 185066 - Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Philippine National Construction Corporation

  • G.R. No. 185159 - Subic Telecommunications Company, Inc. v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Innove Communications, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 185251 - Raul G. Locsin and Eddie B. Tomaquin v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

  • G.R. No. 185261 - Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. and Scandic Shipmanagement Limited v. Eriberto S. Bultron

  • G.R. No. 185285 - People of the Philippines v. Paul Alipio

  • G.R. No. 185726 - People of the Philippines v. Darwin Bernabe y Garcia

  • G.R. No. 186001 - Antonio Cabador v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 186006 - Norlainie Mitmug Limbona v. Commssion on Elections and Malik "Bobby" T. Alingan

  • G.R. No. 186101 - Gina A. Domingo v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 186119 - People of the Philippines v. Pablo Lusabio, Jr. y vergara, Tomasito De Los Santos and John Doe (Accused)

  • G.R. No. 186139 - People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Rusiana y Broquel

  • G.R. No. 186201 - Carmelinda C. Barror v. The Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 186233 - Peopel of the Philippines v. Romeo Satonero @ Ruben

  • G.R. No. 186380 - People of the Philippines v. Manuel Resurreccion

  • G.R. No. 186390 - People of the Philippines v. Rosemarie R. Salonga

  • G.R. No. 186418 - People of the Philippines v. Alfredo, Jr. a.k.a. Jun Lazaro y Aquino

  • G.R. No. 186566 - Rep. Luis R. Villafuerte, et al. v. Gov. Oscar S. Moreno, et al.

  • G.R. No. 187074 - People of the Philippines v. Allan Del Prado y Cahusay

  • G.R. No. 187084 - People of the Philippines v. Carlito Pabol

  • G.R. No. 187428 - Eugenio T. Revilla, Sr. v. The Commission on Elections and Gerardo L. Lanoy

  • G.R. No. 187531 - People of the Philippines v. Elmer Peralta y Hidalgo

  • G.R. No. 188308 - Joselito R. Mendoza v. Commission on Elections and Roberto M. Pagdanganan

  • G.R. No. 188742 - Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Eduardo Pinera

  • G.R. No. 188961 - Air France Philippines/KLM Air France v. John Anthony De Camilis

  • G.R. No. 189303 - People of the Philippines v. Felix Casas Perez