Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > February 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 187120 : February 15, 2010] PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN AND EDUARDO S. RIVERA, RESPONDENTS.:




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 187120 : February 15, 2010]

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN AND EDUARDO S. RIVERA, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


BRION, J.:

We resolve in this Decision the petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by the Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI), assailing the decision[2] dated February 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98666.[3]

The Antecedents

The facts, as set out in the assailed decision, are summarized below.

PJI is a corporation engaged in the publication of People's Journal, People's Journal Tonight, People's Journal International, People's Taliba, Women's Journal, and Insider. In December 1978, it employed respondent Eduardo S. Rivera (Rivera) as proof reader. Rivera rose from the ranks over the years, becoming purchasing manager in 1998. His primary duty involved the canvassing and purchase of paper and other materials for PJI's day-to-day operations. He received a monthly salary of P25,000.00, exclusive of allowances and other benefits.

Sometime in November 2002, Women's Journal implemented a calendar insertion project requiring paper-coated materials. Rivera canvassed and purchased 68,500 sheets of C25 120 coated paper, 170 gsm size 23" x 27" from the Nation Paper Products Corporation (NAPPCO) at P6.50 a sheet for the total amount of P445,250.00.[4]

On January 8, 2003, PJI's Corporate Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Ruby Ruiz-Bruno (Ruiz-Bruno), issued a memorandum[5] requiring Rivera to explain in writing why he "should not be terminated from employment for defrauding or attempting to defraud the Company x x x" in the canvassing and purchase of Women's Journal's paper requirements. The memo alluded to a "reliable quotation from NAPPCO for 68,000 sheets of this kind of paper with exactly the same specifications, shows a price of only P3.40/sheet." Pending investigation of the matter, PJI placed Rivera under preventive suspension.

On January 10, 2003, PJI's Audit Supervisor, Nepthalie E. Hernandez (Hernandez), submitted a report[6] to PJI President Bobby Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) about the canvass of the price of the Women's Journal paper requirements. The canvass showed: a price of P3.91/sheet from Security Commercial although no quotation from the supplier was secured; the lowest price with quotation was P4.12/sheet from Purity Enterprises Co.; and, a telephone canvass with NAPPCO revealed an offer of P3.80/sheet.

On January 13, 2003, Rivera submitted his written explanation,[7] denying that he defrauded or attempted to defraud PJI. In support of his position, he attached a letter dated January 9, 2003 from NAPPCO's Vice-President Kenneth Chong (Chong) to Dela Cruz.[8] Chong denied in his letter giving a quotation of P3.40/sheet for PJI's paper requirement. He explained that NAPPCO quoted a price of P5.80 cash on delivery (COD), but since PJI could not meet its terms, it quoted a price of P6.50 at 30-90 days credit.

Rivera, in a letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to Dela Cruz, explained the details of the purchase transaction with NAPPCO.[9] As a result of this letter-explanation, Ruiz-Bruno issued a memorandum on the same day to Assistant Purchasing Manager Jean Alvarado (Alvarado), requiring her to explain the difference in the quotation of P6.50 from NAPPCO and P4.26/piece (23x27) and P4.68/piece (25x27) from LAMCO, another supplier.[10]

On the same day, Alvarado submitted her explanation,[11] stating that she signed the canvass sheet as instructed by Rivera, but she was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO. She claimed that the canvass sheet (No. 20800)[12] itself showed that the figures were written by Rivera himself.

In a memorandum dated February 7, 2003,[13] Ruiz-Bruno notified Rivera of the termination of his service effective February 8, 2003, "on the ground of loss of confidence" after finding Rivera's "acts and omissions are indicative of fraud and a clear manifestation of your inability as a Manager to protect the Company's interests." The memo stated that: during the open investigation, Rivera admitted the truth of Alvarado's statements; he also admitted that the figures he wrote on the canvass sheet were fictitious because no such figures were given by LAMCO; and he purposely made the insertions to provide a comparative pricing and to facilitate the approval of the purchase order. Ruiz-Bruno further stated in her memorandum that: she interviewed NAPPCO officials who informed her that they had the available stocks cut to give PJI the exact 23" x 27" size of paper it needed, with the wastage to be passed on to PJI, thus, the price of P6.50/sheet; Rivera failed to disclose this detail of NAPPCO's offer, nor did he inform the company if the waste materials were ever delivered to PJI for its disposition; and that Rivera had been talking directly with NAPPCO, contrary to what he said to Ruiz-Bruno that the purchase was based on Alvarado's canvass.

On October 14, 2003, Rivera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PJI, Dela Cruz, Executive Vice-President Arnold Banares and Ruiz-Bruno.

The Compulsory Arbitration Decisions

On October 29, 2004, Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban found, in his decision of October 29, 2004,[14] that Rivera's dismissal was for cause on the ground that he "committed acts of dishonesty, or has committed fraud." The labor arbiter observed that as purchasing manager - a position of trust and confidence - Rivera had the duty to canvass and purchase PJI's needed materials in a manner most beneficial to the company. Rivera failed in this regard.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision, ruling that Rivera's dismissal was illegal.[15] It opined that: Alvarado's statements in her January 31, 2003 letter[16] cannot prejudice Rivera as the "rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another," citing the Rules of Court in that regard;[17] Rivera had not been involved in any work-related controversy; neither did he commit any infraction of company rules and regulations, nor did he have any derogatory record at PJI. Rivera cannot be held liable for fraud because PJI did not present any record of investigation showing the admissions Rivera allegedly made during the investigation.

The NLRC awarded Rivera backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on the finding that strained relations had resulted from the parties' "respective imputations of bad faith against each other."

The NLRC denied PJI's motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2007.[18] PJI thus sought relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. PJI prayed as well for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the NLRC decision. The CA issued the writ after PJI posted a bond equivalent to the P1,862,687.50 award.

The CA Decision


The CA denied the petition for lack of merit.[19] It fully affirmed the assailed NLRC rulings and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it issued on July 24, 2007. The CA declared that "after a thorough evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties, from the facts borne by the records in this case, we are constrained to rule that the dismissal of Rivera based on loss of confidence is not clearly established and supported by substantial evidence." PJI now seeks relief from the Court through a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[20]

The Petition

PJI submits that the CA seriously erred in failing to recognize that the commission of fraud by an employee is a ground under the law for termination of employment. It insists that Rivera was dismissed for cause; as manager of the Purchasing Department, tasked primarily with the canvassing and purchase of supplies for the company's operations, he handled the paper requirements of the Women's Journal project in a manner that breached his employer's trust and confidence in him.

Specifically, PJI faults Rivera for his failure to make a thorough canvass of the price of the project's paper requirement, as well as for dishonesty that resulted in a transaction disadvantageous to the company. PJI cites Rivera's limited canvass, covering only NAPPCO and LAMCO, where NAPPCO quoted the price of P6.50, while LAMCO's quotation was reflected in the canvass sheet only to show that an actual canvass had been made when in fact there was none. PJI insists that during the investigation, Rivera admitted that he inserted a fictitious quotation from LAMCO to provide the appearance of comparative pricing and that this was done after Alvarado had prepared the canvass sheet.

While PJI admits that no written report of the investigation was made, it claims that Rivera never rebutted the findings made at the investigation. When he submitted his written explanation dated January 13, 2003,[21] he only referred to NAPPCO, not to LAMCO; he made no explanation on LAMCO's pricing, a clear indication that no canvass was made on LAMCO. Further, PJI contends that Rivera only relied on NAPPCO's pricing which, at P6.50, was higher than the prices of other suppliers of the same material. It points out that an actual canvass of the unit price of the coated paper material showed that there were other suppliers offering the same material at lower prices, yet Rivera failed to canvass these other suppliers, to the company's prejudice. PJI adds that Rivera did not only fail to conduct a proper canvass; he also failed to disclose to the company NAPPCO's quotation of P5.80 for a COD purchase.

PJI concludes that Rivera had been remiss in the performance of his duty in relation with the transaction, and had committed fraud and acts of dishonesty against the company, to its prejudice and loss amounting to P200,000.00; Rivera had as well breached the employer's trust and confidence. All these, the company proved by substantial evidence. It finally posits that for Rivera, a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis to believe that he had breached the employer's trust is sufficient cause for dismissal.

The Case for Rivera

In his Comment[22] filed on May 29, 2009, Rivera prays that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit, for "it is very apparent that the malicious charges" brought against him "had no leg to stand on and therefore had no basis but speculation and conjectures." Rivera contends that PJI failed to prove how he committed the alleged fraud; instead, the company simulated and fabricated findings that he did not conduct a canvass before he made the purchase of the Women's Journal's paper requirements.

To prove his innocence, Rivera cites the January 9, 2003 letter of NAPPCO's vice president, Chong,[23] and the memorandum dated January 3, 2003 of Alvarado, to show that a canvass may be done, not only in writing, but also by phone. Also, Rivera claims that Chong denied the "reliable quotation" of P3.40 mentioned in Ruiz-Bruno's memo to Rivera, which quotation was even contradicted by the Report of Canvass[24] submitted to PJI President Dela Cruz by Hernandez; Hernandez's report was accompanied by a summary of canvass that showed a unit price of P6.00 for 25" x 38" coated paper required by PJI's project from both NAPPCO and LAMCO. Rivera posits that the evidence proved that there was nothing irregular with the price of P6.50; the verbal quotation by NAPPCO was for P5.80 not P3.40 and the P6.50 was anchored on credit purchase conditions that took into account the cost of money, capacity to pay, the ability to deliver, the availability of the seasonal supplies, and the texture and grammage of the supplies required.

Additionally, Rivera submits that the transaction involved the supply of paper materials for a purpose different from the paper requirements of the company's day-to-day operations. The calendar insertion project was also certified as a "rush" job by PJI's advertising department.

Rivera disputes PJI's submission that he admitted the company's assertions during the open investigation conducted by the investigating panel. He contends that PJI bears the burden of proving its allegations; the company's assertions have no factual basis as it failed to present an investigation report. In particular, Rivera questions PJI's insinuation of his guilt when he did not mention the LAMCO pricing (also P6.50) and referred only to NAPPCO in his explanation letter dated January 13, 2003. He contends that these insinuations are inappropriate and misleading as he was required to explain only the purchase with NAPPCO; no mention of LAMCO was made at all in Ruiz-Bruno's memorandum. He denies that he inserted a fictitious figure for LAMCO in the canvass sheet as implied in the Alvarado memorandum because Alvarado was not aware that he included LAMCO in the canvass; nowhere did Alvarado's memo say that the figures were fictitious, nor that he did not conduct a canvass. On the contrary, he maintains, the Alvarado memo confirmed the practice of conducting a canvass by phone and that suppliers at times do not give written quotations.

On PJI's contention that his failure to advise the company of his actions and the developments is indicative of fraud, Rivera argues that as purchasing manager, he is empowered to decide on behalf of the company purchase strategies and procedures without compromising the integrity of the company, and that he observed the standard procedures for rush transactions in the calendar insertion project. He maintains that the conduct of twenty or more canvasses would entail enormous time that could hinder the implementation of the project. He views the audit canvass the company presented in evidence as inconclusive and a mere recitation of quoted prices without any indication of the conditionalities involved. Rivera further submits that there is no truth to PJI's claim that he failed to advise the company that NAPPCO cut the available sheets that it had (25" x 38") to the required 23" x 27" measurement. He argues that he explained the matter to Dela Cruz in his letter dated January 31, 2003.[25]

Summing up, Rivera insists that PJI failed to prove that he had been dismissed for a just cause; even managerial employees like him enjoy security of tenure, among other rights. Procedurally, Rivera contends that PJI failed to submit any question of law to the Court; the core issue of whether the company was prejudiced by the purchase of coated paper material from NAPPCO is a factual matter appropriately ruled upon by the NLRC. When subsequently sustained by the CA, these factual findings can no longer be disturbed.

The Court's Ruling

We first resolve whether the petition was properly filed in light of the private respondent's position that it solely raises questions of fact that are improper for a Rule 45 petition.

While as a rule,[26] a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, we deem it appropriate to examine the facts in this review, given the conflicting factual findings between the Labor Arbiter, on the one hand and, the NLRC and the CA, on the other.[27] The Labor Arbiter sustained Rivera's dismissal with the finding that he committed acts of dishonesty or fraud against his employer. The NLRC and the CA held that no substantial evidence existed to support Rivera's dismissal.

The CA declared in its assailed decision:

Verily, private respondent Rivera's explanation, embodied in his letter dated January 13, 2003 addressed to Atty. Ruby Ruiz-Bruno and his letter dated January 31, 2003 addressed to PJI President Bobby dela Cruz, supported by the letter dated January 9, 2003 of NAPPCO Vice-President Kenneth Chong as well as the letter explanation dated January 31,2003 of PJI Assistant Manager Jean Alvarado, totally negated the presence of substantial evidence that would justify the dismissal of Rivera based on loss of trust and confidence. Ostensibly, as purchasing manager, Rivera opted to purchase the subject coated paper materials from NAPPCO simply because the calendar project was certified as "RUSH" by the advertising department of PJI and NAPPCO could deliver it on time apart from the unrefuted fact that PJI's term of payment is not COD but 30-90 days from delivery.

We see the case differently.

Contrary to the CA's pronouncement, we find substantial evidence in the records to justify Rivera's dismissal. As the company's purchasing manager, Rivera held a position of trust and confidence; his role in the procurement of the company's operational requirements is critical. PJI is a publication company and is engaged in a highly competitive enterprise; it is an active player in the print media industry. As in any other industry dependent on externally-sourced materials for its operations, its continued viability rests on the cost of production, a major part of which is the cost of the printing materials on which news is written; the street selling prices of its newspapers depend on these costs, and competitors can have a decided price advantage if the cost of PJI's printing materials is above those of the competition.

A costing issue triggered PJI's action to terminate Rivera's employment; it found the cost of the paper materials required in one of its special projects questionable because it was higher than the price of a "reliable quotation." The purchase covered 68,000 sheets of coated paper, size 23" x 27" at P6.50/sheet or a total price of P445,250.00. The "reliable quotation" from NAPPCO, the supplier, purportedly was at P3.40/sheet. It was Rivera who arranged the purchase, and PJI charged him of fraud for this questionable transaction.[28] Rivera denied the charge.[29] To explain his denial, he attached the letter of NAPPCO's vice president, Chong,[30] denying that NAPPCO made a quotation at P3.40. Rivera also explained that NAPPCO made a verbal quotation of P5.80/sheet COD and P6.50 at 30-90 days credit.

Had the matter involved only the P6.50 pricing compared to the alleged "reliable quotation" of P3.40, there is no question that Rivera could not be found liable as NAPPCO denied having been made any quotation at P3.40. As the investigation of the transaction unraveled, however, the company uncovered reasons to seriously doubt Rivera's integrity and his reliability as a purchasing manager.

In the course of the investigation, PJI looked into the files of the purchasing department and obtained a copy of canvass sheet form no. 20800 dated November 27, 2002[31] which Alvarado signed as the canvasser of prices from NAPPCO and LAMCO which both showed the uniform quoted price of P6.50. On January 31, 2003, LAMCO faxed a quotation showing a price of only P4.68 per piece of 25" x 27" material, and only P4.26/piece of 23" x 27" material (no rolls), for the same kind of paper; neither price is near the P6.50 she wrote in the canvass sheet according to Ruiz-Bruno's memo dated the same day.[32] Ruiz-Bruno thus asked Alvarado to explain the disparity in pricing.

On the same day, Alvarado submitted her explanation[33] stating that she had just come from her maternity leave; she admitted having written the canvass sheet as instructed by Rivera, but she did not bother to check the official quotation from NAPPCO since Rivera informed her that he had talked with Letty Torrevillas (Torrevillas) of NAPPCO and she also knew Torrevillas from previous dealings with her. Alvarado claimed that figures in the canvass sheet were written by Rivera himself and that she was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO in the canvass sheet. She also stated that the price difference with NAPPCO was attributable to PJI's past failure to comply with its credit line of COD-7 days. She explained that LAMCO's quotation addressed to the audit department did not specify the payment terms, but she was sure the prices were COD/CASH.

Earlier, on January 10, 2003, audit supervisor Hernandez submitted a report[34] to PJI President Dela Cruz regarding the audit department's own canvass of coated paper materials from two sources: (1) NAPPCO and LAMCO, the company's two suppliers,[35] and (2) from other suppliers. Hernandez reported that the lowest price that his department received was P3.91 from Security Commercial although it did not give a quotation, with the lowest quoted price of P4.12 from Purity Enterprises Co. A telephone canvass with NAPPCO's employee, Torrevillas disclosed that the standard size available from NAPPCO was 25" x 38," but NAPPCO could provide a special cut and at 3% discount; the resulting price for the size 23" x 27" material was P3.80/sheet.

The circumstances surrounding the purchase of the coated paper material for the company's calendar insertion project, examined in their totality, convince us that PJI had sufficient reason to terminate Rivera's employment for loss of trust and confidence. Our reading of the attendant facts shows that he arranged a purchase transaction markedly disadvantageous to the company mainly due to: (1) his failure to conduct an honest-to-goodness canvass of prices for the required paper material and (2) his dishonesty, or at least his misrepresentations, in making it appear that he canvassed two suppliers when he really dealt only with one of them.

Rivera's Failure to Conduct a Canvass

The canvass of prices of production supplies is routine work for any purchasing department. It was Rivera's duty as purchasing manager, and that of his department, to look for prices that would be most advantageous to the company. Rivera failed to perform this duty. He allowed the purchase of materials at a price considerably higher than the quotations of other suppliers in the market. For his own reasons, he settled on one supplier on the pretext that the purchase was certified as a "rush job" by the company's advertising department, and that the material was a special kind of paper readily available from NAPPCO, the supplier of his choice.

Granting that the purchase was a "rush" request, a meaningful canvass could still have been made, had Rivera and his department exerted genuine efforts to undertake one, for even a phone canvass would do, as noted not only by Rivera, but also by Alvarado, Hernandez and Ruiz-Bruno. In fact, PJI's audit department conducted a canvass and, in no time, came out with a pricing considerably lower than P6.50 even at credit terms. He did not have to canvass twenty (20) or so suppliers as Rivera put it, to make a real canvass. A representative sampling of the market certainly would have served the purpose.

If only for his failure to conduct a real canvass, PJI cannot be blamed for losing its trust and confidence in Rivera.

Rivera's Misrepresentations

Rivera did not only fail to canvass the market for the company's paper requirement. Worse than this, he made it appear that he conducted a canvass, undoubtedly to reflect on paper that a canvass had been made, to enable him to comply with a basic purchase requirement and tie the company, for his own reasons, to a higher purchase cost from his favored supplier.

We find it significant that Rivera did not deny Alvarado's statement that she prepared the canvass sheet pursuant to Rivera's instructions, and that she did not bother to check the quotations from NAPPCO because Rivera told her he already talked with NAPPCO's employee, Torrevillas. Alvarado was not aware that Rivera included LAMCO in the canvass sheet and that the numbers for LAMCO (P6.50 and P445,000.00) were written by Rivera himself. To rebut Alvarado's statement, Rivera later claimed that she did not see him insert the LAMCO entries; even if the insertion was true, it did not prove that the entries referring to LAMCO were fictitious or that he did not canvass LAMCO.[36]

We consider Rivera's rebuttal to be lame excuses. While he communicated NAPPCO's quotation to Alvarado so that the latter made no further inquiries, yet, for reasons known only to Rivera, he failed to tell Alvarado about LAMCO's quotation, if indeed there had been one. With the canvass limited to NAPPCO and LAMCO, and with just the two of them involved in the preparation of the canvass sheet, we find it indeed strange that Rivera did not tell Alvarado about LAMCO's pricing.

Separately from Rivera's credibility gap on the matter of LAMCO's insertion in the canvass and Alvarado's statement, we consider it significant that LAMCO subsequently faxed PJI a quotation (on January 31, 2003)[37] different from what Rivera stated in his canvass report. Apparently, LAMCO itself did not know that a quotation for P6.50 under its name had been earlier submitted. This is another circumstance that counts against Rivera's story, separately still from Ruiz-Bruno's assertion that Rivera admitted during the investigation that the LAMCO canvass was fictitious.[38]

Other Acts Indicative of Dishonesty

Still another occasion that smacks of dishonesty (or at least the failure to communicate critical information to the employer) relates to the letter dated January 9, 2003[39] of Chong that Rivera himself attached to his letter- explanation of January 13, 2007.[40] The NAPPCO official mentioned in his letter that the COD price of P5.80 was verbally made to PJI. This verbal quotation could have only been made to Rivera as he was the only one who obtained the NAPPCO quotation (through Torrevillas). Strangely, this P5.80 quotation never reached PJI until it was mentioned by Chong long after the purchase order (PO) for P6.50 was made on November 27, 2002.[41] Stranger still, the PO itself and the canvass sheet indicated a purchase on COD terms, although the unit price was P6.50 in both documents. While a typographical error might have occurred, the lapse can hardly be excused since COD and credit terms are very different, and at the same time very material and critical in the business world. At the very least, Rivera had been very sloppy in missing this lapse. But whatever the cause of the discrepancy might have been, the reality is that PJI missed the price of P5.80 COD (already a high price compared with the prices canvassed by the company's auditing department) and settled for P6.50, still at COD. Thus, PJI was clearly placed at a disadvantage.

Again, separately from all the above, is the matter of the waste paper material that, as Rivera himself explained,[42] resulted from trimming the available 25" x 38" material into the project's 23" x 27" required size. The trimming resulted in waste paper of 2" x 11" that can be retrieved from NAPPCO and resold or used for some other purposes. For PJI, this information again came too late as Rivera gave it to PJI's President Dela Cruz only on January 31, 2003, or long after the purchased materials had been ordered and delivered. Significantly, the records do not show that this feature of the transaction was ever disclosed to the company before the purchase; neither was it in the canvass sheet or in the PO, nor was it ever mentioned to any company official. Had the purchase not been investigated, PJI top management could not have learned about the waste material. To be sure, this was a loss to the company and a gain for whoever knew of this feature of the transaction and took advantage of it.

Our Conclusion

As we look at the total picture, we are convinced that a pattern of concealment and dishonesty marred the purchase of paper materials for the Women's Journal's special project, with Rivera playing the principal and most active role. There is no question in our mind that he failed to make a reasonable canvass of the prices of the paper materials required by a company's special project, resulting in substantial losses to the company. As we previously stated, that a rush job was involved, is no excuse as a canvass could be done even in a day's time as shown by the audit department's canvass. That Rivera was responsible for concealment and omissions also appears clear to us; he failed to seasonably disclose to PJI, under dubious circumstances, material information with financial impact on the purchase transaction.

Thus, we cannot but conclude that substantial evidence exists justifying Rivera's dismissal for a just cause - loss of trust and confidence. For loss of trust and confidence to be a ground for dismissal, the law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify the dismissal.[43]

Enough basis exists, as detailed above, to support the PJI's position that Rivera was responsible for acts and omissions that made him unworthy of the trust and confidence PJI reposed on him. To place this conclusion in Rivera's own terms, contrary to what he claimed, his dismissal was not on the basis of "mere speculation and conjecture," but on the basis of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. In legal terms, this is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings.[44] The fact that he had been with the company for 25 years cannot erase the conclusion that he had become a liability to the company whose interests he miserably failed to protect.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition, and accordingly SET ASIDE the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98666 and DISMISS the complaint for illegal dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Abad, and Perez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 43-64; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Id., at 9-31; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associates Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.

[3] Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.

[4] Rollo, p. 105; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "B."

[5] Id. at 106; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "C."

[6] Id. at 107; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "D."

[7] Id. at 109; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "E."

[8] Id. at 131; Rivera's Position Paper, Annex "D."

[9] Id. at 130; Rivera's Position Paper, Annex "C."

[10] Id. at 111; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "F."

[11] Id. at 112; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "G," p. 127.

[12] Id. at 104; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "A."

[13] Id. at 113-115; PJI's Position Paper, Annex "H."

[14] Id. at 144-151; Petition, Annex "G."

[15] Id. at 170-180; Petition, Annex "I."

[16] Supra note 12.

[17] Rule 130, Section 128.

[18] Rollo, pp. 183-184; Petition, Annex "J."

[19] Decision dated February 24, 2009; supra note 2.

[20] Supra note 1.

[21] Supra note 7.

[22] Rollo, pp. 233-269.

[23] Supra note 8.

[24] Supra note 6.

[25] Supra note 9.

[26] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.

[27] Cadiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153784, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 232; Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158232, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 732.

[28] Supra note 5.

[29] Supra note 7.

[30] Supra note 8.

[31] Supra note 12.

[32] Supra note 10.

[33] Supra note 11.

[34] Supra note 6.

[35] Based on canvass sheet no. 20800.

[36] Rollo, p. 262; Rivera's Comment.

[37] Supra note 10.

[38] Supra note 13.

[39] Supra note 8.

[40] Supra note 7.

[41] Rollo, p. 105.

[42] Supra note 9.

[43] Ramatek Philippines, Inc. v. De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 139526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 129.

[44] Gil A. Valera, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 167278, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 42.



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






February-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 188002 : February 01, 2010] GOODRICH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION & MR. NILO CHUA GOY, PETITIONERS, VS. EMERLINA ATIVO, LOVITO SEBUANO, MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, JUNIFER· CASAS, ROLANDO ISLA, ELISEO DEL ROSARIO, MARK JON MARTIN, EDISON GAMIDO, WARRY BALINTON, ROBERT RAGO AND ROBERTO MENDOZA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187155 : February 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO OFEMIANO ALIAS MANING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183577 : February 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. HILARIO ESCOTON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177361 : February 01, 2010] ARMANDO VIDAR @ "RICKY", NORBERTO BUTALON,(� ) SONNY MARBELLA @ "SPIKE" AND JOHN DOES AND PETER DOES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 162336 : February 01, 2010] HILARIO P. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CORPORATION (PDIC), PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANTONIO C. BUAN, AND STATE PROSECUTOR ALBERTO R. FONACIER, RESPONDENTS.[1]

  • [A.M. No. 08-2-107-RTC : February 01, 2010] REQUEST OF JUDGE NIÑO A. BATINGANA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, MATI, DAVAO ORIENTAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4745-05.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2758 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2957-P) : February 02, 2010] JUDGE DELIA P. NOEL-BERTULFO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. DYNDEE P. NU�EZ, COURT AIDE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185588 : February 02, 2010] PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181502 : February 02, 2010] FLORENCIA G. DIAZ, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181357 : February 02, 2010] MALAYAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FFW AND RODOLFO MANGALINO, PETITIONERS, VS. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170365 : February 02, 2010] ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ABDUL CARIM MALA ABUBAKAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170405 : February 02, 2010] RAYMUNDO S. DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. BENITA T. ONG.[1], RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169122 : February 02, 2010] MARCELINO DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AGAPITA DOMINGO, ANA DOMINGO, HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO DOMINGO, NAMELY: DOROTEO DOMINGO, JULITA DOMINGO, AMANDO DOMINGO, AND ARCEL DOMINGO; HEIRS OF JULIAN DOMINGO, NAMELY: JULIAN DOMINGO, JR. AND PONCIANO DOMINGO; HEIRS OF EDILBERTA DOMINGO, NAMELY: ANITA DOMINGO AND ROSIE DOMINGO; HEIR OF FELIPE DOMINGO, NAMELY: LORNA DOMINGO; AND HEIRS OF GERONIMO DOMINGO, NAMELY: EMILY DOMINGO AND ARISTON DOMINGO REPRESENTED BY ROLANDO DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166356 : February 02, 2010] BENEDICTA M. SAMSON AND MARCIAL M. SAMSON, PETITIONERS, PRESENT: VS. HON. JUDGE GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO., ATTY. JULIA CECILY COCHING-SOSITO, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR MARIKINA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165003 : February 02, 2010] THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO AND THE HEAD OF THE DEMOLITION TEAM - ENGR. NAZITA BA�EZ, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, REGIONAL HEARING OFFICER, NCIP-CAR, THE HEIRS OF JUDITH CARI�O, JACQUELINE CARI�O AND THE HEIRS OF MATEO CARI�O AND BAYOSA ORTEGA,** RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163280 : February 02, 2010] DORIS U. SUNBANUN, PETITIONER, VS. AURORA B. GO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164860 : February 02, 2010] HILTON HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION AND PETER LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS P. DY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157861 : February 02, 2010] BIBIANA FARMS AND MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ARTURO LADO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 126297 : February 02, 2010] PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NATIVIDAD AND ENRIQUE AGANA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 126467] NATIVIDAD [SUBSTITUTED BY HER CHILDREN MARCELINO AGANA III, ENRIQUE AGANA, JR., EMMA AGANA-ANDAYA, JESUS AGANA AND RAYMUND AGANA] AND ENRIQUE AGANA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JUAN FUENTES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 127590]

  • [G.R. No. 183099 : February 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RACHELLE BALAGAN AND HERMINIA AVILA, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182221 : February 03, 2010] THEMISTOCLES A. SA�O, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DULAG, LEYTE, FERDINAND A. SERRANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DULAG, LEYTE, AND MANUEL SIA QUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179117 : February 03, 2010] NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES EDWARD J. HESHAN AND NELIA L. HESHAN AND DARA GANESSA L. HESHAN, REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS EDWARD AND NELIA HESHAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166577 : February 03, 2010] SPOUSES MORRIS CARPO AND SOCORRO CARPO, PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA LAND, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [GR. No. 166536 : February 04, 2010] FLOR MARTINEZ, REPRESENTED BY MACARIO MARTINEZ, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. ERNESTO G. GARCIA AND EDILBERTO M. BRUA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188602 : February 04, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179800 : February 04, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179570 : February 04, 2010] EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM AND MARON LAJIM, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178908 : February 04, 2010] SPOUSES EULOGIO N. ANTAZO AND NELIA C. ANTAZO, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONIDES DOBLADA, DIOSDADO CELESTRA, LEOPOLDO CELESTRA, FERDINAND CELESTRA, AND ROBERTO DOBLADA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176464 : February 04, 2010] EDWARD N. LIM, PETITIONER, VS. MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171194 : February 04, 2010] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAEHAN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6593 : February 04, 2010] MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO AND ROMANA P. VALENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162924 : February 04, 2010] MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO TABLANTE, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ECRM ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LAURIE LITAM; AND MC HOME DEPOT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179717 : February 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185614 : February 05, 2010] ANGELITA DELOS REYES FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183417 : February 05, 2010] MINDANAO TIMES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MITCHEL R. CONFESOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181842 : February 05, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT PATRIA H. PEREZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180302 : February 05, 2010] JIMMY ARENO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SKYCABLE PCC-BAGUIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175097 : February 05, 2010] ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169706 : February 05, 2010] SPOUSES WILLIAM GENATO AND REBECCA GENATO, PETITIONERS, VS. RITA VIOLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168785 : February 05, 2010] HERALD BLACK DACASIN, PETITIONER, VS. SHARON DEL MUNDO DACASIN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161178 : February 05, 2010] ADELA B. DELGADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EMMANUEL ANG JARANILLA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184434 : February 08, 2010] G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORP. AND NARESH K. GIDWANI, PETITIONERS, VS. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC. AND THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT AND EX OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 133, AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180042 : February 08, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. IRONCON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178090 : February 08, 2010] PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS IMAGING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY MATSUSHITA BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172149 : February 08, 2010] SESSION DELIGHTS ICE CREAM AND FAST FOODS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION), HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND ADONIS ARMENIO M. FLORA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169711 : February 08, 2010] HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JOHNNY CO Y YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175590 : February 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE ALIAS ANDOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-95-1167 : February 09, 2010] CARMELITA LLEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CESAR V. LLEDO, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165333 : February 09, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES), PETITIONER, VS. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS ASSOCIATION, INC. (TAFPA, INC.), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164118 : February 09, 2010] SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) AND GORGONIO MONGCAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188456 : February 10, 2010] H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R. BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P. MACEDA, AND ALVIN A. PETERS, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY HON. CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MOVANT-INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 180050 : February 10, 2010] RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, VICTOR F. BERNAL, AND RENE O. MEDINA, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE HOUSE SPEAKER; GOVERNOR ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS, REPRESENTING THE MOTHER PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE; GOVERNOR GERALDINE ECLEO VILLAROMAN, REPRESENTING THE NEW PROVINCE OF DINAGAT ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2763 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3056-P] : February 10, 2010] RE: IRREGULARITY IN THE USE OF BUNDY CLOCK BY SOPHIA M. CASTRO AND BABYLIN V. TAYAG, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICERS II,[1]BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, ANGELES CITY.

  • [A.M. No. 2007-02-SC : February 10, 2010] RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDGE ROWENA NIEVES A. TAN FOR LATE REMITTANCE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF HER TERMINAL LEAVE PAY TO GSIS TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT OF HER SALARY LOAN TO SAID AGENCY.

  • [G.R. No. 189466 : February 11, 2010] DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON, PETITIONER, PRESENT: VS. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C. LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE LA CRUZ AND AGUSTIN C. DOROGA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 189506] CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO LESACA, JR., CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. REYES, JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES AND JOSELITO USTAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-03-1462 (formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1515-RTJ) : February 11, 2010] JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPA�OL, RTC, BRANCH 90, DASMARI�AS, CAVITE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LORINDA B. TOLEDO-MUPAS, MTC, DASMARI�AS CAVITE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189078 : February 11, 2010] MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSE "JOY" D. PE�ANO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 185226 : February 11, 2010] CORAZON M. GREGORIO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE LITIGATED IN THE CASE BELOW, RAMIRO T. MADARANG, AND THE HEIRS OF CASIMIRO R. MADARANG, JR., NAMELY: ESTRELITA L. MADARANG, CONSUELO P. MADARANG, CASIMIRO MADARANG IV, AND JANE MARGARET MADARANG-CRABTREE, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. JOSE R. MADARANG AND VICENTE R. MADARANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187683 : February 11, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIANO DELA CRUZ Y LORENZO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186640 : February 11, 2010] GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, LT. GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, COMMANDING GENERAL, PHILIPPINE ARMY, AND MAJ. GEN. RALPH A. VILLANUEVA, COMMANDER, 7TH INFANTRY DIVISION, PHILIPPINE ARMY, PETITIONERS, VS. CLEOFAS SANCHEZ AND MARCIANA MEDINA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184740 : February 11, 2010] DENNIS A. B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SEC. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, USEC. MARIA ELENA H. BAUTISTA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AND AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY (MARINA), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184197 : February 11, 2010] RAPID CITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ORLANDO VILLA AND LOURDES PAEZ-VILLA,[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010] INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED BY MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILLIAM SATO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 177857-58 : February 11, 2010] PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED), MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, DOMINGO P. ESPINA, SALVADOR P. BALLARES, JOSELITO A. MORALEDA, PAZ M. YASON, VICENTE A. CADIZ, CESARIA DE LUNA TITULAR, AND RAYMUNDO C. DE VILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. JOVITO R. SALONGA, WIGBERTO E. TA�ADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS, AND TEOFISTO L. GUINGONA III, OPPOSITORS-INTERVENORS. WIGBERTO E. TA�ADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, SURIGAO DEL SUR FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES (SUFAC) AND MORO FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR (MOFAZS), REPRESENTED BY ROMEO C. ROYANDOYAN; AND PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG MGA SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA (PAKISAMA), REPRESENTED BY VICENTE FABE, MOVANTS-INTERVENORS.

  • [G.R. No. 172927 : February 11, 2010] RONILO SORREDA, PETITIONER, VS. CAMBRIDGE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,[1] RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172279 : February 11, 2010] VALENTIN MOVIDO, SUBSTITUTED BY MARGINITO MOVIDO, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS REYES PASTOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169190 : February 11, 2010] CUA LAI CHU, CLARO G. CASTRO, AND JUANITA CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. HILARIO L. LAQUI, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 218, QUEZON CITY AND PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164731 : February 11, 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE, INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. ROSALINDA A. BERNADAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 : February 11, 2010] RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER.

  • [G.R. No. 190156 : February 12, 2010] LEONOR DANGAN-CORRAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ERNESTO ENERO FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180945 : February 12, 2010] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, AS THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF OPAL PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS (SPV-AMC), INC., PETITIONER, VS. MERCEDES CORPUZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VALENTINA CORPUZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 174599-609 : February 12, 2010] PACIFICO R. CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE 156, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171774 : February 12, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. APOLINARIO CATARROJA, REYNALDO CATARROJA, AND ROSITA CATARROJA-DISTRITO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168967 : February 12, 2010] CITY OF ILOILO REPRESENTED BY HON. JERRY P. TRE�AS, CITY MAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, AND ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158385 : February 12, 2010] MODESTO PALALI, PETITIONER, VS. JULIET AWISAN, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT GREGORIO AWISAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187120 : February 15, 2010] PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER FEDRIEL S. PANGANIBAN AND EDUARDO S. RIVERA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188669 : February 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ILDEFONSO MENDOZA Y BERIZO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177747 : February 16, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IGNACIO PORAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2721 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-9-162-MCTC) : February 16, 2010] REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MONDRAGON-SAN ROQUE, NORTHERN SAMAR.

  • [A.M. NO. P-10-2772 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I NO. 07-2615-P) : February 16, 2010] DOMINGO PE�A, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ACHILLES ANDREW V. REGALADO II, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188920 : February 16, 2010] JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., MATIAS V. DEFENSOR, JR., RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, DANILO E. SUAREZ, SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, SALVACION ZALDIVAR-PEREZ, HARLIN CAST-ABAYON, MELVIN G. MACUSI AND ELEAZAR P. QUINTO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, FRANKLIN M. DRILON AND J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188353 : February 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185954 : February 16, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. MAXIMO D. SISON, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182498 : February 16, 2010] GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP); POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RAUL CASTA�EDA, CHIEF, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (CIDG); POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT LEONARDO A. ESPINA, CHIEF, POLICE ANTI-CRIME AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (PACER); AND GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF ARMM, PNP, PETITIONERS, VS. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180356 : February 16, 2010] SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179702 : February 16, 2010] ROLANDO P. ANCHETA, PETITIONER, VS. DESTINY FINANCIAL PLANS, INC. AND ARSENIO BARTOLOME, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170864 : February 16, 2010] NELSON LAGAZO, PETITIONER, VS. GERALD B. SORIANO AND GALILEO B. SORIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168644 : February 16, 2010] BSB GROUP, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. RICARDO BANGAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. SALLY GO A.K.A. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166869 : February 16, 2010] PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VIVIAN TAN LEE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165377 : February 16, 2010] LOLITA REYES DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE, SOLID BROTHERS WEST MARKETING, PETITIONER, VS. CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156287 : February 16, 2010] FELICITAS M. MACHADO AND MARCELINO P. MACHADO, PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO L. GATDULA, COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, AND IRINEO S. PAZ, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190526 : February 17, 2010] SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MA. THERESA DUMPIT-MICHELENA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173289 : February 17, 2010] ELAND PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. AZUCENA GARCIA, ELINO FAJARDO, AND HEIR OF TIBURCIO MALABANAN NAMED TERESA MALABANAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169195 : February 17, 2010] FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181809 : February 17, 2010] ROSE MARIE D. DOROMAL, PETITIONER, VS. HERNAN G. BIRON AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173165 : February 17, 2010] ATTY. LUCKY M. DAMASEN, PETITIONER, VS. OSCAR G. TUMAMAO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171231 : February 17, 2010] PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RENE SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 05-8-463-RTC : February 17, 2010] REQUEST OF JUDGE NIÑO A. BATINGANA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, MATI, DAVAO ORIENTAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CIVIL CASES NOS. 2063 AND 1756

  • [G.R. No. 176707 : February 17, 2010] ARLIN B. OBIASCA, [1] PETITIONER, VS. JEANE O. BASALLOTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185709 : February 18, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL A. HIPONA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183871 : February 18, 2010] LOURDES D. RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, AND MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY A.K.A. DARWIN REYES, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA, A CERTAIN JONATHAN, P/SUPT. EDGAR B. ROQUERO, ARSENIO C. GOMEZ, AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180123 : February 18, 2010] KULAS IDEAS & CREATIONS, GIL FRANCIS MANINGO AND MA. RACHEL MANINGO, PETITIONERS, VS. JULIET ALCOSEBA AND FLORDELINDA ARAO-ARAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174237 : February 18, 2010] TERESITA L. ARAOS, CORAZON L. BALAGBIS, ROBERTO B. BAUTISTA, MARITA S. BELTRAN, RAUL A. CASIANO, HIDELZA B. CASTILLO, ELEONORA CINCO, MAY CATHERINE C. CIRIACO, ERLINDA G. DEL ROSARIO, AMELITA C. DELA TORRE, ALMA R. FAUSTO, ANTONETTE L. FERNANDEZ, CORITA M. GADUANG, VIRGINIA E. GALLARDE, MA. LUZ C. GENEROSO, MA. TERESA C. IGNACIO, EDDIE A. JARA, JOSIE MAGANA, ANTONIO G. MARALIT, NANCIANCINO L. MONREAL, MARIBEL D. ORTIZ, ALAN GENE O. PADILLA, JESUS C. PAJARILLO, MIGUEL E. ROCA JR., EDGAR M. SANDALO, AGNES E. SAN JOSE, EVELYN P. SAAYON, JUDY FRANCES A. SEE, MARIO R. SIBUCAO, CARMEN O. SORIANO, AND ARNOLD A. TOLENTINO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LEA REGALA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 226, QUEZON CITY AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166579 : February 18, 2010] JORDAN CHAN PAZ, PETITIONER, VS. JEANICE PAVON PAZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174570 : February 20, 2010] ROMER SY TAN, PETITIONER, VS. SY TIONG GUE, FELICIDAD CHAN SY, SY CHIM, SY TIONG SAN, SY YU BUN, SY YU SHIONG, SY YU SAN AND BRYAN SY LIM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189698 : February 22, 2010] ELEAZAR P. QUINTO AND GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177100 : February 22, 2010] BANDILA SHIPPING, INC., MR. REGINALDO A. OBEN, BANDILA SHIPPING, INC. AND FUYOH SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. MARCOS C. ABALOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173915 : February 22, 2010] IRENE SANTE AND REYNALDO SANTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 60, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGUIO CITY, AND VITA N. KALASHIAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. CA-08-45-J (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-130-CA-J) : February 22, 2010] ATTY. DENNIS V. NI�O, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169481 : February 22, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JULIO RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY REYNALDO RAMOS MEDINA, ZENAIDA RAMOS MEDINA, DOLORES RAMOS MEDINA, ROMEO RAMOS AND MEDINA, VIRGIE RAMOS MEDINA, HERMINIA RAMOS MEDINA, CESAR RAMOS MEDINA AND REMEDIOS RAMOS MEDINA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182299 : February 22, 2010] WILFREDO M. BARON, BARRY ANTHONY BARON, RAMIL CAYAGO, DOMINADOR GEMINO, ARISTEO PUZON, BERNARD MANGSAT, MARIFE BALLESCA, CYNTHIA JUNATAS, LOURDES RABAGO, JEFFERSON DELA ROSA AND JOMAR M. DELA ROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MAGIC SALES, INC. REPRESENTED BY JOSE Y. SY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168169 : February 24, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO TABARNERO AND GARY TABARNERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188671 : February 24, 2010] MOZART P. PANLAQUI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NARDO M. VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187070 : February 24, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183507 : February 24, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO), PETITIONER, VS. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183063 : February 24, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CAYETANO L. SERRANO,[1] AND HEIRS OF CATALINO M. ALAAN, REPRESENTED BY PAULITA P. ALAAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 182382-83 : February 24, 2010] JAIME S. DOMDOM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8158 : February 24, 2010] ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 148306 : February 24, 2010] TERESITA DE MESA REFORZADO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES NAZARIO C. LOPEZ AND PRECILA LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175241 : February 24, 2010] INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT, JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, AND JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE MANILA MAYOR JOSE "LITO" ATIENZA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184398 : February 25, 2010] SILKAIR (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176625 : February 25, 2010] MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, PETITIONERS, VS. BERNARDO L. LOZADA, SR., AND THE HEIRS OF ROSARIO MERCADO, NAMELY, VICENTE LOZADA, MARIO M. LOZADA, MARCIA L. GODINEZ, VIRGINIA L. FLORES, BERNARDO LOZADA, JR., DOLORES GACASAN, SOCORRO CAFARO AND ROSARIO LOZADA, REPRESENTED BY MARCIA LOZADA GODINEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169467 : February 25, 2010] ALFREDO P. PACIS AND CLEOPATRA D. PACIS, PETITIONERS, VS. JEROME JOVANNE MORALES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167139 : February 25, 2010] SUSIE CHAN-TAN, PETITIONER, VS. JESSE C. TAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 162218 : February 25, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. EDGARDO D. VIRAY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 07-6-6-SC : February 26, 2010] RE: NON-OBSERVANCE BY ATTY. EDEN T. CANDELARIA, CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (OAS), OF EN BANC RESOLUTION A.M. NO. 05-9-29-SC DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 AND EN BANC RULING IN OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (G.R. NO. 159940 DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2005),

  • [G.R. No. 183505 : February 26, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. AND FIRST ASIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184286 : February 26, 2010] MAYOR JOSE MARQUEZ LISBOA PANLILIO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SAMUEL ARCEO DE JESUS, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2009-23-SC : February 26, 2010] RE: SMOKING AT THE FIRE EXIT AREA AT THE BACK OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

  • [G.R. No. 173472 : February 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ELMER PERALTA Y DE GUZMAN ALIAS "MEMENG", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 167415 : February 26, 2010] ATTY. MANGONTAWAR M. GUBAT, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165922 : February 26, 2010] BAGUIO MARKET VENDORS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (BAMARVEMPCO), REPRESENTED BY RECTO INSO, OPERATIONS MANAGER, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ILUMINADA CABATO-CORTES, EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164141 : February 26, 2010] TIGER CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. REYNALDO ABAY, RODOLFO ARCENAL, ROLANDO ARCENAL, PEDRO BALANA, JESUS DEL AYRE, ARNEL EBALE, ARNEL FRAGA, ANGEL MARA�O, METHODEO SOTERIO, MANUEL TAROMA, PIO ZETA, ISAIAS JAMILIANO, ARNALDO RIVERO, NOEL JAMILIANO JOEL ARTITA, DANIEL DECENA, ZENAIDA LAZALA, RONNIE RIVERO, RAMON ABAY, JOSE ABAY, HECTOR ABAY, EDISON ABAIS, DIOGENES ARTITA, FLORENTINO B. ARTITA, ROLANDO ANTONIO, JERRY ARA�A, MAXIMENO M. BARRA, ARMANDO BAJAMUNDI, DANIEL BARRION, RENANTE BOALOY, ROLANDO BONOAN, FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, NOEL BENAUAN, EDGARDO BOALOY, REYNALDO BONOAN, DIONISIO BOSQUILLOS, ROGELIO B. COPINO, JR., RONNIE DELOS SANTOS, FELIX DE SILVA, REYNALDO LASALA, LARRY LEVANTINO, DOMINGO LOLINO, ROSALIO LOLINO, PERFECTO MACARIO, ROLANDO MALLANTA, ANASTACIO MARAVILLA, ROSARIO MARBELLA, GILBERTO MATUBIS, RODEL MORILLO, LORENZO PAGLINAWAN, JOSE PANES, RUBEN PANES, MATEO PANTELA, SANTOS SALIRE, GERMAN TALAGTAG, HILARIO TONAMOR, JESUS TAMAYO, JOSE TRANQUILO, EDISON VATERO, AND ROBERTO VERGARA, RESPONDENTS.