Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > July 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 167401 : July 05, 2010] BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY SABINO F. GRAGANZA, UNION PRESIDENT, AND REYVILOSA TRINIDAD,PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 167407] TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, ELOISA FIGURA, JERRY JAICTEN, ROWELL FRIAS, MARGARITA PATINGO AND ROSALINDA OLANGAR, RESPONDENTS. :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 167401 : July 05, 2010]

BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY SABINO F. GRAGANZA, UNION PRESIDENT, AND REYVILOSA TRINIDAD,PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 167407]

TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, ELOISA FIGURA, JERRY JAICTEN, ROWELL FRIAS, MARGARITA PATINGO AND ROSALINDA OLANGAR, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


BRION, J.:

Before the Court are two separate petitions[1] which were consolidated pursuant to our Resolution dated June 8, 2005.[2]  The first,[3] filed by the Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International (union), seeks to set aside the decision[4] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60516, and the subsequent resolution[5] of March 10, 2005, on the parties' motion for reconsideration.  The second,[6] filed by Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. (company), prays for the annulment of the same decision and resolution with respect to the illegal dismissal issue.

THE ANTECEDENTS

The relevant facts, clearly laid out in the challenged CA decision, are summarized below.

The union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on July 18, 1999.  The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation. Among these proposals were economic demands for a wage increase of P180.00 a day, spread over three (3) years, as follows: P70.00/day from July 19, 1999; P60.00/day from July 19, 2000, and P50.00/day from July 19, 2001.  The company countered with a wage increase offer, initially at P42.00 for three years, then increased it to P45.00, also for three years.

The negotiations reached a deadlock, leading to a Notice of Strike the union filed on October 15, 1999.[7]  The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) exerted efforts but failed to resolve the deadlock.

On November 15, 1999, the company filed a Notice of Lock-out[8] for unfair labor practice due to the union's alleged work slowdown. The union went on strike three days later, or on November 18, 1999.

On January 27, 2000, Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma (Labor Secretary) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.[9]  The Labor Secretary directed all striking workers to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the assumption order, while the company was directed to accept them back to work under the same terms and conditions existing before the strike.  The Labor Secretary also required the parties to submit their respective position papers.

On February 2 and 3, 2000, several employees attempted to report for work, but the striking employees prevented them from entering the company premises.

In a petition dated February 8, 2000,[10] the company asked the Labor Secretary to issue an order directing the union to allow free ingress to and egress from the company premises; to dismantle all structures obstructing free ingress and egress; and, to deputize the Philippine National Police to assist the DOLE in the peaceful implementation of the Labor Secretary's January 27, 2000 order.

The Labor Secretary reiterated his directives in another order dated February 22, 2000,[11] and deputized Senior Superintendent Manuel A. Cabigon, Director of the Southern Police District, "to assist in the peaceful and orderly implementation of this Order."

At a conciliation meeting held on February 29, 2000, the company agreed to extend the implementation of the return-to-work order until March 6, 2000.[12]  The union, through a letter dated March 2, 2000,[13] advised the NCMB Administrator of the union executive board's decision to return to work the following day.  In a letter also dated March 2, 2000,[14] the company advised the NCMB Administrator that it was willing to accept all returning employees, without prejudice to whatever legal action it may take against those who committed illegal acts. The company also stated that all the union officers and members and the union board members would be placed under preventive suspension, pending investigation of their alleged illegal acts.

The striking employees returned to work on March 3 and 4, 2000 but twenty (20) union officers and a shop steward were not allowed entry into the company premises.  The excluded union leaders were each served identical letters[15] directing them to explain in writing why their employment should not be terminated or why no disciplinary action should be imposed on them for defying and violating the Labor Secretary's assumption order of January 27, 2000 and the second return-to-work order of February 22, 2000; for blocking and resisting the entry of returning employees on February 2, 3, and  8, 2000; for acts of violence committed on February 24 and 25, 2000; and for defying the company's  return-to-work order of all employees on February 8, 2000.[16]

On March 6, 2000, the twenty-one (21) union officers, by motion, asked the Labor Secretary to issue a reinstatement order and to cite the company for contempt.  On March 9, 2000, the Labor Secretary directed the company to accept the union officers and the shop steward back to work, without prejudice to the continuation of the investigation.[17]

At the conciliation meeting of March 15, 2000, the company agreed to reinstate the union officers in the payroll effective March 13, 2000[18] and withdrew its notice of lockout.[19]

On March 21, 2000, the union officers again received identically worded letters requiring them to explain in writing within twenty-four (24) hours why no disciplinary action, including dismissal, should be taken against them for leading, instigating, and participating in a deliberate work slowdown during the CBA negotiations.[20]

The union officers explained, as required, through their respective affidavits,[21] and a hearing followed on May 5, 2000.  Thereafter, the union officers were each served a notice of termination of employment effective at the close of office hours on May 11, 2000.[22]

On June 8, 2000, the union and the officers filed a petition to cite the company and its responsible officers for contempt, and moved that a reinstatement order be issued.[23]  They claimed that: (1) the company officials violated the Labor Secretary's return-to-work order when these officials placed them under preventive suspension and refused them entry into the company premises; (2) the company also violated the March 9, 2000 order of the Labor Secretary when they were reinstated only in the payroll; and (3) the company committed unfair labor practice and dismissed them without basis.

THE LABOR SECRETARY'S DECISION

The Labor Secretary resolved the bargaining deadlock[24] and awarded a wage increase of P48.00 distributed over three years, as follows:[25]

Effective July 19, 1999 - P15.00/day
Effective July 19, 2000 - P16.00/day
Effective July 19, 2001 -  P17.00/day

The union's other economic demands and non-economic proposals were all denied.

The union moved for the reconsideration[26] of the Labor Secretary's decision, while the company moved for its own partial reconsideration.[27] The Labor Secretary denied both motions, declaring that the petition to cite the company and its responsible officers for contempt had already been rendered moot and academic.[28] He also ruled that the legality of the union officers' dismissal properly falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code.

The union elevated the case to the CA, through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,[29] on the following grounds:

  1. The Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he denied the proposals of the 1,130 union members to improve the existing CBA.

  2. The Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion when he declared that the issue of reinstatement of the officers of the union and the petition to cite the company and its responsible officers for contempt had become academic.

The union insisted on its demanded P180.00 daily wage increase distributed over three years (1999 to 2001), arguing that the demand is just, fair and reasonable based on the company's capacity to pay and the company's bargaining history.  It noted that the company gave a P55.00 increase for the years 1993-1995, and P64.00 for the years 1996 to 1998.  It also objected the rejection of its other economic demands and non-economic proposals.

The union also contended that the company and its responsible officers should have been held in contempt for violating the Labor Secretary's return-to-work order.  It argued that the officers should have been reinstated in the absence of substantial evidence supporting the charges against them.

The company responded by praying for the dismissal of the petition for lack of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Secretary.  It posited that the P48.00 wage increase award is more than reasonable, and that the Labor Secretary properly stayed his hand on the issue of illegal dismissal as the matter was beyond his jurisdiction.  The company likewise argued that any question on the award had been mooted by the workers' acceptance of the wage increase.

While the petition was pending, individual settlements were reached between certain individual petitioners (Cenon N. Dionisio, Catalina N. Velasquez, Nila P. Tresvalles, Vivian A. Arcos, Delia N. Soliven, Leticia S. Santos, Emerita D. Maniebo, Conchita R. Encinas, Elpidia C. Cancino, Consolacion S. Umalia, Nenette N. Gonzales, Creselita D. Rivera, and Rolando O. Madera) and the company.  These petitioners executed their respective Release, Waiver and Quitclaim after receiving their separation pay and other benefits from the company.[30]

In light of these developments and the workers' acceptance of the wage award (except for the union officers), the company moved for the dismissal of the petition.[31]  The union and the remaining union officers opposed the motion, contending that the workers' acceptance of the awarded wage increase cannot be considered a waiver of their demand; the receipt of the P48.00 award was merely an advance on their demand. The Release, Waiver and Quitclaim executed by the 13 officers, on the other hand, cannot bind the officers who opted to maintain the petition.

On December 17, 2001, two more officers - Juliana D. Galo and Remedios C. Barque - also executed their respective  Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.[32]

THE CA DECISION

The CA found the petition partly meritorious.  It affirmed the Labor Secretary's wage increase award, but modified his ruling on the dismissal of the union officers.[33]

On the wage issue and related matters, the CA found the Labor Secretary's award legally in order.  It noted the following factors supportive of the award:

  1. The average daily salary of an employee of P310.00 is more than the statutory minimum wage as admitted by the union itself.

  2. The company grants to its employees forty-two (42) other monetary and welfare benefits.

  3. The increase in the wages of the employees carries with it a corresponding increase in their salary-based benefits.

  4. The wage increase granted to workers employed in the industry is less than the increase proposed by the company.

  5. The Asian financial crisis.

The CA also noted that, in the meantime, the parties had executed a new CBA for the years 2002 to 2005 where they freely agreed on a total P45.00/day wage increase distributed over three years.

On the other hand, the CA faulted the Labor Secretary for not ruling on the dismissal of the union officers.  It took exception to the Labor Secretary's view that the dismissal question is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code.  It invoked the ruling of this Court in Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc.,[34] which, in turn, cited International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[35]  where we held that the Labor Secretary has jurisdiction over all questions and controversies arising from an assumed dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.

The CA pointed out that while the labor dispute before the Labor Secretary initially involved a bargaining deadlock, a related strike ensued and charges were brought against the union officers (for defiance of the return-to-work order of the Labor Secretary, and leading, instigating, and participating in a deliberate work slowdown during the CBA negotiations) resulting in their dismissal from employment; thus, the dismissal is intertwined with the strike that was the subject of the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction.

The CA, however, avoided a remand of the illegal dismissal aspect of the case to the Labor Secretary on the ground that it would compel the remaining six officers, lowly workers who had been out of work for four (4) years, to go through the "calvary" of a protracted litigation.  In the CA's view, it was in keeping with justice and equity for it to proceed to resolve the dismissal issue itself.

The six remaining officers of the union - Reyvilosa Trinidad, Eloisa Figura, Jerry Jaicten, Rowell Frias, Margarita Patingo, and Rosalinda Olangar (shop steward) - all stood charged with defying (1) the Labor Secretary's return-to-work order of January 27, 2000,[36] and (2) the company's general notice for the return of all employees on February 8, 2000.[37]  Later, they were also charged with leading, instigating, and participating in a deliberate slowdown during the CBA negotiations.

The charges were supported by the affidavits of Ernesto P. Dayag, Salvio Bayon, Victoria Sanchez, Lyndon Dinglasan, Teresita Nacion, Herman Vinoya, and Leonardo Gomez.[38]  The CA noted that in all these affidavits, "no mention was ever made of [anyone] of the six (6) remaining individual petitioners, save for Reyvilosa Trinidad. Also, none of the said affidavits even hinted at the culpabilities of petitioners Eloisa Figura, Jerry Jaicten, Rowell Frias, Margarita Patingo, and Rosalinda Olangar for the alleged illegal acts imputed to them."[39]

For failure of the company to prove by substantial evidence the charges against the remaining officers, the CA concluded that their employment was terminated without valid and just cause, making their dismissal illegal.

With respect to Trinidad, the CA found that her presence in the picket line and participation in an illegal act - obstructing the ingress to and egress from the company's premises - were duly established by the affidavit of Bayon.[40]  For this reason, the CA found Trinidad's dismissal valid.

The appellate court thus affirmed the May 31, 2000[41] order of the Labor Secretary and modified the resolution dated July 14, 2000.[42]

The CA denied the motions for reconsideration that the union and its officers, and the company filed.[43]  Hence, the present petitions.

THE PETITIONS

G.R. No. 167401

The petition is anchored on the following grounds -

  1. The CA erred in sustaining the Labor Secretary's wage increase award of P48.00/day spread over three years.

  2. The CA erred in finding the dismissal of Trinidad valid.

The union presents the following arguments -

On the CBA Award

The union contends that the CBA wage increases from 1994 to 1998 ranged from P16.00/day to P27.00/day for every year of the CBA period; the arguments behind the company's decreased wage offer were the same arguments it raised in previous CBA negotiations; the alleged financial crisis in the region on which the CBA award was based actually did not affect the company because it sourced its raw materials from its mother company, thereby avoiding losses; the company's leading status in the industry in terms of wages should not be used in the determination of the award; rather, it should be based on the company's financial condition and its number one rank among 7,000 corporations in the country manufacturing ladies', girls', and babies' garments, and number 46 in revenues with gross revenues of  P1.08B, assets of P525.5M and stockholders' equity of P232.1M; in granting only a wage increase out of 44 items in its proposal, the award disregarded the factors on which its demands were based such as the peso devaluation and the daily expenditure of P1,400.00/day for a family of six (6) as found by the National Economic and Development Authority.

On the Dismissal of Reyvilosa Trinidad

The union seeks a reversal of the dismissal of Trinidad.  It argues that she was dismissed for alleged illegal acts based solely on the self-serving affidavits executed by officers of the company; the strike had not been declared illegal for the company had not initiated an action to have it declared illegal; Trinidad was discriminated against because of the four union officers mentioned in the affidavits, three were granted one month separation pay plus other benefits to settle the dispute in regard to the three; also the same arrangement was entered into with the other officers, which resulted in the signing of the waiver, quitclaim and release; the only statement in the affidavits against Trinidad was her alleged megaphone message to the striking employees not to return to work.

The union thus asks this Court to modify the assailed CA ruling through an order improving the CBA wage award and the grant of the non-wage proposals.  It also asks that the dismissal of Trinidad be declared illegal, and that the company be ordered to pay the union moral and exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees.

G.R. No. 167407

For its part, the company seeks to annul the CA rulings on the dismissal issue, on the following grounds -

  1. The CA erred in ruling that the Labor Secretary abused his discretion in not resolving the issue of the validity of the dismissal of the officers of the union.

  2. The CA erred in resolving the factual issue of dismissal instead of remanding the case for further proceedings.

  3. In resolving the issue, the company was deprived of its right to present evidence and, therefore, to due process of law.

The company submits that the Labor Secretary has no authority to decide the legality or illegality of strikes or lockouts, jurisdiction over such issue having been vested on the labor arbiters pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code; under Article 263 of the Code, the Labor Secretary's authority over a labor dispute encompasses only the issues, not the legality or illegality of any strike that may have occurred in the meantime.[44]  It points out that before the Labor Secretary can take cognizance of an incidental issue such as a dismissal question, it must first be properly submitted to him, as in the case of International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor[45] where the Labor Secretary was adjudged to have the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental issues such as unfair labor practices subject of cases already ongoing before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The company takes exception to the CA ruling that it submitted the dismissal issue to the Labor Secretary claiming that it can be seen from its opposition to the union's petition to cite the company for contempt;[46] that it consistently maintained that the Labor Secretary has no jurisdiction over the dismissal issue; that the affidavits it submitted to the Labor Secretary were only intended to establish the union's violation of the return-to-work orders and, to support its petition, on February 8, 2000,[47] for the issuance of a return-to-work order; and, that the CA overstepped its jurisdiction when it ruled on a factual issue, the sole office of certiorari being the corrections of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion.

The company likewise disputes the CA's declaration that it took into consideration all the evidence on the dismissal issue, claiming that the evidence on record is deficient, for it did not have the opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the involvement of the union officers in the individual acts for which they were dismissed; had it been given the opportunity to present evidence, it could have done so.  To prove its point, it included in its motion for partial reconsideration[48] a copy of the information,[49] charging union officers Nenette Gonzales and Margarita Patingo of malicious mischief for stoning a company vehicle on February 25, 2000, while the strike was ongoing.

Even assuming that it could no longer submit evidence on the dismissal of the union officers, the company posits that sufficient grounds exist to uphold the dismissals.  It maintains that the officers are liable to lose their employment status for knowingly staging a strike after the assumption of jurisdiction by the Labor Secretary and in defying the return-to-work mandated by the assumption, which are considered prohibited activities under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, not to mention that without first having filed a notice, when the union officers and members engaged in and instigated a work slowdown, a form of strike, without complying with the procedural requirements for staging a strike, the union officers had engaged in an illegal strike.

The parties practically reiterated these positions and the positions taken below in their respective comments to each other's petition.

THE COURT'S RULING


The CBA Award

We affirm the CA's disposition, upholding the Labor Secretary's award in resolving the bargaining deadlock between the union and the company for their 1999-2001 CBA.

We find no compelling justification to disturb the award.  We are convinced, as the appellate court was, of the reasonableness of the award. It was based on the prevailing economic indicators in the workplace, in the industry, and in the local and regional economy.  As well, it took into account the comparative standing of the company in terms of employees' wages and other economic benefits. We find the following factors as sufficient justification for the award:

  1. The regional financial crisis and the downturn in the economy at the time, impacting on the performance of the company as indicated in its negative financial picture in 1999.

  2. The company's favorable comparison with industry standards in terms of employee benefits, especially wages.  Its average daily basic wage of P310.00 is 40% higher than the statutory minimum wage of P223.50, and superior to the industry's average of P258.00. For the years prior to the 1999 negotiations, its aggregate daily wage increase of P64.00 surpassed the statutory minimum increase of P33.00.

  3. The forty-two (42) non-wage benefit programs of the company which undeniably extend the reach of the employees' cash wage in enhancing the well-being of the employees and their families.

The Labor Secretary's Order of May 31, 2000 fully explained these considerations as follows:[50]

We fully agree with the Union that relations between management and labor ought to be governed by the higher precepts of social justice as enshrined in the Constitution and in the laws.  We further agree with it that the worker's over-all well-being is as much affected by his wages as by other macro-economic factors as the CPI, cost of living, the varied needs of the family.  Yet, the other macro-economic factors cited by the company such as the after-effects of the regional financial crisis, the existing unemployment rate, and the need to correlate the rate of wage increase with the CPI are equally important.  Of course[,] other macro-economic factors such as the contraction of sales and production as well as the growing lack of direct investors, are also important considerations.  It is noteworthy that both the Union and Management recognize that the entire gamut of macro-economic factors necessarily impact on the micro-economic conditions of an individual company even in terms of wage increases.

The Union also makes mention of the need to factor in the industry where the employer belongs  x x  x.  This is affirmed by the Company when it provides a comparison with the other key players in the industry.  It has been properly shown that its prevailing levels of wages and other benefits are, generally, superior to its counterparts in the local garments industry.  x  x  x

But even as we agree with the Union that the Company's negative financial picture for 1999 should not be an overriding consideration in coming up with an adjudicated wage increase, We cannot make the historical wage increases as our starting point in determining the appropriate wage adjustment.  The Company's losses for 1999 which, even the Union recognizes, amounts to millions of pesos, coupled with the current economic tailspin warrant a more circumspect view[.]

Cognizance is likewise made of the Company's 42 non-wage benefits programs which substantially [answer] the Union's concerns with respect to the living wage and the needs of a family.  It would not be amiss to mention that said benefits have their corresponding monetary valuations that in effect increase a worker's daily pay.  Likewise, the needed family expenditure is answered for not solely by an individual family member's income alone, but also from other incomes derived by the entire family from all possible sources.

Considering the foregoing circumstances, We deem it reasonable and fair to balance our award on wages.

The conclusions of the Labor Secretary, drawn as they were from a close examination of the submissions of the parties, do not indicate any legal error, much less any grave abuse of discretion.  We accord respect to these conclusions as they were made by a public official especially trained in the delicate task of resolving collective bargaining disputes, and are on their face just and reasonable.  "[U]nless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court cannot, and will not, interfere with the labor expertise of the public respondent Secretary of Labor," as the Court held in Pier Arrastre and Stevedoring Services v. Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor, et al.[51]

We also note that during the pendency of the present dispute, the parties entered into a new CBA for the years 2000-2005, providing for a P45.00/day wage increase for the workers.  The CA cited this agreed wage adjustment as an indication of the reasonableness of the disputed award. The Labor Secretary himself alluded to "the letter-manifestation received by this Office on 15 June 2000 containing the signatures of some 700 employees of the Company indicating the acceptance of the award rendered in the 31 May 2000 Order."[52]  There was also the manifestation of the company dated February 7, 2006, advising the Court that it concluded another CBA with the union providing for a wage increase of P22.00/day effective July 19, 2005; P20.00/day for July 19, 2006; and P20.00/day for July 19, 2007.[53]  The successful negotiation of two collective agreements even before the parties could sit down and formalize the 1999-2001 CBA highlights the need for the parties to abide by the decision of the Labor Secretary and move on to the next phase of their collective bargaining relationship.

The Illegal Dismissal Issue

Before we rule on the substantive aspect of this issue, we deem it proper to resolve first the company's submission that the CA erred:  (1) in ruling that the Labor Secretary gravely abused his discretion in not deciding the dismissal issue; and, (2) in deciding the factual issue itself, instead of remanding the case, thereby depriving it of the right to present evidence on the matter.

We agree with the CA's conclusion that the Labor Secretary erred, to the point of abusing his discretion, when he did not resolve the dismissal issue on the mistaken reading that this issue falls within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. This was an egregious error and an abdication of authority on the matter of strikes - the ultimate weapon in labor disputes that the law specifically singled out under Article 263 of the Labor Code by granting the Labor Secretary assumption of jurisdiction powers.  Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary situation - a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest.  This grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place.  As the term "assume jurisdiction" connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.[54]

In the present case, what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the dismissal from employment that resulted from the strike.  Article 264 significantly dwells on this exact subject matter by defining the circumstances when a union officer or member may be declared to have lost his employment.  We find from the records that this was an issue that arose from the strike and was, in fact, submitted to the Labor Secretary, through the union's motion for the issuance of an order for immediate reinstatement of the dismissed officers and the company's opposition to the motion.  Thus, the dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and this development in fact gave rise to his mistaken ruling that the matter is legally within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to decide.

We cannot disagree with the CA's sympathies when it stated that a remand of the case "would only compel the individual petitioners,  x  x x  lowly workers who have been out of work for more than four (4) years, to tread once again the [calvary] of a protracted litigation."[55]  The dismissal issue and its resolution, however, go beyond the realm of sympathy as they are governed by law and procedural rules.  The recourse to the CA was through the medium of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 - an extraordinary but limited remedy.  The CA was correct in declaring that the Labor Secretary had seriously erred in not ruling on the dismissal issue, but was totally out of place in proceeding to resolve the dismissal issue; its action required the prior and implied act of suspending the Rules of Court - a prerogative that belongs to this Court alone. In the recent case of Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals,[56] we categorically ruled that the CA cannot resolve the merits of the case on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and must confine itself to the jurisdictional issues raised.  Let this case be another reminder to the CA of the limits of its certiorari jurisdiction.

But as the CA did, we similarly recognize that undue hardship, to the point of injustice, would result if a remand would be ordered under a situation where we are in the position to resolve the case based on the records before us.  As we said in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals:[57]

[w]e have laid down the rule that the remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it.  On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice, would not be subserved by the remand of the case.[58]

Thus, we shall directly rule on the dismissal issue. And while we rule that the CA could not validly rule on the merits of this issue, we shall not hesitate to refer back to its dismissal ruling, where appropriate.

The first question to resolve is the sufficiency of the evidence and records before us to support a ruling on the merits. We find that the union fully expounded on the merits of the dismissal issue while the company's positions find principal support from the affidavits of Dayag, Bayon, Sanchez, Dinglasan, Nacion, Vinoya, and  Gomez.  The affidavits became the bases of the individual notices of termination of employment sent to the union officers.  The parties' affidavits and their submitted positions constitute sufficient bases to support a decision on the merits of the dismissal issue.

The dismissed union officers of the union originally numbered twenty-one (21), twenty (20) of whom - led by union President Cenon Dionisio - were executive officers and members of the union board.  Completing the list was shop steward Olangar. As mentioned earlier, fifteen (15) of the dismissed officers, including Dionisio, executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and readily accepted their dismissal.[59]  Those who remained to contest their dismissal were Reyvilosa N. Trinidad, 2nd Vice-President; Eloisa Figura, Asst. Secretary; Jerry Jaicten, PRO; Rowell Frias, Board Member; Margarita Patingo, Board Member; and Rosalinda Olangar, Shop Steward.

The officers of the union subject of the petition  were dismissed from the service for allegedly committing illegal acts (1) during the CBA negotiations and (2) during the strike declared by the union, shortly after the negotiations reached a deadlock. The acts alluded to under the first category[60] involved "leading, instigating, participating in a deliberate slowdown during the CBA negotiations"  and, under the second,[61] the alleged defiance and violation by the union officers of the assumption of jurisdiction and the return-to-work order of the Labor Secretary dated January 27, 2000,  as well as the second return-to-work order dated February 22, 2000. More specifically, in the course of the strike, the officers were charged with blocking and preventing the entry of returning employees on February 2, 3, and 8, 2000; and on February 24 and 25, 2000, when acts of violence were committed.  They likewise allegedly defied the company's general return-to-work notice for the return of all employees on February 8, 2000.[62]

The CA erred in declaring that except for Trinidad, the company failed to prove by substantial evidence the charges against the remaining union officers, thus making this dismissal illegal. The appellate court noted that in all the affidavits the company submitted as evidence "no mention was ever made of [anyone] of the six (6) remaining individual petitioners, save for Reyvilosa Trinidad.  Also, none of the said affidavits even hinted at the culpabilities of petitioners Eloisa Figuna, Jerry Jaicten, Rowell Frias, Margarita Patingo and Rosalinda Olangar for the alleged illegal acts imputed to them."[63]

The charges on which the company based its decision to dismiss the union officers and the shop steward may be grouped into the following three categories: (1) defiance of the return-to-work order of the Labor Secretary, (2) commission of illegal acts during the strike, and (3) leading, instigating and participating in a deliberate work slowdown during the CBA negotiations.

While it may be true that the affidavits the company submitted to the Labor Secretary did not specifically identify Figuna, Jaiden, Frias, Patingo and Olangar to have committed individual illegal acts during the strike, there is no dispute that the union defied the return-to-work orders the Labor Secretary handed down on two occasions, first on January 27, 2000 (more than two months after the union struck on November 18, 1999) and on February 22, 2000. In decreeing a return-to-work for the second time, the Labor Secretary noted:

To date, despite the lapse of the return-to-work period indicated in the Order, the Union continues with its strike. A report submitted by NCMB-NCR even indicated that all gates of the Company are blocked thereby preventing free ingress and egress to the premises.[64]

Under the law,[65] the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over the dispute or its certification to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout and all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions before the strike or lockout. The union and its officers, as well as the workers, defied the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction, especially the accompanying return-to-work order within twenty-four (24) hours; their defiance made the strike illegal under the law[66] and applicable jurisprudence.[67] Consequently, it constitutes a valid ground for dismissal.[68]  Article 264(a), paragraph 3 of the Labor Code provides that "Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status."

The union officers were answerable not only for resisting the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction and return-to-work orders; they were also liable for leading and instigating and, in the case of Figura, for participating in a work slowdown (during the CBA negotiations), a form of strike[69] undertaken by the union without complying with the mandatory legal requirements of a strike notice and strike vote. These acts are similarly prohibited activities.[70]

There is sufficient indication in the case record that the union officers, collectively, save for shop steward Olangar, were responsible for the work slowdown, the illegal strike, and the violation of the Labor Secretary's assumption order, that started with the slowdown in July 1999 and lasted up to March 2000 (or for about ten (10) months).[71]  These illegal concerted actions could not have happened at the spur of the moment and could not have been sustained for several months without the sanction and encouragement of the union and its officers; undoubtedly, they resulted from a collective decision of the entire union leadership and constituted a major component of the union's strategy to obtain concessions from the company management during the CBA negotiations.

That the work slowdown happened is confirmed by the affidavits[72] and the documentary evidence submitted by the company. Thus, Ernesto P. Dayag, a security officer of the agency servicing the company (Tamaraw Security Service, Inc.) stated under oath that in October 1999, the union members were engaging in a noise-barrage everyday and when it was time to go back to work at noontime, they would mill around the production area or were at the toilet discussing the ongoing CBA negotiations (among others), and were slow in their movements; in late October (October 27, 1999), they did the same thing at about seven o'clock in the morning which was already time for work; even those who were already working were deliberately slow in their movements. On November 12, 1999, when union officer Lisa Velasquez talked to the union members at lunchtime regarding the CBA negotiations, only about 50% of the union members returned to their work stations.

Victoria P. Sanchez, a sewer in the company's production department, deposed that sometime in the middle of September 1999, the sewers were told by the shop stewards to reduce their efficiency below 75%. They followed the order as it came from a decision of the union officers at a meeting.  It was not difficult to comply with the order because they only had to slow down at the pre-production and early segments of the production line so that the rest of the line would suffer.

Teresita T. Nacion, another sewer, corroborated Sanchez's deposition stating that in mid-September 1999, during the CBA negotiations, the sewers were told by the shop stewards to reduce their efficiency below 75% pursuant to the union decision to slow down production so that the company would suffer losses.

The work slowdown resulted in production losses to the company which it documented and submitted in evidence[73] before the Labor Secretary and was summarized in the affidavit[74] of Leonardo T. Gomez, who testified on the impact of the decrease of the workers' production efficiency that peaked in September, October, and November 1999, resulting in a financial loss to the company of P69.277M.  Specifically, the company's efficiency record for the year 1999[75] posted Eloisa C. Figura's[76] work performance from April to June 1999 at 77.19% and from July to November 1999 at 51.77%, a substantial drop in her efficiency.

The union's two-pronged strategy to soften the company's stance in the CBA negotiations culminated in its declaration of a strike on November 18, 1999, which prompted the Labor Secretary's intervention through an assumption of jurisdiction. Judging from the manner the union staged the strike, it is readily apparent that the union's objective was to paralyze the company and to maintain the work stoppage for as long as possible.

This is the economic war that underlies the Labor Code's strike provisions, and which the same Code also tries to temper by regulation. Thus, even with the assumption of jurisdiction and its accompanying return-to-work order, the union persisted with the strike and prevented the entry to the company premises of workers who wanted to report back for work. In particular, Salvio Bayon, a company building technician and a member of the union, deposed that at about seven o'clock in the morning of February 3, 2000, he and ten (10) of his co-employees attempted to enter the company premises, but they were prevented by a member of the strikers, led by union President Cenon Dionisio and other officers of the union; the same thing happened on February 8, 24 and 28, 2000.[77]

In the face of the union's defiance of his first return-to-work order, the Labor Secretary issued a second return-to-work directive on February 22, 2000 where the labor official noted that despite the lapse of the return-to-work period indicated in the order, the union continued with its strike.[78]  At a conciliation meeting on February 29, 2000, the company agreed to extend the implementation of the return-to-work order to March 6, 2000.[79] The union, through a letter dated March 2, 2000,[80] advised the NCMB administrator of the decision of the union executive board for the return to work of all striking workers the following day.  In a letter also dated March 2, 2000,[81] the company also advised the NCMB Administrator that it was willing to accept all returning employees, without prejudice to whatever legal action it may take against those who committed illegal acts.

The above union letter clearly shows the involvement of the entire union leadership in defying the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction order as well as return-to-work orders. From the illegal work slowdown to the filing of the strike notice, the declaration of the strike, and the defiance of the Labor Secretary's orders, it was the union officers who were behind the every move of the striking workers; and collectively deciding the twists and turns of the strike which even became violent as the striking members prevented and coerced returning workers from gaining entry into the company premises. To our mind, all the union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike knowingly placed their employment status at risk.

In a different vein, the union faulted the company for having dismissed the officers, there being no case filed on the legality or illegality of the strike. We see no merit in this argument.  In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[82] we held that "[t]he law, in using the word `may,' grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment." We reiterated this principle in San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc.,[83] where we stated that "Despite the receipt of an order from the SOLE to return to their respective jobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Consequently, then, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. The respondent Foundation was, thus, justified in terminating the employment of the petitioner Union's officers."

The union attempted to divert attention from its defiance of the return-to-work orders with the specious submission that it was the company which violated the Labor Secretary's January 27, 2000 order, by not withdrawing its notice of lockout.[84]

The evidence indicates otherwise. The Labor Secretary himself, in his order of February 22, 2000,[85] noted that the union continued its strike despite the lapse of the return-to-work period specified in his January 27, 2000 order. There is also the report of the NCMB-NCR clearly indicating that all gates of the company were blocked, thereby preventing free ingress to and egress from the company premises.  There, too, was the letter of the company personnel manager, Ralph Funtila, advising the union that the company will comply with the Labor Secretary's January 27, 2000 order; Funtila appealed to the striking employees and the officers to remove all the obstacles and to lift their picket line to ensure free ingress and egress.[86] Further, as we earlier noted, the union itself, in its letter of March 2, 2000, advised the NCMB that the union board of directors had decided to return to work on March 3, 2000 indicating that they had been on strike since November 18, 1999 and were defiant of the return-to-work orders since January 28, 2000.

As a final point, the extension of the return-to-work order and the submission of all striking workers, by the company, cannot in any way be considered a waiver that the union officers can use to negate liability for their actions, as the CA opined in its assailed decision.[87]  In the first place, as clarified by Funtila's letter to the NCMB dated March 2, 2000,[88] the company will accept all employees who will report for work up to March 6, 2000, without prejudice to whatever legal action it may take against those who committed illegal acts.  He also clarified that it extended the return-to-work, upon request of the union and the DOLE to accommodate employees who were in the provinces, who were not notified, and those who were sick.

As a point of law, we find that the company did not waive the right to take action against the erring officers, and this was acknowledged by the Labor Secretary himself in his order of March 9, 2000,[89] when he directed the company "to accept back to work the twenty (20) union officers and one (1) shop steward[,] without prejudice to the Company's exercise of its prerogative to continue its investigation." The order was issued upon complaint of the union that the officers were placed under preventive suspension.

For having participated in a prohibited activity not once, but twice, the union officers, except those our Decision can no longer reach because of the amicable settlement they entered into with the company, legally deserve to be dismissed from the service.  For failure of the company, however, to prove by substantial evidence the illegal acts allegedly committed by Rosalinda Olangar, who is a shop steward but not a union officer, we find her dismissal without a valid cause.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING with MODIFICATION the challenged decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60516, as follows:

  1. The collective bargaining award of DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, contained in his order dated May 31, 2000, is fully AFFIRMED;

  2. The dismissal of REYVILOSA TRINIDAD, union 2nd Vice-President, is likewise AFFIRMED;

  3. The dismissal of ELOISA FIGURA, Assistant Secretary; JERRY JAICTEN, Press Relations Officer; and ROWELL FRIAS, Board Member,  is declared VALID and for a just cause; and

  4. The dismissal of ROSALINDA OLANGAR is declared illegal. The CA award is SUSTAINED in her case.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Bersamin, *Abad, and  Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


*  Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the retirement of former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.

[1] Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 1150.

[3]  G.R. No. 167401.

[4]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), pp. 35-71.  Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al. v. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma, et al., promulgated on August 19, 2004. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, and concurred in by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr.

[5]  Id. at 72-79.

[6]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167407).

[7]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), pp. 306-307.

[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 290.

[9]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), pp. 265-266.

[10] Id. at 320-323.

[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 247-248.

[12] Id. at 317.

[13] Id. at 318.

[14] Id. at 319.

[15] Id. at 785-824.

[16] Id. at 309-310.

[17] Rollo (G.R. No.167401), pp. 269-270.

[18] Rollo (G.R. No.167407), p. 346.

[19] Id. at 299-300.

[20] Id. at 367-383.

[21] Id. at 486-784.

[22]  Id. at 785-824; dated May 11, 2000.

[23]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), pp. 584-662.

[24] On May 31, 2000.

[25]  Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), pp.  274-282.

[26]  Id. at 664-738.

[27] Id. at 740-743.

[28] Id. at 284-289.

[29] CA-G.R. SP No. 60516.

[30] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 1117-1142.

[31] Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), p. 53.

[32] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 1143-1146.

[33] Supra note 4.

[34] G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 658.

[35] G.R. Nos. 92981-83, January 9, 1992, 205 SCRA 59.

[36] Supra note 9, at 3.

[37] Supra note 16, at 5.

[38] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 465-478.

[39] Id. at 69; CA decision, p. 34, last paragraph.

[40] Id. at 467-468.

[41] Supra note 24.

[42] Supra note 28.

[43] Supra note 5.

[44] Philippine Airlines v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 88210, 193 SCRA 223.

[45] Supra note 35.

[46] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 347-354.

[47] Id. at 302-305.

[48] Supra note 27.

[49] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 1103.

[50] Supra note 24.

[51] 311 Phil. 311 (1995).

[52] Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), p. 287.

[53] Id. at 794-815.

[54] Supra note 34.

[55] Rollo (G.R. No. 167401), p. 77.

[56] G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008; see also Silverio v. CA, G.R. No. L-39861, March 17, 1986, 141 SCRA 527.

[57] G.R. No. 77425, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 300.

[58] Id. at 303.

[59] Supra note 30.

[60] Supra note 20, at 5.

[61] Supra note 15, at 4.

[62] Supra note 16, at 5.

[63] Supra note 39.

[64] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 248, par. 2.

[65] LABOR CODE, Article 263(g) - When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.

[66] LABOR CODE, Article 264.

[67] University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169632, March 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 526.

[68] Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 141667, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 214.

[69] Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 171.

[70] Supra note 64.

[71] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 314-316.

[72] Supra note 38.

[73] Supra note 69.

[74] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), pp. 477-478.

[75] Id. at 479-480.

[76] One of the six union officers who pursued the union petition.

[77] Id. at 467-468, Bayon's affidavit.

[78] Supra note 11.

[79] Supra note 12.

[80] Supra note 13.

[81] Supra note 14.

[82] G.R. No. 103560, July 6, 1995, 245 SCRA 627, 630.

[83] G.R. No. 143341, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 193, 207.

[84] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 1204; Union Comment, par. 10.

[85] Supra note 11.

[86] Rollo (G.R. No. 167407), p. 307.

[87] Id. at 70; CA Decision, p. 35, par. 4.

[88] Id. at 319.

[89] Supra note 17.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





July-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 176743 : July 28, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELSON BALUNSAT Y BALUNSAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 147629 : July 28, 2010] JAKA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION,PETITIONER, VS.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180543 : July 27, 2010] KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION AND BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, AS REPRESENTED BY JOVITO R. SALONGA, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIO M. JANOLO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 264, PASIG CITY; GREGORY S. ONG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN; AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2008-19-SC : July 27, 2010] RE: COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R. CAPITO.

  • [G.R. No. 178621 : July 26, 2010] MIGUEL RUBIA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, COMMUNITY WATER AND SANITATION COOPERATIVE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 186466 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176868 : July 26, 2010] SOLAR HARVEST, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAVAO CORRUGATED CARTON CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151246 : July 05, 2010] HEIRS OF THE LATE APOLINARIO FAMA (GABRIELA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE FAMA, MARIA FAMA-FLORENTIN, EMILIA FAMA-ESTEPA AND MARIA QUITO VDA. DE FAMA AND CHILDREN: VIRGILIO, ERNESTO, ROMEO, MANUEL, JR., AND CORAZON, ALL SURNARNED FAMA), PETITIONERS, VS. MELECIO GARAS, ROBERTO MENDEZ, JOSE PAROCHA, URBANA BAY-AN, BERNARDO DAO-OA, JUAN NANTES, TONY TORSO, FLORENTINA MORALES, FILOMENA TORIO, ARSENIO TORIO, VICTORTANO NANTES, PABLO ESTRADA, LORENZO BAY-AN, FILEMON MASLOG, PEDRO ASPIRAS, SINFROSO LANG-ES, ROBERTO DULAY, LUCAS ABAG, BINTOR LANG-ES, DIAN ANG MAPALO, PEDRO MAPALO, JOSE LANG-ES, CEFERINO ORIBELLO, AVELINO PIO, FLORENTINA NANTES, RODOLFO MORALES, MARCOS BACTADAN, BERNARDO ESTRADA, GREGORIO PIANO, ADRIANO BENTRES, EBANG NANTES, PATRICIO ESTOESTA, DOMINGO LANG-ES, MIGUEL MAPALO AND LAVIANA AGOJO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160422 : July 05, 2010] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), PETITIONER, VS. SPS. EDITO AND FELICIDAD CHUA, AND JOSEFINA PAQUEO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 39803 : July 02, 2010] MARIA PEREZ DE GUZMAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MATILDE DE LEON ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

  • [A.C. No. 8390 [Formerly CBD 06-1641] : July 02, 2010] A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152266 : July 02, 2010] HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. ANGELINA PERONA AND HEIRS OF ROSAURO DE GUZMAN; BATAAN DEVELOPMENT BANK; AND REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151084 : July 02, 2010] PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN PATO, ADOLFO DEL VALLE BRUSAS AND ZENAIDA BRUSAS; TRIFONA FEDERIS, MAURICIO MEDIALDEA AND NELSON TONGCO; MARIANO DE LOS ANGELES; HEIRS OF MIGUEL PATO, ARACELI BARRAMEDA ACLAN AND PONCIANO IRAOLA; HEIRS OF CRESENCIA VDA. DE SAN JOAQUIN,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 148974 : July 02, 2010] OMC CARRIERS, INC. AND JERRY AׁALUCAS Y PITALINO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167218 : July 02, 2010] ERECTOR ADVERTISING SIGN GROUP, INC. AND ARCH. JIMMY C. AMOROTO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167824 : July 02, 2010] GERALDINE GAW GUY AND GRACE GUY CHEU, PETITIONERS, VS. ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 168622] GERALDINE GAW GUY AND GRACE GUY CHEU, PETITIONERS, VS. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HON. MARICEL U. SALCEDO, MAYNARDO MARINAS, RICARDO CABOCHAN AND ELISEO EXCONDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168627 : July 02, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO BAYON Y RAMOS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 168495 : July 02, 2010] DANSART SECURITY FORCE & ALLIED SERVICES COMPANY AND DANILO A. SARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. JEAN O. BAGOY,* RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168655 : July 02, 2010] J. CASIM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS, RESPONDENT. INTESTATE ESTATE OF BRUNEO F. CASIM, (PURPORTED) INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 172102 : July 02, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HANOVER WORLWIDE TRADING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191938 : July 02, 2010] ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO V. GONZALES, AND ORLANDO R. BALBON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164257 : July 05, 2010] SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE B. SEMILLANO, NELSON MONDEJAR, JOVITO REMADA, ALILGILAN MULTI-PURPOSE COOP (AMPCO) AND MERLYN V. POLIDARIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8096 : July 05, 2010] REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD BUENTIPO MANN, ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR., AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159097 : July 05, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. RURAL BANK OF GERONA, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164577 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), VICTORINO A. BASCO, ROMEO S. DAVID, AND ROGELIO L. LUIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164402 : July 05, 2010] ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR, REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO U. AGUILAR, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165036 : July 05, 2010] HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, PETITIONER, VS. ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, JOSE A. GANGAN, AND VIOLETA J. JOSEF, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 175705] HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIETA FORTUNA-IBE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167401 : July 05, 2010] BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY SABINO F. GRAGANZA, UNION PRESIDENT, AND REYVILOSA TRINIDAD,PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 167407] TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, ELOISA FIGURA, JERRY JAICTEN, ROWELL FRIAS, MARGARITA PATINGO AND ROSALINDA OLANGAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168164 : July 05, 2010] VICENTE ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. ALICE TANCO, GERALDINE TANCO, RONALD TANCO, AND PATRICK TANCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168960 : July 05, 2010] AMELIA B. HEBRON, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCO L. LOYOLA, ANGELO L. LOYOLA, RAFAEL L. LOYOLA, ARMANDO L. LOYOLA, SENEN L. LOYOLA, MA. VENUS L. RONQUILLO, PERLA L. ABAD AND THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF EDUARDO L. LOYOLA, CARMELITA A. MANABO, HERMINIA AGUINALDO-ROSAS, DIGNA AGUINALDO-VALENCIA,ROGELIO AGUINALDO, MILA AGUINALDO-DIAZ, BABY AGUINALDO, RUBEN LOYOLA SUBSTITUTED BY JOSEFINA C. LOYOLA, GLESILDA A. LEGOSTO, EVELYN C. LOYOLA, MARINA C. LOYOLA, AURE C. LOYOLA, CORAZON C. LUGARDA AND JOVEN FRANCISCO C. LOYOLA, LORENZO LOYOLA, CANDELARIA LOYOLA, NICANDRO LOYOLA, FLORA LOYOLA, TERESITA L.ALZONA, VICENTE LOYOLA,ROSARIO L. LONTOC, SERAFIN LOYOLA, ROBERTO LOYOLA, BIBIANO LOYOLA,PURITA LOYOLA, ESTELA LOYOLA, ESTER DANICO,EDUARDO DANICO, EMELITA DANICO, MERCEDITA DANICO, HONESTO DANICO,DANTE DANICO, ERLINDA DANICO-DOMINGUEZ REPRESENTED BY TEODORO DOMINGUEZ AND BEVERLY ANNE DOMINGUEZ,EFREN CABIGAN AND ISIDRO CABIGAN, RESPONDENTS. ALBERTO L. BAUTISTA REPRESENTED BY FELICIDAD G.BAUTISTA, AGNES B. ZULUETA, AYREEN B. ALBA, JOSEPH ANTHONY G. BAUTISTA, ANN-JANET G. BAUTISTA AND ALFREDO L.BAUTISTA, UNWILLING RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169227 : July 05, 2010] PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), PETITIONER, VS. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170530 : July 05, 2010] SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS, INC. (JOINT VENTURE), PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171736 : July 05, 2010] PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 181482] PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174129 : July 05, 2010] HONESTO V. FERRER, JR., AND ROMEO E. ESPERA, PETITIONERS, VS. MAYOR SULPICIO S. ROCO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF NAGA CITY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF THE CITY OF NAGA, AND PEÑAFRANCIA MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175023 : July 05, 2010] GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175730 : July 05, 2010] HERMINIO T. DISINI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), AND THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175700 : July 05, 2010] SALVADOR V. REBELLION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179793 : July 05, 2010] MAGDALENA HIDALGO, EDITHA GONZALES, EUNICE P. MALIMBAN, CHRISTINE VIDAL, CHRISTIAN CALLEJO, CONSOLACION P. MORENO, SHERINA F. DOREZA, LUZ T. SUCGANG, PRISCILLA F. ESTOYE, REYNOSO V. GALLANO, ROSITA L. SENEDRIN, JULITA P. DE CASTRO, JULIETA F. PALAFOX, ERLINDO V. GALANO, JR., ROSALINDA R. SALUD, EVANGELINE D. EVANGELISTA, BABYLINDA N. NOHAY, BELINDA D. CARDONA, WILMA D. BARCENA, ANABELLE P. MOJADAS, LEONORA GRANADO, RICARDO R. BARANGCO, ROMEO O. MAICON, DANILO B. ENRICO, MARIANILA SITO, MERLINA A. CATAAN, NEMIA E. PIANO, SOLEDAD P. RAMOS, DANTE L. PESIGAN, EDA A. JUNIO, MERCEDES R. NAFARRETE, MARILYN S. GONO, LUZ SAMSON, ERNESTO C. DESEAR, TERESITA G. GONZAGA, TERESITA E. EUSTAQUIO, VIRGINIA S. MONTEMAYOR, CRISTINA ABANTO, HENRY C. AMORTIZADO, FRANKIE VALERA, NELIA G. CAMORO, JOYSIE LABRADOR, GERTRUDES FALALES, OPHELIA G. MUSAMAREN, PETRA M. IRINGAN, FRANCISCO C. CAPIZ, JR., RICKY ECHIEVERA, MA. ELGIN O. ABAIS, JOHN CARANAN, ROMEO LAGUNA, REBECCA C. BUGUA, NELSON FERRER, HELEN MANRESA, CONSORCIA FAJANEL, MA. JUANA A. GOLFO, RUBYLYN D. DUMANDAL, FLORECERFINA S. BANDOLIN, FLORENCIO A. QUILATON, JR., GLORIA J. DOMINGO, MAY MACUGAY, MARY ANN CLAUDIO, ELVIRA KALALO, DOROTEA MARTINEZ, LIGAYA PANEDA, AND RENATO AGUILAR, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE SERVICES (AFPCES), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182740 : July 05, 2010] LYDIA ESCARCHA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF JOSEPH ERWIN M. ESCARCHA, SHEILA MAY ESCARCHA, AND ALYSSA M. ESCARCHA, PETITIONER, VS. LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. AND/OR WORLD MARINE PANAMA, S.A., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181051 : July 05, 2010] MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE, INC. AND GAMALLOSONS TRADERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY FAUSTO B. GAMALLO, PETITIONERS, VS. BIENVENIDO ISIDTO, ERWIN BA-AY, VICTORIANO BENDANILLA, EDUVIGIS GUTIB, JULITO GUTIB, GREGORIO ORDENISA, DAMIAN RABANAL, ROSITA RABANAL, EUSTAQUIA SIGLOS, PRIMITIVO SIGLAS, AND RODOLFO TORRES RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180819 : July 05, 2010] AMIHAN BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CHARLIE J. SAPUGAY; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA CITY, PRESIDED BY HON. MILAGROS G. QUIJANO; AND SAMUEL S. SANTAYANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182793 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO CALONGE Y VERANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186411 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO PALER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186461 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SEVERIANO OGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186472 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO SIONGCO Y DELA CRUZ, ERIBERTO ENRIQUEZ Y GEMSON, GEORGE HAYCO Y CULLERA, AND ALLAN BONSOL Y PAZ, ACCUSED, ANTONIO SIONGCO Y DELA CRUZ AND ALLAN BONSOL Y PAZ, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187075 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMMEL BELO Y DE LEON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186550 : July 05, 2010] ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE AND LEASING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES CESARIO GRAVADOR AND NORMA DE VERA AND SPOUSES EMMA CONCEPCION G. DUMIGPI AND FEDERICO L. DUMIGPI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187737 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALIODING SULTAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187879 : July 05, 2010] DALISAY E. OCAMPO, VINCE E. OCAMPO, MELINDA CARLA E. OCAMPO, AND LEONARDO E. OCAMPO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. RENATO M. OCAMPO AND ERLINDA M. OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188129 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO BODOSO Y BOLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188223 : July 05, 2010] SENTINEL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RIO JOSE REMO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188975 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERT TEÑOSO Y LOPEZ ALIAS "PAKING" AND EDGARDO COCOTAN ALIAS "PAOT," APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189807 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE DACALLOS Y MODINA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190384 : July 05, 2010] HEIRS OF SPOUSES CRISPULO FERRER AND ENGRACIA PUHAWAN, REPRESENTED BY ROMEO F. GAZA AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, GUIDO ALFREDO DELGADO, FERNANDO ROXAS, ALBERTO PANGCOG, SAMUEL PIEDAD, GREGORIO ALVAREZ, RAFAEL LAGOS, AUGUSTO GO, NAPOLEON EUFEMIO, MELITO SALAZAR, VIRGILIO ODI AND MEHOLK SADAIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191404 : July 05, 2010] EUMELIA R. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELICISIMO S. TARCELO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190633 : July 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BASILIO CADAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2590 : July 05, 2010] JULIE ANN C. DELA CUEVA, COMPLAINANT, VS. SELIMA B. OMAGA, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MTC-CALAUAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176885 : July 05, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO ESPINOSA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. NO. 09-3083-RTJ) : July 05, 2010] RUBEN N. SALCEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156797 : July 06, 2010] IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 AND 303169 AND ISSUANCE OF OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN LIEU OF THOSE LOST, ROLANDO EDWARD G. LIM, PETITIONER.

  • [G.R. No. 172200 : July 06, 2010] THE HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO AND ELPIDIO ABIAD, PETITIONERS, VS. SGT. AMANDO C. ALBAYDA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175846 : July 06, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ROSILA ROCHE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179709 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE, GREGORIO MAYINGQUE, AND TORIBIO MAYINGQUE Y SANICO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181036 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADRIANO LEONARDO Y DANTES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180285 : July 06, 2010] MA. SOCORRO MANDAPAT, PETITIONER, VS. ADD FORCE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179812 : July 06, 2010] ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION (FORMERLY ETERNIT CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183101 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NOEL CATENTAY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184088 : July 06, 2010] IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS (IEMELIF) (CORPORATION SOLE), INC., REV. NESTOR PINEDA, REV. ROBERTO BACANI, BENJAMIN BORLONGAN, JR., DANILO SAUR, RICHARD PONTI, ALFREDO MATABANG AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE IEMELIF TONDO CONGREGATION OF THE IEMELIF CORPORATION SOLE, PETITIONERS, VS. BISHOP NATHANAEL LAZARO, REVERENDS HONORIO RIVERA, DANIEL MADUCDOC, FERDINAND MERCADO, ARCADIO CABILDO, DOMINGO GONZALES, ARTURO LAPUZ, ADORABLE MANGALINDAN, DANIEL VICTORIA AND DAKILA CRUZ, AND LAY LEADER LINGKOD MADUCDOC AND CESAR DOMINGO, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME CONSISTORY OF ELDERS AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THE CORPORATION AGGREGATE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184812 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ERMILITO ALEGRE Y LAMOSTE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188570 : July 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA AND EMMANUEL GONZALES, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 98-603-RTJ) : July 06, 2010] OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, AND ALBERTO R. NOFUENTE, 3RD ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LAGUNA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-10-2745 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 98-511-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND HERMINIA JAVIER, CLERK III, RTC-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-00-1992 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 00-974-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, AND DIANA RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. X [A.M. NO. P-10-2746 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 00-963-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. GERARDO P. HERNANDEZ, CLERK OF COURT V, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER III, MARIA FE L. LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, AND JULIETA M. CHAVES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2747 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 99-740-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO,PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICANOR B. ALFONSO, PROCESS SERVER, ANGELITO A. BATI, UTILITY WORKER I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, SHERIFF IV, HERMINIA S. JAVIER, CLERK III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BENEDICTO B. PASCUAL, INTERPRETER III, DIANA A. RAMOS, UTILITY WORKER I, OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ANDREW A. SANTOS, CLERK III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER II, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, CARMELITA D. MORENO, CLERK III, MA. FE L. LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, JULIETA M. CHAVES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA AND ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE, CLERK OF COURT V, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2748 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 99-573-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS.CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, BRANCH 24, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-10-2749 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1338-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS.HERMINIA S. JAVIER, CLERK III, NICANOR B. ALFONSO, PROCESS SERVER, ANGELITO A. BATI, UTILITY WORKER I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, SHERIFF IV, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, CLERK III, CARMELITA D. MORENO, CLERK III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, MARIA FE LOPEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, JULIAN ORFIANO, JR., LEGAL RESEARCHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, BENEDICTO PASCUAL, COURT INTERPRETER III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, PROCESS SERVER, ANDREW A. SANTOS, CLERK III AND OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA.RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2750 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1410-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO,PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V AND BENEDICTO PASCUAL, COURT INTERPRETER III, BOTH OF BRANCH 25, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. P-10-2751 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1411-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-03-1706 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1409-P)] JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, CLERK OF COURT V AND OLIVIA M. LAUREL, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2214 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 02-1592-RTJ)] JOEL O. ARELLANO AND ARNEL M. MAGAT, BOTH DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANTS. VS.JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA,RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 138696 : July 07, 2010] FELIZARDO S. OBANDO AND JUAN S. OBANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163835 : July 07, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 134269 : July 07, 2010] THE LEARNING CHILD, INC. AND SPS. FELIPE AND MARY ANNE ALFONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION, SLV MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 134440] JOSE MARIE V. AQUINO, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS DR. ERROL AQUINO AND ATTY. MARILYN AQUINO; LORENZO MARIA E. VELASCO, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS FRANCISCO VELASCO AND ROSANNA VELASCO; CHRISTOPHER E. WALMSLEY, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS GERALD WALMSLEY AND MA. TERESA WALMSLEY; JOANNA MARIE S. SISON, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS BONIFACIO SISON AND JOSEPHINE SISON; AND MATTHEW RAPHAEL C. ARCE, MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS RAPHAEL ARCE AND MA. ERISSA ARCE, PETITIONERS, VS. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 144518] AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND ALMA ARZAGA, MARIA LUISA QUISUMBING, ARTURO SENA, KSL CORPORATION, SLV MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND LAWPHIL, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. MUNICIPALITY (NOW CITY) OF MUNTINLUPA, THE LEARNING CHILD, INC., SPOUSES FELIPE AND MARY ANNE ALFONSO, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : July 07, 2010] ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170375 : July 07, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, ILIGAN CITY, LANAO DEL NORTE, AND MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION, AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 170505] LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION,PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION AND NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (TRANSCO), RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NOS. 173355-56] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY), AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 173401] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CACHO, REPRESENTED BY ALLEGED HEIRS DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND/OR TEOFILO CACHO, AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NOS. 173563-64] NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY), AND LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MAX C. TABIMINA, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 178779] LAND TRADE REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 178894] TEOFILO CACHO AND/OR ATTY. GODOFREDO CABILDO,PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL AND AZIMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170623 : July 07, 2010] A.Z. ARNAIZ REALTY, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARMEN Z. ARNAIZ, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR REGION V, LEGASPI CITY; PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR PROVINCIAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE; MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177573 : July 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO ASIS AND JULIUS PEÑARANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188704 : July 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO ORTIZ, JR. Y LOPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172962 : July 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO REPUBLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174697 : July 08, 2010] CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA), PETITIONER, VS. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161849 : July 09, 2010] WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.R. FARMS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165582 : July 09, 2010] LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170645 : July 09, 2010] NIEVES ESTARES BALDOS, SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCISCO BALDOS AND MARTIN BALDOS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND REYNALDO PILLAZAR A.K.A. REYNALDO ESTARES BALDOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171873 : July 09, 2010] MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JAIME C. VILLANUEVA AND THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF TIWI, PETITIONERS, VS. ANTONIO B. BETITO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172023 : July 09, 2010] HEIRS OF SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 39, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY; GERRY D. SUMACULUB, AS CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; CBS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (CBSDC) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., AND DIAMEL INC., REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172611 : July 09, 2010] SPS. FEDERICO VALENZUELA AND LUZ BUENA-VALENZUELA PETITIONERS, SPS. JOSE MANO, JR. AND ROSANNA REYES-MANO RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177219, July 09 : 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ALARCON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165168 : July 09, 2010] SPS. NONILON (MANOY) AND IRENE MONTECALVO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS (SUBSTITUTES) OF EUGENIA T. PRIMERO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ALFREDO T. PRIMERO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170464 : July 12, 2010] LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS AND JEWELRY CORPORATION AND LAMBERT LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. HELEN BINAMIRA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163825 : July 13, 2010] VIOLETA TUDTUD BANATE, MARY MELGRID M. CORTEL, BONIFACIO CORTEL, ROSENDO MAGLASANG, AND PATROCINIA MONILAR, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK (LILOAN, CEBU), INC. AND TEOFILO SOON, JR.,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161602 : July 13, 2010] ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 154560 : July 13, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), TERNATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FANTASIA FILIPINA RESORTS, INC., MONTE SOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OCEAN VILLAS CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, OLAS DEL MAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE VILLAGE HOTEL, PHILROAD CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PUERTO AZUL BEACH AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, SULO DOBBS FOOD SERVICES, INC., NOTION AND POTIONS, INC., AND SUN AND SHADE MERCHANDISE, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171565 : July 13, 2010] ANTONIO B. RAMOS (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SURVIVING HEIRS, NAMELY, MA. MARGARITA A. RAMOS, ANTONIO A. RAMOS, MA. REGINA RAMOS DE DIOS, JOSE VICENTE A. RAMOS, MA. POMONA RAMOS KO TEH AND OSCAR EMERITO A. RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ROGERIO H. ESCOBAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175835 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. GERARDO ROLLAN Y REY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177861 : July 13, 2010] IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF BIRTH, EMMA K. LEE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RITA K. LEE, LEONCIO K. LEE, LUCIA K. LEE-ONG, JULIAN K. LEE, MARTIN K. LEE, ROSA LEE-VANDERLEK, MELODY LEE-CHIN, HENRY K. LEE, NATIVIDAD LEE-MIGUEL, VICTORIANO K. LEE, AND THOMAS K. LEE, REPRESENTED BY RITA K. LEE, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187693 : July 13, 2010] INTERTRANZ CONTAINER LINES, INC. AND JOSEFINA F. TUMIBAY, PETITIONERS, VS. MA. TERESA I. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188569 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO GARBIDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188600 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188905 : July 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSE NANDI Y SALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180660 : July 20, 2010] MARIBAGO BLUEWATER BEACH RESORT, INC. PETITIONER, VS. NITO DUAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174096 : July 20, 2010] SPOUSES DIVINIA C. PUBLICO AND JOSE T. PUBLICO,* PETITIONERS, VS. TERESA BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185920 : July 20, 2010] JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS, ALMA RAMOS WORAK, MANUEL T. RAMOS, JOSEFINA R. ROTHMAN, SONIA R. POST, ELVIRA P. MUNAR, AND OFELIA R. LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. DANILO PANGILINAN, RODOLFO SUMANG, LUCRECIO BAUTISTA AND ROLANDO ANTENOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181735 : July 20, 2010] LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY HON. BENEDICTO ULEP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, HON. EDILBERTO R. FELICIANO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGSM, HON. OFELIA ABUEG-STA. MARIA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGM, ELISA OCAMPO, EDELMIRA N. SALAZAR, ATTY. JOSEFINA MONTANER, ROSETTE MABUNAY, CHERRY HERNANDEZ, NOEL SABARIZA, AS MEMBERS, BAC-PGSM, PETITIONER, VS. LANTING SECURITY AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. THOMAS L. LANTING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181735 : July 20, 2010] LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY HON. BENEDICTO ULEP, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, HON. EDILBERTO R. FELICIANO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGSM, HON. OFELIA ABUEG-STA. MARIA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BAC-PGM, ELISA OCAMPO, EDELMIRA N. SALAZAR, ATTY. JOSEFINA MONTANER, ROSETTE MABUNAY, CHERRY HERNANDEZ, NOEL SABARIZA, AS MEMBERS, BAC-PGSM, PETITIONER, VS. LANTING SECURITY AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. THOMAS L. LANTING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182398 : July 20, 2010] BENNY Y. HUNG,* PETITIONER, VS. BPI CARD FINANCE CORP., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174097 : July 21, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SONNY PADUA Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 153837 : July 21, 2010] ENGR. JOB Y. BESANA, HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND HON. CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONERS, VS. RODSON F. MAYOR, RESPONDENT. AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., INTERVENOR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1728 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1623-MTJ) : July 21, 2010] ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JULIA A. REYES, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 69, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185215 : July 22, 2010] VIRGINIA D. BAUTISTA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173634 : July 22, 2010] PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. RUFINO G. AUMENTADO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172700 : July 23, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172292 : July 23, 2010] ALIDA MORES, PETITIONER, VS. SHIRLEY M. YU-GO, MA. VICTORIA M. YU-LIM, AND MA. ESTRELLA M. YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171925 : July 23, 2010] SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), PETITIONER, VS. PERMANENT HOMES, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171525 : July 23, 2010] ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION AND LAND KING REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. FERDINAND Y. PINEDA AND DOLORES S. LACUATA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190448 : July 26, 2010] FEDERICO D. TOMAS, PETITIONER, VS. ANN G. SANTOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188949 : July 26, 2010] CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC, PETITIONER, VS. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC LABOR UNION-NLU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189278 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183133 : July 26, 2010] BALGAMELO CABILING MA, FELIX CABILING MA, JR., AND VALERIANO CABILING MA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARTHEL B. CARONOׁGAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JOSE DL. CABOCHAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER TEODORO B. DELARMENTE AND ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION), AND MAT G. CATRAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183027 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES EDMUNDO AND LOURDES SARROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. WILLY O. DIZON, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181178 : July 26, 2010] AMELIA R. OBUSAN, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180109 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, FRANCIS B. GREY, AND COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179105 : July 26, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. LARRY MARIׁAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178495 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES RODOLFO A. NOCEDA AND ERNA T. NOCEDA, PETITIONERS, VS. AURORA ARBIZO-DIRECTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178591 : July 26, 2010] SM SYSTEMS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SPRINGSUN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ, AND HEIRS OF NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177637 : July 26, 2010] DR. DIOSCORO CARBONILLA, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELO ABIERA AND MARICRIS ABIERA PAREDES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172988 : July 26, 2010] JOSE P. ARTIFICIO, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JUAN VICTOR K. LAURILLA, ALBERTO AGUIRRE, AND ANTONIO A. ANDRES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169999 : July 26, 2010] NEW PUERTO COMMERCIAL AND RICHARD LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. RODEL LOPEZ AND FELIX GAVAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168583 : July 26, 2010] ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTAׁO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167526 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DANTE TAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167390 : July 26, 2010] SPOUSES ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, SR., AND LOURDES FERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MARTINES CO AND ERLINDA CO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165554 : July 26, 2010] LAZARO PASCO AND LAURO PASCO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF FILOMENA DE GUZMAN, REPRESENTED BY CRESENCIA DE GUZMAN- PRINCIPE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166250 : July 26, 2010] UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162608 : July 26, 2010] ADRIAN WILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. TMX PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 156599 : July 26, 2010] BORMAHECO, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED AND INTERWORLD BROKERAGE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188130 : July 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARY LOU OMICTIN Y SINGCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2180 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2817-RTJ] : July 27, 2010] ROLANDO E. MARCOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OFELIA T. PINTO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180291, July 27 : 2010] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GSIS, PETITIONERS, VS. DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, AND ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 119857 : July 28, 2010] GOLDEN APPLE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ROSVIBON REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. SIERRA GRANDE REALTY CORPORATION, MANPHIL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, RENAN V. SANTOS AND PATRICIO MAMARIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152236 : July 28, 2010] RPRP VENTURES MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 147; METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND ATTY. ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A NOTARY PUBLIC OF MAKATI CITY. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180385 : July 28, 2010] PETRON CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173150 : July 28, 2010] LYDIA C. GELIG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171705 : July 29, 2010] EDUARDO VARELA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. DAISY REVALEZ, RAMON BORROMEO, YOLANDA BARCENILLA, ERNA LOCSIN, GRACE BARUC, VICENTE MIJARES, JR., LOIDA TAJONERA, NIRMLA AGNES MARTINEZ, ANALYN MAYPA, LEMUEL MAYPA, BERDITH GANCETA, ROGER RAMOS, SUZETTE DE LOS SANTOS, JUDE JAROPILLO, JOCELYN AZUCENA, VILMA PABALAN, CHANNIBAL BERJA, JERNEY BARZO, BRIGIDA MANGUINO, SOL GRACE GUSTILO, MARILOU AREVALO, LUCILLE ARGONOSO, MARCOS BACOMO, MELVIN BACOMO, JR., MERIAM BULLAG, ZOSIMA DESUYO, MARLENE BACOMO, EUGENE BALASA, ROY DE ASIS, LOLITA RUBEN, JOSE DIEZ, MILA DIEZ, JESUS DIEZ, DONNABEL ALFON, FRANCISCO DERIADA, ALEJANDRIA PORDIOS, LIGAYA MAGBANUA, DAISY GORECHO, ANARIEL BACOMO, FRED DELOTINA, STEPHEN DIPLOMA, MARITES BACABAC, ARACELI MAHINAY, JULIO OLVIDO, ANTONIO REBOTON, NENETTE JUMUAD, ROSEMARIE ALICANTE, AGUSTIN JAVIER, JR., LEODY JAVA, NAZARITO PIDO, NENITA BERMEO, DELILAH FERNANDEZ, WILDABETH LACSON, CYNTHIA DAZA, ROMMEL DELGADO, FLORITA GELACIO, ROSALLY LEAL, AILEEN VILLANUEVA, NINFA BENIGAY, ROSIE PALMA, FERNANDO DELGADO, ROMULO BARCENILLA, ROBERTO APIADO, MARIO OLVIDO, BETTY DELA CRUZ, MARTIN APILADAS, SOLEDAD MAGBANUA, NIDA VISTAL, FRANCISCO DE LARA, ANTHONY ROCH ACEVEDO, FELIX RAFOLS, YOLANDA FERNANDEZ, ERNISTINA ALARCON, EMIE ABANID, LOURY TOMPONG, MA. FE RAFOLS SIA, YOLANDA OLVIDO, FIDEL ARROYO, VITALIANO POBLACION, ZALDY TERENCIO, ROVIC ESCOBA, JENNIFER CABAHUG, HELEN PAGAY, ARTURO SALVE, AIDA GOMEZ, AND CITY OF CADIZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173351 : July 29, 2010] BF CITILAND CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MARILYN B. OTAKE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171766 : July 29, 2010] ASIAWORLD PROPERTIES PHILIPPINE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166236 : July 29, 2010] NOLI ALFONSO AND ERLINDA FUNDIALAN, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES HENRY AND LIWANAG ANDRES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165569 : July 29, 2010] UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, GLENDA A. VARGAS, MA. SOCORRO S. GUANHING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS DEAN AND ASSISTANT DEAN, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, AND RODOLFO N. CLAVIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. DANES B. SANCHEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165976 : July 29, 2010] SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EDUARDO B. PERALTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 17 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PREMIER SHIPPING LINES, INC., AND ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172027, July 29 : 2010] GONZALO S. GO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184843 : July 30, 2010] VIRGILIO DYCOCO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO AND ADOLFO C. GRAFILO, AND CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO AND ADOLFO C. GRAFILO FOR AND IN THEIR OWN BEHALF, PETITIONERS, VS. ADELAIDA ORINA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND GERMAN R. ORINA AS REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EVELYN M. SAGALONGOS AND FOR IN THE LATTER'S OWN BEHALF, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180010 : July 30, 2010] CENITA M. CARIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N