Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > December 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 172458 : December 14, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. :




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 172458 : December 14, 2011]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N


LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to reverse and set aside the January 27, 2006[2] and April 19, 2006[3] Resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) in C.T.A. E.B. NO. 145, which dismissed outright the Petition for Review filed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) dated December 27, 2005 for being filed four days beyond the additional 15 days granted to file such petition.cralaw

On April 15, 1999, petitioner PNB filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its Tentative Return for 1998 with the documents enumerated in the "List of Attachments to Annual Income Tax Return Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1998" enclosed.  On September 30, 1999, PNB filed its Amended Income Tax Return for 1998, with the corresponding attachments to an amended annual income tax return appended, including copies of the Certificates and Schedule of Creditable Withholding Taxes for 1998.  PNB likewise filed its Corporate Quarterly Returns for the calendar year 1998.[4]

On February 8, 2001, PNB filed with respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) an administrative claim for refund in the amount of ?6,028,594.00, which were payments made in excess of its income tax liability for 1998.[5]

As BIR did not act upon PNB's claim for refund, PNB, on March 30, 2001, filed with the Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Division) a Petition for Review,[6] and prayed that it be refunded or issued a tax credit certificate in the amount of ?6,028,594.00, representing creditable taxes withheld from PNB's income from the sale of real property, rental income, commissions, and management fees for the taxable year 1998.

In his Answer,[7] the CIR alleged that PNB's claim for refund/tax credit is subject first to an investigation and that it failed to establish its right to a refund.

After PNB had rested its case, the CIR manifested that he would not be presenting evidence.  The parties were thereafter required to submit their memoranda.[8]

On May 19, 2003, the BIR issued in PNB's favor Tax Credit Certificate No. SN 023837 for ?4,154,353.42, leaving a balance of ?1,874,240.58 out of PNB's total claim of ?6,028,594.00.  PNB then informed the CTA Division of such tax credit certificate, and manifested that its acceptance was without prejudice to recovering the balance of its total claim.[9]

Consequently, the CIR filed a Motion,[10] asking that he be allowed to present evidence on PNB's excluded claim.  The CIR argued that the amount of ?1,874,240.58 was disallowed because it was not remitted to the BIR, as verified by its Regional Accounting Division.[11]

On August 11, 2005, the CTA Division rendered its Decision,[12] the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition For Review is hereby partially GRANTED.  Respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND or ISSUE a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of herein petitioner in the amount of ?1,428,661.66, representing the latter's unutilized creditable withholding tax for the year 1998.[13]

The CTA Division held that payments of withholding taxes for a certain taxable year were creditable to the payee's income tax liability as determined after it had filed its income tax returns the following year. The CTA Division said that since PNB posted net losses, it was not liable for any income tax and consequently, the taxes withheld during the course of the taxable year, which was 1998, while collected legally under Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, Section 2.57 (B), became untenable and took on the nature of erroneously collected taxes at the end of that year.  The CTA Division averred that while the right to a refund is not automatic and must be established by sufficient evidence, there is nothing in the Tax Code that would suggest that the actual remittance of the withholding tax is a condition precedent to claim for a tax refund.  Moreover, the CTA Division added, that the CIR failed to present the certification to prove his contention of PNB's non-remittance of the disallowed amount. However, the CTA Division affirmed the disallowance of eight transactions, amounting to ?445,578.92 as they had already been reported as income for other years, had not been recorded, or were not supported by pertinent documents.[14]

On September 14, 2005, PNB filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration,[15] asserting its entitlement to be refunded the amount of ?445,578.92, by explaining each transaction involved and pinpointed by the CTA Division.  This however was still denied by the CTA Division in its Resolution[16] dated November 15, 2005, for lack of merit.

Aggrieved, PNB, filed a partial appeal by way of Petition for Review[17] under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9282[18] before the CTA En Banc, to review and modify  the CTA Division's August 11, 2005 Decision.  This petition was received by the CTA En Banc on December 27, 2005, four days beyond the additional 15 days granted to PNB to file its petition.

Thus, on January 27, 2006, the CTA En Banc issued a Resolution[19]  denying due course and consequently dismissing PNB's petition for the following reasons:

1) The Petition For Review was filed four (4) days late on December 27, 2005, the reglementary deadline for the timely filing of such petition being December 23, 2005.

Appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised in the manner provided by law.  Therefore, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal having the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory (Cabellan vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 119). Not only that, late appeals deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less entertain the appeal (Pedrosa vs. Hill, 257 SCRA 373).

2) The petition is not accompanied by the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed Decision dated August 11, 2005 and Resolution dated November 15, 2005, in violation of Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, in relation to Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

3) The Petition does not contain an Affidavit of Service, in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

In the case of Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 344, 351, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to dismiss the petition for failure to attach an affidavit of service.

Lastly, Section 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that:

SEC. 7.  Effect of failure to comply with requirements.- The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof."

Persistent in its claim, PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation of Compliance[20] on February 23, 2006, and answered each ground propounded by the CTA En Banc in its Resolution.

PNB asserted that its petition was filed on December 23, 2005, which was the last day of the additional 15-day period granted by the CTA En Banc, via LBC Express, as shown by the copy of LBC Official Receipt No. 12990350[21] dated December 23, 2005.  PNB explained that its counsel, Atty. Flerida P. Zaballa-Banzuela, accompanied by her administrative assistant, tried to personally file the petition with the CTA En Banc on December 23, 2005.  However, PNB claimed, that due to heavy traffic, Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela arrived at the CTA office in Quezon City at 4:30 p.m., just as the CTA personnel were leaving the CTA premises in their shuttle bus.[22]

PNB attached to its Motion the Affidavit[23] of Christopher Sarmiento, the Security Guard who was then assigned at the CTA main gate.  Sarmiento averred that he did not allow Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela to enter the CTA compound because there was no one left to receive her document.  He also alleged that Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela even tried to ask some of the CTA personnel who were on board the CTA shuttle that passed her by, if they could receive her document, but they declined. This was corroborated by Atty. Zaballa-Banzuela's administrative assistant, Macrina J. Cataniag, in her Affidavit,[24] also annexed to PNB's Motion.

PNB argued that while its petition was deposited with LBC Express on December 23, 2005, very well within the reglementary period, CTA En Banc received it only on December 27, 2005, as December 24 to 26, 2005 were holidays.[25]

Addressing the second ground that the CTA En Banc used to dismiss the petition, PNB said that its non-submission of the duplicate original or certified true copy of the CTA Division's decision and resolution was not intended for delay but was "mere inadvertence and unintentional, but an honest mistake, an oversight, an unintentional omission, and a human error occasioned by too much pressure of work."[26]

In compliance, PNB attached to its Motion the Affidavit of Service[27] and certified true copies of the CTA Division's decision and resolution supposed to be attached to its petition before the CTA En Banc.

On April 19, 2006, the CTA En Banc denied PNB's motion for lack of merit.  The CTA En Banc held that "absent any cogent explanation [to not] comply with the rules, the rules must apply to the petitioner as they do to all."[28]  The CTA En Banc ratiocinated in this wise:

It is a jurisprudential rule that the date [of] delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading (Benguet Electric Corporation, Inc. vs. NLRC, 209 SCRA 60-61).  Clearly, the present Petition For Review was filed four (4) days late.

The instant Petition For Review is an appeal from the decision of the Court in Division.  Accordingly, the applicable rule is that the fifteen-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature; that failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period renders the assailed decision final and executory and no longer subject to review (Armigos vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 1; Jocson vs. Baguio, 179 SCRA 550).  Petitioner had thus lost its right to appeal from the decision of this Court in Division.[29]

The CTA En Banc added:

Although petitioner subsequently attached to its present motion, certified true copies of the assailed Decision, dated August 11, 2005, and Resolution, dated November 15, 2005, and the Affidavit of Service, this did not stop the questioned decision from becoming final and executory. It has been held that strict compliance with procedural requirements in taking an appeal cannot be substituted by "good faith compliance".  To rule otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the rules of procedure, i.e., to "facilitate the orderly administration of justice" (Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 806, 810; Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 712).[30]

PNB thereafter filed a Petition for Review[31] before this Court on June 16, 2006, which was the last day of the additional thirty days it was granted[32] to file such petition.

In order to convince this Court to allow its petition, PNB posits the following arguments:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PNB IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH MANIFESTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION ON DECEMBER 23, 2005 (THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THEREOF) VIA LBC SERVICE INSTEAD OF REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN CARD.

II

THE PROCEDURAL LAPSE OBSERVED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AS POSTULATED IN VARIOUS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

III

THE PETITION FILED BY PNB BEFORE THE CTA EN BANC RAISES A MERITORIOUS LEGAL DEFENSE WARRANTING JUDICIAL RESOLUTION.[33]

PNB once again narrated the circumstances leading to its counsel's decision to mail its petition for review via LBC Express, a private letter-forwarding company, instead of registered mail.  It claims that since this Court has repeatedly pronounced the primacy of substantive justice over technical rules, then its procedural lapses should likewise be excused, especially since no substantial rights of the CIR are affected.

This Court's Ruling

The only issue to be resolved here is whether or not this Court should require the CTA En Banc to give due course to C.T.A. E.B. No. 145 despite PNB's failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals and the Rules of Court in filing a petition for review with the CTA En Banc.

Not having been successfully convinced by PNB, we answer the above issue in the negative.

This Court would like to underscore the fact that PNB failed to comply with not just one, but three procedural rules when it filed its petition for review with the CTA En Banc.

Petition was filed late

It is stated under Section 3, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. Thus, the manner in which petitions are filed before the CTA is also covered by the relevant provision of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Rule 13. x x x.

x x x x

Sec. 3. Manner of filing.  The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail.  In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing.  In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court.  The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.  (Emphases ours.)

To recall, PNB filed its petition with the CTA En Banc four days beyond the extended period granted to it to file such petition.  PNB argues that it was filed on time since it was mailed on the last day of the extended period, which was on December 23, 2005.  It has been established that a pleading "filed by ordinary mail or by private messengerial service x x x is deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the court, and not on the day it was mailed or delivered to the messengerial service."[34]  In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] we said:

The established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.[36]

It is worthy to note that PNB already asked for an additional period of 15 days within which to file its petition for review with the CTA En Banc.  This period expired on December 23, 2005.  Knowing fully well that December 23, 2005 not only fell on a Friday, followed by three consecutive non-working days, but also belonged to the busiest holiday season of the year, PNB should have exercised more prudence and foresight in filing its petition.

It is, however, curious why PNB chose to risk the holiday traffic in an effort to personally file its petition with the CTA En Banc, when it already filed a copy to the other party, the CIR, via registered mail.[37]  Considering the circumstances, it would have been more logical for PNB to send its petition to the CTA En Banc on the same occasion it sent a copy to the CIR, especially since that day was already the last day given to PNB to file its petition.  Moreover, PNB offered no justification as to why it sent its petition via ordinary mail instead of registered mail.  "Service by ordinary mail is allowed only in instances where no registry service exists."[38]  Rule 13, Section 7 reads:

Sec. 7. Service by mail. Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (l0) days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (Emphasis ours.)

Petition was not accompanied by the
required duplicate originals or certified
true copies of the decision and resolution
being assailed, and Affidavit of Service

The following provisions are instructive:

Section 2, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals:

SEC. 2. Petition for review; contents. - The petition for review shall contain allegations showing the jurisdiction of the Court, a concise statement of the complete facts and a summary statement of the issues involved in the case, as well as the reasons relied upon for the review of the challenged decision.  The petition shall be verified and must contain a certification against forum shopping as provided in Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.  A clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision appealed from shall be attached to the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals:

Sec. 4(b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.  The Court en banc shall act on the appeal.

Sections 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis ours.)

This Court has already upheld the mandatory character of attaching duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed decision to a petition for review.[39]  Moreover, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, non-compliance with such mandatory requirement is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition, viz:

Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.  (Emphasis ours.)

Anent the failure to attach the Affidavit of Service, Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.  The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of service is not fatal if the registry receipt attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other party, [40] it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure PNB failed to satisfy.  In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41] we said:

It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.  Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[42]

This Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that PNB has not demonstrated any cogent reason for this Court to take an exception and excuse PNB's blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a petition for review.  Furthermore, the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement.  One cannot escape the rigid observance of this rule by claiming oversight, or in this case, lack of foresight.  Neither can it be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party. Verily, the periods for filing petitions for review and for certiorari are to be observed religiously.  "Just as [the] losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the x x x right to enjoy the finality of the decision."[43]  In Air France Philippines v. Leachon,[44] we held:

Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of the privilege must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must, as a rule, be strictly followed.  Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays, and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. For sure, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well.  Failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment appealed from final and executory.[45]

While it is true that the Court may deviate from the foregoing rule, this is true only if the appeal is meritorious on its face.  The Court has not hesitated to relax the procedural rules in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.  "In the circumstances obtaining in this case however, the occasion does not warrant the desired relaxation."[46]  PNB has not offered any meritorious legal defense to justify the suspension of the rules in its favor.  The CTA Division has taken into consideration all of the evidence submitted by the PNB, and actually allowed it a refund of ?1,428,661.66, in addition to the ?4,154,353.42 the BIR already gave.  The CTA Division explained why it disallowed the remaining balance of ?445,578.92 in its Decision dated August 11, 2005.  When PNB moved to reconsider this decision, it did not offer the CTA any other evidence or explanation aside from the ones the CTA Division had already evaluated.  Nevertheless, the CTA carefully considered and deliberated anew PNB's grounds, albeit they found them lacking in merit.  Thus, it cannot be said that PNB was deprived of its day in court, as in fact, it was given all the time it had asked for.

While PNB may believe that it has a meritorious legal defense, this must be weighed against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules.  It is well established that faithful compliance with the Rules of Court is essential for the prevention and avoidance of unnecessary delays and for the organized and efficient dispatch of judicial business.[47]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


[1] Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

[2] Rollo, pp. 12-14; Ordered by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga Palanca-Enriquez.

[3] Id. at 8-11.

[4] Id. at 79.

[5] Records (CTA Division), p. 6.

[6] Id. at 1-5.

[7] Id. at 375-378.

[8] Rollo, p. 22.

[9] Records (CTA Division), pp. 579-580.

[10] Id. at 589-592.

[11] Rollo, p. 86.

[12] Id. at 77-92; penned by Associate Justice Olga Palanca-Enriquez with Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. and Erlinda P. Uy, concurring.

[13] Id. at 91.

[14] Id. at 84-90.

[15] Records (CTA Division), pp. 691-695.

[16] Rollo, pp. 93-94.

[17] Records (CTA En Banc), pp. 7-16.

[18] An act expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction and enlarging its membership, amending for the purpose certain sections of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as the law creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for other purposes.

[19] Rollo, pp. 12-14.

[20] Id. at. 57-69.

[21] Records (CTA En Banc), p. 60.

[22] Id. at 47.

[23] Id. at 61.

[24] Id. at 62.

[25] Id. at 48.

[26] Id. at 48-49.

[27] Id. at 66-67.

[28] Rollo, p. 9.

[29] Id.

[30] Id. at 10.

[31] Id. at 18-38.

[32] Id. at 16.

[33] Id. at 24-25.

[34] Industrial Timber Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 111985, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA 597, 602.

[35] G.R. No. 89070, May 18, 1992, 209 SCRA 55.

[36] Id. at 60-61.

[37] Records (CTA En Banc), p. 66.

[38] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Far East Molasses Corporation, G.R. No. 89125, July 2, 1991, 198 SCRA 689, 701.

[39] Spouses Lim v. Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation, 427 Phil. 762, 770-771 (2002).

[40] Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, 511 Phil. 486, 498 (2005).

[41] G.R. No. 124512, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 74.

[42] Id. at 83-84.

[43] Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, 439 Phil. 793, 805 (2002).

[44] G.R. No. 134113, October 12, 2005, 472 SCRA 439.

[45] Id. at 442-443.

[46] Id. at 443.

[47] Saint Louis University v. Cordero, 478 Phil. 739 (2004).



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






December-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 172624 : December 5, 2011 PABLO POLSOTIN, JR., ARWIN RAYALA, GERONIMO LIMPANTE, RAUL DOMDOM, AND OSCAR ANDRIN, Petitioners, v. DE GUIA ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181704 : December 6, 2011 BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA), represented by its National President (BOCEA National Executive Council) Mr. Romulo A. Pagulayan, Petitioner, v. HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance, HON. NAPOLEON L. MORALES, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, HON. LILIAN B. HEFTI, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194128 : December 7, 2011 WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., CECILIA ZAMORA, BENJAMIN FRANCIA, and PEARLBANK SECURITIES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190861 : December 7, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LINO L. DUAVIS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 174193 : December 7, 2011 SAMUEL JULIAN, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, ROBERTO DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE CITY SHERIFF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167002 : December 12, 2011 VICTOR R. REYES, substituted by his heirs, CLARIBEL G. REYES, CLARISSA G. REYES, and CZARINA G. REYES, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as City Mayor of Manila, SENEN D. TOMADA, and HERNANDO B. GARCIA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2300 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2231-P) : December 12, 2011 ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, Complainant, v. CARLOS P. DIAZ, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2082 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-8-534-RTC) : December 12, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT HERMENEGILDO I. MARASIGAN, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193531 : December 14, 2011 ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION, Represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-3000 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3524-P) : December 14, 2011 ARTHUR M. GABON, Complainant, v. REBECCA P. MERKA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Liloan, Southern Leyte, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 181961 : December 05, 2011] LVM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDRES CHUA LAO, PETITIONER, VS. F.T. SANCHEZ/SOCOR/KIMWA (JOINT VENTURE), F.T. SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, SOCOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND KIMWA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ALL REPRESENTED BY FORTUNATO O. SANCHEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167807 : December 06, 2011] MANOLITO AGRA, EDMUNDO P. AGUILAR, IMELDA I. AMERICA, EVELYN R. CONCEPCION, DIOSDADO A. CORSIGA, PERCIVAL G. CRISOSTOMO, CESAR E. FAELDON, MA. REGINA C. FILOTEO, ZARINA O. HIPOLITO, JANICE F. MABILOG, ROBERTO MARTINEZ, JONATHAN MENDROS, NORMAN MIRASOL, EDRICK V. MOZO, LORENZO A. PENOLIAR, LOURDES QUINTERO, GLORIA GUDELIA SAMBO, DEMOSTHENES V. ERENO, RHONEIL LIBUNAO, ILUGEN P. MABANSAG, JOSEPHINE MAGBOO, MADELEINE ANN B. BAUTISTA, ULYSSES C. BIBON, ANGELINA RAMOS, EDUARDO M. SUMAYOD, DOMINGO TAMAYO, HERACLEA M. AFABLE, ANNA LISSA CREENCIA, CHONA O. DELA CRUZ, MERCY NANETTE C. IBOY, JEAN A. LUPANGO, MARIE DELA O. NA-OBRE, PERLA LUZ OCAMPO, ROUCHELLEJANE PAYURAN, ABIGAIL E. PORMENTO, THERESITA A. RIVERA, MILAGROS ROBLES, JOSEPHINE ROSILLO, ARSENIA M. SACDALAN, PRECILA TUBIO, IRENE H. VIRAY, WILFREDO O. BUCSIT, BONIFACIO DAVID, ROSARIO P. DIZON, EXEQUIEL EVALE, JR., RONALD M. MANALO, HENRIETTA A. MARAMOT, FELICISIMO U. PULA, JONAS F. SALVADOR, ERNESTO SILVANO, JR., ENRICO G. VELGADO, FEDERICO VILLAR, JR., ARNEL C. ABEN, ABDULMALIK BACARAMAN, VIRGINIA BORJA, ANTONIO CARANDANG, JR., RINA RIEL DOLINA, MANOLITO FAJARDO, ARVIN B. GARDUQUE, CAYETANO JUAREZ, MA. SHERYL LABONETE, HERCONIDA T. LAZARO, MARITESS MARTINEZ, AURELIO L. MENDOZA, ARNEL M. NOGOT, GERARDO G. POMOY, DENCIO RAMOS, CORAZON TAGUDIN, ANAFEL B. TIO, AGATONA S. ZALATAR, MARGIE EULALIA CALMA, RENEE D. MELLA, ARLIQUIN AMERICA, DEANNA B. AYSON, GERALDINE J. CALICA, CHESTER FERNANDEZ, LUISA I. HERNANDEZ, CYNTHIA E. LISONDRA, ALONA S. LLVATA, CLAIRE P. QUETUA, ROSEMARIE S. QUINTOS, RUTH S. RAMIREZ, LINO VERMUDO, JR., ROLANDO R. APOLONIO, CELIA I. ACCAD, MA. ALMA AYOS, PAMELA CASTILLO, ARNOLD DUPA, LAURENCE FELICIANO, LEANDRO P. LIBRANDO, MARILOU B. LOPEZ, AMELITA P. LUCERO, ESTERBELLE T. SIBALA, JONA ANDAL, ANDRES RATIO, MA. THERESA Q. MALLANO, DANILO P. LIGUA, JOY ABOGADO, VIRGINIA C. STA. ANA, ALBERNARD BAUTISTA, JUBANE DE PEDRO, PAUL DINDO C. DELA CRUZ, ALEJO B. INCISO, SHERWIN MA�ADA, JESUS T. OBIDOS, JOEL B. ARELLANO, ALFREDO CABRERA, MARY LYNN E. GELLOR, JOHN JOSEPH M. MAGTULOY, MICHELLE MONTEMAYOR, RHINA ANGUE, NORBERTO BAYAGA, JR., JUSTINO CALVEZ, EDWIN CONCEPCION, ALAN JOSEPH IBE, CESAR JACINTO, JOSERITA MADRID, IRENE MARTIN, GINA T. QUINDO, RENATO SUBIJANO, NIELMA E. VERZOSA, ALL NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY REGINA FILOTEO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 140528 : December 07, 2011] MARIA TORBELA, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: EULOGIO TOSINO, HUSBAND AND CHILDREN: CLARO, MAXIMINO, CORNELIO, OLIVIA AND CALIXTA, ALL SURNAMED TOSINO, APOLONIA TOSINO VDA. DE RAMIREZ AND JULITA TOSINO DEAN; PEDRO TORBELA, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: JOSE AND DIONISIO, BOTH SURNAMED TORBELA; EUFROSINA TORBELA ROSARIO, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: ESTEBAN T. ROSARIO, MANUEL T. ROSARIO, ROMULO T. ROSARIO AND ANDREA ROSARIO-HADUCA; LEONILA TORBELA TAMIN; FERNANDO TORBELA, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: SERGIO T. TORBELA, EUTROPIA T. VELASCO, PILAR T. ZULUETA, CANDIDO T. TORBELA, FLORENTINA T. TORBELA AND PANTALEON T. TORBELA; DOLORES TORBELA TABLADA; LEONORA TORBELA AGUSTIN, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: PATRICIO, SEGUNDO, CONSUELO AND FELIX, ALL SURNAMED AGUSTIN; AND SEVERINA TORBELA ILDEFONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 154113 : December 07, 2011] EDEN GLADYS ABARIA, ROMULO ALFORQUE, ELENA ALLA, EVELYN APOSTOL, AMELIA ARAGON, BEATRIZ ALBASTRO, GLORIA ARDULLES, GLENDA BANTILAN, VIRGILIE BORINAGA, ROLDAN CALDERON, ILDEBRANDO CUTA, ROMEO EMPUERTO, LANNIE FERNANDEZ, LUCINELL GABAYERON, JESUSA GERONA, JOSE GONZAGA, TEOFILO HINAMPAS, JOSEFINA IBUNA, MARLYN LABRA, MARIA CARMENCITA LAO, ERA CANEN, RODNEY REX LERIAS, ERNIE MANLIGAS, JOHANNE DEL MAR, RUBY ORIMACO, CONSTANCIO PAGADOR, MARVELOUS PANAL, NOLAN PANAL, LILLAN PETALLAR, GERNA PATIGDAS, MELODIA PAULIN, SHIRLEY ROSE REYES, JOSEFINA REYES, OSCAR DE LOS SANTOS, SOLOMON DE LOS SANTOS, RAMON TAGNIPIS, BERNADETTE TIBAY, RONALD TUMULAK, LEONCIO VALLINAS, EDELBERTO VILLA AND THE NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REV. GREGORIO IYOY, SHIELA BUOT, REV. LORENZO GENOTIVA, RUBEN CARABAN, RUBEN ESTOYE, LILIA SAURO, REV. ELIZER BERTOLDO, RIZALINA VILLAGANTE, DRA. LUCIA FLORENDO, CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER CANEN, DRA. CYD RAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA, AVEDNIGO VALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO PONGASI, ISIAS WAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN, REV. LEON MANIWAN, CRESENTE BAOAS, WINEFREDA BARLOSO, REV. RUEL MARIGA AND THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REV. HILARIO GOMEZ, REV. ELMER BOLOCON, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR AND ARMAND ALFORQUE, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 187778 PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO REDILOSA, CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO GASCON, ALBINA BA�EZ, PEDRO CABATINGAN, PROCOMIO SALUPAN, ELIZABETH RAMON, DIOSCORO GABUNADA, ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO, BERNABE LUMAPGUID, CELIA SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO CANEN, JR., ELSA BUCAO, HANNAH BONGCARAS, NEMA BELOCURA, PEPITO LLAGAS, GUILLERMA REMOCALDO, ROGELIO DABATOS, ROBERTO JAYMA, RAYMUNDO DELATADO, MERLYN NODADO, NOEL HORTELANO, HERMELO DELA TORRE, LOURDES OLARTE, DANILO ZAMORA, LUZ CABASE, CATALINA ALSADO, RUTH BANZON AND THE NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION), METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REV. GREGORIO IYOY, SHIELA BUOT, REV. LORENZO GENOTIVA, RUBEN CABABAN, ROSENDO ESTOYE, LILIA SAURO, REV. ELIZER BERTOLDO, RIZALINA VILLAGANTE, DRA. LUCIA FLORENDO, CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER CANEN, DRA. CYD RAAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA, AVIDNIGO VALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO PONGASI, ISIAS WAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN, REV. LEON MANIWAN, CRESENTE BAOAS, WINIFREDA BARLOSO, REV. RUEL MARIGA, THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REV. HILARIO GOMEZ, REV. ELMER BOLOCON, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR AND ARMANDO ALFORQUE, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 187861 METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC), PETITIONER, VS. PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO REDILOSA, CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO GASCON, ALBINA BANEZ, PEDRO CABATINGAN, PROCOMIO SALUPAN, ELIZABETH RAMON, DIOSCORO GABUNADA, ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO, BERNABE LUMABGUID, CELIA SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO CANEN, JR., ELSA BUCAO, HANNAH BONGCARAS, NEMA BELOCURA, PEPITO LLAGAS, GUILLERMA REMOCALDO, ROGELIO DABATOS, ROBERTO JAYMA, RAYMUNDO DELATADO, NOEL HORTELANO, HERMELO DE LA TORRE, LOURDES OLARTE, DANILO ZAMORA, LUZ CABASE, CATALINA ALSADO AND RUTH BANZON, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 196156 VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC) FORMERLY KNOWN AS METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (MCCH), PETITIONER, VS. ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTEZ AND EVELYN ONG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175816 : December 07, 2011] BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MA. ARLYN T. AVENIDO & PACIFICO A. AVENIDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 4428 : December 12, 2011] ELPIDIO P. TIONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182915 : December 12, 2011] MARIALY O. SY, VIVENCIA PENULLAR, AURORA AGUINALDO, GINA ANIANO, GEMMA DELA PE�A, EFREMIA MATIAS, ROSARIO BALUNSAY, ROSALINDA PARUNGAO, ARACELI RUAZA, REGINA RELOX, TEODORA VENTURA, AMELIA PESCADERO, LYDIA DE GUZMAN, HERMINIA HERNANDEZ, OLIVIA ABUAN, CARMEN PORTUGUEZ, LYDIA PENNULAR, EMERENCIANA WOOD, PRISCILLA ESPINEDA, NANCY FERNANDEZ, EVA MANDURIAGA, CONSOLACION SERRANO, SIONY CASILLAN, LUZVIMINDA GABUYA, MYRNA TAMIN, EVELYN REYES, EVA AYENG, EDNA YAP, RIZA DELA CRUZ ZU�IGA, TRINIDAD RELOX, MARLON FALLA, MARICEL OCON, AND ELVIRA MACAPAGAL, PETITIONERS, FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CO., INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 189658] SUSAN T. DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CO., INC., MARIALY O. SY, VIVENCIA PENULLAR, AURORA AGUINALDO, GINA ANIANO, GEMMA DELA PE�A, EFREMIA MATIAS, ROSARIO BALUNSAY, ROSALINDA PARUNGAO, ARACELI RUAZA, REGINA RELOX, TEODORA VENTURA, AMELIA PESCADERO, RICHON APARRE, LYDIA DE GUZMAN, HERMINIA HERNANDEZ, OLIVIA ABUAN, CARMEN PORTUGUEZ, LYDIA PENNULAR, EMERENCIANA WOOD, PRISCILLA ESPINEDA, NANCY FERNANDEZ, EVA MANDURIAGA, CONSOLACION SERRANO, SIONY CASILLAN, LUZVIMINDA GABUYA, MYRNA TAMIN, EVELYN REYES, EVA AYENG, EDNA YAP, RIZA DELA CRUZ ZU�IGA, TRINIDAD RELOX, MARLON FALLA, MARICEL OCON, AND ELVIRA MACAPAGAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165769 : December 12, 2011] EDITO PAGADORA, PETITIONER, VS. JULIETA S. ILAO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171993 : December 12, 2011] MARC II MARKETING, INC. AND LUCILA v. JOSON, PETITIONERS, VS. ALFREDO M. JOSON, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2988 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-154-RTC) : December 12, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. TEOTIMO D. CRUZ, FORMER OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182748 : December 13, 2011] ARNEL COLINARES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 5355 : December 13, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2927 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3532-P] : December 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), COMPLAINANT, VS. WILMA SALVACION P. HEUSDENS, CLERK IV MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TAGUM CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186050 : December 13, 2011] ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR AND BEVERLY LONGID, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, GEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AFP-ISU BASED IN BAGUIO CITY, PSS EUGENE MARTIN AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 186059] PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, SECRETARY GILBERTO TEODORO, SECRETARY RONALDO PUNO, SECRETARY NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P/DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA ANDPOL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN, PETITIONERS, VS. ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR AND BEVERLY LONGID, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185668 : December 13, 2011] PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MIA MANAHAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2069 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2257-RTJ) : December 14, 2011] ESPINA & MADARANG CO. & MAKAR AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORP. (MAKAR), REPRESENTED BY RODRIGO A. ADTOON, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CADER P. INDAR AL HAJ, JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, REGION 12, COTABATO CITY AND ITS OIC, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, ABIE M. AMILIL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183915 : December 14, 2011] MA. JOY TERESA O. BILBAO, PETITIONER, VS. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185620 : December 14, 2011] RUBEN C. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. TANG SOAT ING (JOANNA TANG) AND ANDO G. SY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7649 : December 14, 2011] SIAO ABA, MIKO LUMABAO, ALMASIS LAUBAN, AND BENJAMIN DANDA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., WENCESLAO "PEEWEE"� TRINIDAD, AND ANDRESITO FORNIER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175444 : December 14, 2011] JAIME ABALOS AND SPOUSES FELIX SALAZAR AND CONSUELO SALAZAR, GLICERIO ABALOS, HEIRS OF AQUILINO ABALOS, NAMELY: SEGUNDA BAUTISTA, ROGELIO ABALOS, DOLORES A. ROSARIO, FELICIDAD ABALOS, ROBERTO ABALOS, JUANITO ABALOS, TITA ABALOS, LITA A. DELA CRUZ AND HEIRS OF AQUILINA ABALOS, NAMELY: ARTURO BRAVO, PURITA B. MENDOZA, LOURDES B. AGANON, CONSUELO B. SALAZAR, PRIMA B. DELOS SANTOS, THELMA APOSTOL AND GLECERIO ABALOS, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF VICENTE TORIO, NAMELY: PUBLIO TORIO, LIBORIO TORIO, VICTORINA TORIO, ANGEL TORIO, LADISLAO TORIO, PRIMO TORIO AND NORBERTO TORIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177751 : December 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE AGACER, DEL CASTILLO, AND ELYNOR AGACER, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. FRANKLIN AGACER AND ERIC AGACER, PROMULGATED: APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178218 : December 14, 2011] RAMONA RAMOS AND THE ESTATE OF LUIS T. RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, OPAL PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS (SPV-AMC), INC. AND GOLDEN DRAGON STAR EQUITIES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 196685 : December 14, 2011] GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ABRAHAM CO AND CHRISTINE CHAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 196063 : December 14, 2011] ORLANDO A. RAYOS, FE A. RAYOS-DELA PAZ, REPRESENTED BY DR. ANTONIO A. RAYOS, AND ENGR. MANUEL A. RAYOS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191491 : December 14, 2011] JEBSENS MARITIME INC., REPRESENTED BY MS. ARLENE ASUNCION AND/OR ALLIANCE MARINE SERVICES, LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. ENRIQUE UNDAG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188376 : December 14, 2011] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. FEDERICO SUNTAY, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ASSIGNEE, JOSEFINA LUBRICA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186530 : December 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186131 : December 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DO�A, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 161718 : December 14, 2011] MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. DING VELAYO SPORTS CENTER, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183563 : December 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172458 : December 14, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172553 : December 14, 2011] OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, HONORABLE VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, AND THE GENERAL INVESTIGATION BUREAU-A, REPRESENTED BY MARIA OLIVIA ELENA A. ROXAS, PETITIONERS, VS. JESUS D. FRANCISCO, SR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152375 : December 16, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, AND POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3143-P) : December 16, 2011] EVELINA C. BANAAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA C. ESPELETA, INTERPRETER III, BRANCH 82, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188381 : December 14, 2011] BAGUIO TRINITY DEVELOPERS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY RICARDO JULIAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HEIRS OF JOSE RAMOS AND THE HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO AND VICTORINA NEPA; AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172666 : December 07, 2011] PICOP RESOURCES, INCORPORATED (PRI), REPRESENTED IN THIS PETITION BY MR. WILFREDO D. FUENTES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND RESIDENT MANAGER, PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO DEQUILLA, ELMO PABILANDO, CESAR ATIENZA AND ANICETO ORBETA, JR., AND NAMAPRI-SPFI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171146 : December 07, 2011] RODOLFO MORLA, PETITIONER, VS. CORAZON NISPEROS BELMONTE, ABRAHAM U. NISPEROS, PERLITA NISPEROS OCAMPO, ARMANDO U. NISPEROS, ALBERTO U. NISPEROS, HILARIO U. NISPEROS, ARCHIMEDES U. NISPEROS, BUENAFE NISPEROS PEREZ, ARTHUR U. NISPEROS, AND ESPERANZA URBANO NISPEROS, RESPONDENTS.