Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > April 2012 Decisions > [G.R. No. 192737 : April 25, 2012] NEMIA CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS. :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192737 : April 25, 2012]

NEMIA CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, seeking to reverse and set aside the April 26, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99763 and its June 29, 2010 Resolution,[2] denying petitioner�s motion for reconsideration.cralaw

The Facts

The case stems from a complaint for cancellation and/or discharge of check and defamation/slander with damages filed by petitioner Nemia Castro (Castro) against respondents, spouses Rosalyn  and Jamir Guevarra (Spouses Guevarra), before the Regional Trial Court of Dasmari�as, Cavite, Branch 90 (RTC�Br. 90), and docketed therein as Civil Case No. 2187-00. Castro sought the cancellation of her undated Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check No. 0133501 in the amount of P1,862,000.00, contending that the total obligation for which said check was issued had already been fully paid. Moreover, she prayed that FEBTC Check Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 be declared as without value; that Rosalyn Guevarra (Rosalyn) be ordered to return her excess payments totaling P477,257.00, plus interest; and that she (Castro) be awarded exemplary damages, moral damages and attorney�s fees.

In their answer with counterclaim, Spouses Guevarra claimed that there was no legal or factual basis to merit the discharge and cancellation of FEBTC Check No. 0133501. They stressed that the total partial payment made by Castro only amounted to P230,000.00, leaving an unpaid balance of P1,632,000.00.[3]

During the trial, Castro testified that pursuant to their rediscounting of check business arrangement, Rosalyn lent her cash of P1,362,000.00, which amount, they agreed, was to earn interest in the amount of P500,000.00. In turn, Castro issued to Rosalyn FEBTC Check No. 0133501 with a face value of P1,862,000.00. Later, Castro issued several postdated checks in favor of Rosalyn, representing installment payments on the amount covered by the subject check, which the latter subsequently encashed.

Sometime thereafter, Castro discovered that she had already settled the total obligation of P1,862,000.00 in full and had, in fact, overpaid. For said reason, Castro wrote a letter to Rosalyn informing the latter of her intention to order a �stop payment� of the postdated checks. On April 10, 2000, Castro instructed FEBTC to stop the payment of FEBTC Check No. 0133501. She later learned from the bank that the subject check dated July 15, 2000 had been deposited on September 19, 2000.

To substantiate her allegation of full payment, Castro presented as evidence FEBTC Check No. 0123739 encashed by Jamir Guevarra with the notation �Final Payment for Check No. 186A0133501� at the dorsal portion of the checks. On January 21, 2003, she made her formal offer of evidence. The evidence offered was admitted by RTC-Br. 90 in an Order dated February 10, 2003.

After Castro rested her case, Spouses Guevarra started presenting their documentary evidence to disprove the claim of full settlement of FEBTC Check No. 0133501. They also presented their witnesses: Olivia F. Yambao, representative of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Nueno Ave., Imus Branch (formerly FEBTC); and Nenita M. Florido.

Records show that in the course of the presentation of their evidence, Atty. Ernesto R. Alejandro (Atty. Alejandro), counsel for the Spouses Guevarra, requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum requiring the bank manager of FEBTC, Nueno Ave., Imus, Cavite Branch to produce the microfilm of FEBTC Check No. 186A0123739 and to testify thereon. According to Atty. Alejandro, this piece of evidence would prove that the words �Final Payment for Check No. 186A0133501� had been written at the dorsal portion of the check only after its encashment.[4]

Judge Dolores Espa�ol (Judge Espa�ol), then presiding judge of RTC- Br. 90, denied Atty. Alejandro�s request in an order dated September 12, 2003, reasoning out that Castro had already been extensively cross-examined by him on matters relative to FEBTC Check No. 0133501. Spouses Guevarra moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the trial court in an order dated October 6, 2003. Spouses Guevarra, thus, filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of injunction with the CA, which case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80561.[5]

Meanwhile, Spouses Guevarra moved for the resetting of the October 30, 2003 hearing to another date. On November 6, 2003, RTC-Br. 90 issued an order denying this request and, instead, declared Spouses Guevarra to have waived the further presentation of their evidence and directed them to submit their formal offer of evidence. The respondent spouses moved for the reconsideration of the November 6, 2003 Order. The said motion was denied in an order dated November 28, 2003. In the same order, the case was deemed submitted for decision.[6]  Spouses Guevarra filed their motion to defer action on December 15, 2003, but the same was likewise denied, considering that no TRO or preliminary injunction was issued by the CA enjoining Judge Espa�ol from further proceeding with the case.

Thereafter, RTC-Br. 90 rendered its Decision dated December 22, 2003 in favor of Castro, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra ordering the discharge of Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC) Check No. 0070789 and its replacement FEBTC Check No. 0133501, which, defendant subsequently affixed the date July 15, 2000 thereto, both in the amount of P1,862,000.00, the same are hereby cancelled if not returned to the plaintiff. Further, FEBTC Check Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 dated March 24, 2000 and March 30, 2000, respectively, each in the amount of P10,000.00 are also hereby declared as without value. Likewise, the defendants are ordered to return to the plaintiff the amount of P477,257.00 representing the excess payment made by plaintiff plus legal interest of 12% per annum, from the filing of this complaint until fully paid. Further, defendants are ordered to pay plaintiff moral damages of P400,000.00, exemplary damages of P100,000.00, attorney�s fees of P200,000.00, and the costs of suit.

Furthermore, for lack of factual and legal basis, Criminal Case No. 8624-01, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Nemia Castro, for Estafa under Article 315 (2-d), RPC in Relation to PD 818, is hereby DISMISSED. Thus, the Clerk of Court is directed to furnish the Municipal Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, with the copy of this Decision for its information and guidance with regard to the Criminal Cases involving FEBTC Check Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 pending before the said Court.

SO ORDERED.[7]

On January 26, 2004, Spouses Guevarra filed a motion for reconsideration[8] assailing the validity of the decision on the ground that it was promulgated after the retirement of Judge Espa�ol from the service. They added that the decision was contrary to law and the facts of the case, and that they were denied the right to present evidence.

On January 28, 2004, Spouses Guevarra filed their motion to re-raffle the case,[9] which was granted on even date by Judge Norberto Quisumbing, Jr., Executive Judge of the RTC, Imus, Cavite.[10] Subsequently, Civil Case No. 2187-00 was raffled to RTC, Branch 22 (RTC- Br. 22), presided by Judge Cesar Mangrobang (Judge Mangrobang).

Meanwhile, on February 18, 2004, the CA issued its Resolution,[11] in CA-G.R. SP No. 80561, denying the application of Spouses Guevarra for the issuance of a TRO.

Resolving the Motion to Defer Action and the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses Guevarra, RTC-Br. 22 issued its Omnibus Order[12] dated December 15, 2004 granting the motion, thus, setting aside the RTC-Br. 90 December 22, 2003 Decision on the ground that it was promulgated after Judge Espa�ol retired from the service, holding in abeyance the further proceedings in the case. The decretal portion of the Omnibus Order states:

WHEREFORE, for being meritorious, defendants� Motion for Reconsideration is hereby granted, and the Court�s decision dated December 22, 2003 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.

Further, in order not to intricate matters in this case considering that a Petition for Certiorari had been filed by the defendants before the Honorable Court of Appeals, let the proceedings of this case be held in abeyance until after the Court of Appeals shall have ruled on the pending petition.

SO ORDERED.[13]

On July 20, 2006, the CA promulgated its Decision[14] in CA-G.R. No. 80561, dismissing the petition for certiorari. The CA held that the issues raised therein had become moot and academic because of the rendition by RTC- Br. 90 of its December 22, 2003 judgment in Civil Case No. 2187-00.

On October 20, 2006, Spouses Guevarra filed a motion[15] before RTC- Br. 22, praying for the revival of the proceedings and/or new trial to enable them to complete their presentation of evidence by submitting alleged newly discovered evidence which could disprove Castro�s claims. On March 23, 2007, Judge Mangrobang issued the questioned Order[16] and disposed of the incident in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants� Motion to Revive Proceedings and/or New Trial is hereby granted.

Hence, the new trial of this case is hereby set on April 27, 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED.[17]

Aggrieved, Castro filed a petition for certiorari[18] with prayer for TRO before the CA, assailing the March 23, 2007 Order of RTC-Br. 22 and collaterally attacking its December 15, 2006 Omnibus Order. She argued that Judge Mangrobang committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the December 22, 2003 Decision as null and void and granting the motion of Spouses Guevarra for a new trial in Civil Case No. 2187-00.

On April 26, 2010, the CA denied the above petition. It opined that the petition should have been dismissed outright for failure of Castro to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order. The CA also held that the issuance of the March 23, 2007 Order was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, as Judge Mangrobang acted within the bounds of his authority and in the exercise of his sound discretion. The fallo of said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Order of the RTC, Branch 22 of Imus, Cavite dated March 23, 2007 is AFFIRMED.[19]

Castro�s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated June 29, 2010.

ISSUES

Undaunted, Castro filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court and raised the following issues:

a) Whether a Motion for Reconsideration is required before filing a Petition for Certiorari under the circumstances of this case;

b) Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Petition for Certiorari for lack of a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order issued by the Presiding Judge, Branch 22, RTC, Imus, Cavite;

c) Whether the service or mailing of copies of a judgment to the parties in a case is required in the promulgation of a judgment;

d) Whether the December 22, 2003 Decision of Branch 90, RTC, Dasmari�as, Cavite is a void judgment;

e) Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Petition for Certiorari in ruling that the Presiding Judge of Branch 22, RTC, Imus, Cavite did not abuse his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the March 23, 2007 Order.[20]

On November 15, 2010, the Court issued a resolution[21] denying Castro�s application for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

A careful perusal of the pleadings filed by the parties leads the Court to conclude that this case revolves around the following core issues:

1)    Whether RTC- Br. 22 had the authority to pass upon and resolve the motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision of RTC- Br. 90 and all subsequent matters submitted to it in Civil Case No. 2187-00;

2)    Whether a motion for reconsideration is required before the filing of a petition for certiorari under the circumstances of the case at bench; and

3)    Whether RTC-Br. 22 erred in granting a new trial of the case.

In her petition, Castro takes exception to the general rule which requires a motion for reconsideration prior to the institution of a petition for certiorari. She argues that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and the March 23, 2007 Order were both patently void. She further questions the authority of Judge Mangrobang to assume and take over Civil Case No. 2187-00 and to set aside the December 22, 2003 ponencia of Judge Espa�ol. She claims that such acts constitute an encroachment on the adjudicatory prerogative of a co-equal court. She posits that all subsequent proceedings and orders issued by Judge Mangrobang were void by reason of this undue interference of one branch in another�s case. Lastly, she insists that the December 22, 2003 Decision of Judge Espa�ol was filed with the Clerk of Court before she retired and, thus, was valid.

The Court�s Ruling

A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure.[22] The primary responsibility over the case belongs to the presiding judge of the branch to which it has been raffled/re-raffled or assigned.

The records bear out that on January 26, 2004, Spouses Guevarra filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision and two days later, moved for a re-raffle of Civil Case No. 2187-00, allegedly to ensure the early resolution of the motion as there was no certainty as to when a new judge would be appointed to replace Judge Espa�ol. The motion to re-raffle was granted by the Executive Judge on January 28, 2004. Civil Case No. 2187-00 was later raffled to RTC-Br. 22, presided by Judge Mangrobang.  In the absence of clear and convincing proof that irregularity and manipulation attended the re-raffle of Civil Case No. 2187-00, the Court holds that said civil case was properly assigned and transferred to RTC- Br. 22, vesting Judge Mangrobang with the authority and competency to take cognizance, and to dispose, of the case and all pending incidents, such as Spouses Guevarra�s motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision.

It bears to stress that while the RTC is divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.[23] Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.[24] Succinctly, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90 but to all the branches of the RTC, Cavite, including Branch 22 to where the case was subsequently re-raffled. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, retirement or cessation from service of the judge presiding over it.[25] Evidently, the argument, that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and all orders subsequently issued by Judge Mangrobang were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of alleged undue interference by one branch over another, holds no water.

At any rate, it is too late in the day for Castro to question the soundness and legality of the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order, which has already attained finality.

The Court notes that Castro never questioned the said Omnibus Order at the first opportunity by filing a motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Neither did she elevate it to the CA via a petition for certiorari within sixty (60) days from notice of said Order, pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Castro kept her silence on the matter, indicating that she slept on her rights. Her failure to seasonably avail of these remedies effectively closed the door for a possible reconsideration or reversal of the subject Omnibus Order. Thus, if there was indeed error in the disposition of Spouses Guevarra�s motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision, Castro was not entirely without blame.

Anent the issue of whether the non-filing by Castro of a motion for reconsideration of the March 23, 2007 Order is fatal to her petition for certiorari, the Court finds in the negative.

A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement, such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.[26] The circumstances obtaining in this case definitely placed Castro's recourse under most of the above exceptions particularly because Judge Mangrobang ordered a new trial in the March 23, 2007 Order.[27]

The Court deems the grant of new trial without legal basis. Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court read:

SECTION 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial. � Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:

xxxx                     xxxx                      xxxx              xxxx 

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial and which if presented would probably alter the result.

xxxx                     xxxx                      xxxx              xxxx

SEC. 6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial. � If a new trial is granted in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, the original judgment or final order shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for trial de novo xxxx.

New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.[28] The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final.[29] Verily, in the case at bench, the filing by Spouses Guevarra of a motion for new trial was premature and uncalled for because a decision has yet to be rendered by the trial court in Civil Case No. 2187-00. Let it be underscored that the December 22, 2003 Decision of Judge Espa�ol was effectively set aside by the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order of Judge Mangrobang. Hence, there is technically no judgment which can be the subject of a motion for new trial.

At any rate, in the interest of justice, the Court deems it fair and equitable to allow Spouses Guevarra to adduce evidence in Civil Case No. 2187-00 before RTC- Br. 22. Note that what was granted by the March 23, 2007 Order of the RTC was respondents� motion which prayed, as principal relief, the revival of the proceedings and the grant of new trial only as an alternative.  This is in consonance with the policy of the Court to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to have their causes justly determined, free from the constraints of technicalities.[30]   After all, it is but proper that the judge�s mind be satisfied as to any and all questions presented during the trial in order to serve the cause of justice.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, is ordered to proceed with the case and to allow the respondents, Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra, to continue their presentation of evidence and thereafter make their formal offer. If no rebuttal evidence will be presented, the trial court shall proceed to decide the case on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad,  and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur

Endnotes:



[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 26-39.

[2] Id. at 40-41.

[3] Id. at 57-58.

[4] Id. at 59-63.

[5] Id. at 104.

[6] Id. at 105.

[7]  Id. at 64-65.

[8]  Id. at 66-82.

[9]  Id. at 84-86.

[10] Id. at 87.

[11] Id. at 49-50.

[12] Id. at 43-48.

[13] Id. at 47-48.

[14] Id. at 51-55.

[15] Id. at 154-157.

[16] Id. at 88-92.

[17] Id. at 92.

[18] Id. at 100-125.

[19] Id. at 38.

[20] Id. at 10-11.

[21] Id. at 234.

[22] Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay, RTC, Branch 24, Manila, 354 Phil. 698, 704 (1998).

[23] ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 240, 245 (1998).

[24] People v. CFI of Quezon City, Br. X, G.R. No. 48817, October 29, 1993, 227 SCRA 457, 461.

[25] ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 23 at 246.

[26] Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011.

[27] Rollo, p. 92

[28] Jose v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 364, 376 (1976).

[29] Samonte v. Samonte, 159-A Phil. 777, 786 (1975).

[30] Spouses Leyba v. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc., G.R. No. 172910, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 160, 163.



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






April-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2720 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3259-P] : April 07, 2012] JUDGE SALVADOR R. SANTOS, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ANGAT, BULACAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDITHA R. MANGAHAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER OF THE SAME COURT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174489 : April 07, 2012] ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., AND RAFAEL TITCO, PETITIONERS, VS. LORENZO LAXA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, PRESIDING JUDGE AND ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, COTABATO CITY AND BRANCH 15, SHARIFF AGUAK, MAGUINDANAO, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 147036-37 : April 10, 2012] PETITIONER-ORGANIZATIONS, NAMELY: PAMBANSANG KOALISYON NG MGA SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA AT MANGGAGAWA SA NIYUGAN (PKSMMN), COCONUT INDUSTRY REFORM MOVEMENT (COIR), BUKLOD NG MALAYANG MAGBUBUKID, PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG MGA SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA (PAKISAMA), CENTER FOR AGRARIAN REFORM, EMPOWERMENT AND TRANSFORMATION (CARET), PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SAMAHAN SA KANAYUNAN (PKSK); PETITIONER- LEGISLATOR: REPRESENTATIVE LORETA ANN ROSALES; AND PETITIONER-INDIVIDUALS, NAMELY: VIRGILIO V. DAVID, JOSE MARIE FAUSTINO, JOSE CONCEPCION, ROMEO ROYANDOYAN, JOSE V. ROMERO, JR., ATTY. CAMILO L. SABIO, AND ATTY. ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED), AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2912 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARY LOU C. SARMIENTO, INTERPRETER II, BRANCH 57, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN CITY, AND ARTURO F. ANATALIO, SHERIFF, BRANCH 58, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667 : April 10, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAMES v. GO AND CLERK OF COURT MA. ELMER M. ROSALES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BRANCH 2, BUTUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173320 : April 11, 2012] EDUARDO B. MANZANO, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO B. LAZARO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3053 (formerly A.M. No. 06-3-88-MTCC) : April 11, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARPIO, (CHAIRPERSON), BRION, ABAD,* SERENO, AND REYES, JJ. MANUEL Z. ARAYA, JR., UTILITY WORKER, MTCC, BRANCH 2, OZAMIS CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174118 : April 11, 2012] THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, PETITIONER, VS. REGINO PANTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186141 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUSA FIGUEROA Y CORONADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175303 : April 11, 2012] PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD. (PAFIN), PETITIONER, VS. EIJI* YANAGISAWA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173844 : April 11, 2012] LIGAYA P. CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, ETC., DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND COURT OF APPEALS. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188661 : April 11, 2012] ESTELITA VILLAMAR, PETITIONER, VS. BALBINO MANGAOIL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3002 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-9-96-MTCC) : April 11, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MS. ESTRELLA NINI, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES-BOGO, CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164457 : April 11, 2012] ANNA LERIMA PATULA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175763 : April 11, 2012] HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG, NAMELY: ARTURO TANYAG, AIDA T. JOCSON AND ZENAIDA T. VELOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. SALOME E. GABRIEL, NESTOR R. GABRIEL, LUZ GABRIEL-ARNEDO MARRIED TO ARTURO ARNEDO, NORA GABRIEL-CALINGO MARRIED TO FELIX CALINGO, PILAR M. MENDIOLA, MINERVA GABRIEL-NATIVIDAD MARRIED TO EUSTAQUIO NATIVIDAD, AND ERLINDA VELASQUEZ MARRIED TO HERMINIO VELASQUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167057 : April 11, 2012] NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND ESTER R. GUERZON, CHAIRMAN, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193509 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IRENEO GANZAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181544 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIUS TAGUILID Y BACOLOD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188322 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170290 : April 11, 2012] PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CITIBANK, N.A. AND BANK OF AMERICA, S.T. & N.A., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3028 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3649-P] : April 11, 2012] ATTYS. RICARDO D. GONZALES & ERNESTO D. ROSALES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ARTHUR G. CALO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL C, BRANCH 5, BUTUAN CITY RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 7880 : April 11, 2012] WILLIAM HECTOR MARIA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 5098 : April 11, 2012] JOSEFINA M. ANI�ON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179936 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177224 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY BIYALA VELASQUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184926 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES Y OLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184282 : April 11, 2012] FRANCISCO SORIANO AND DALISAY SORIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 197807 : April 16, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193443 : April 16, 2012] JEAN TAN, ROSELLER C. ANACINTO, CARLO LOILO ESPINEDA AND DAISY ALIADO MANAOIS, REPRESENTED IN THIS ACT BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MA. WILHELMINA E. TOBIAS, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173951 : April 16, 2012] DANIEL M. ISON, PETITIONER, VS. CREWSERVE, INC., ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., AND MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173820 : April 16, 2012] PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6903 : April 16, 2012] SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : April 17, 2012] IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 28 APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND 145822

  • [G.R. No. 175139 : April 18, 2012] HERMOJINA ESTORES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ARTURO AND LAURA SUPANGAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180177 : April 18, 2012] ROGELIO S. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185918 : April 18, 2012] LOCKHEED DETECTIVE AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171995 : April 18, 2012] STEELCASE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DESIGN INTERNATIONAL SELECTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194677 : April 18, 2012] ALEN H. SANTIAGO, PETITIONER, VS. PACBASIN SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND/OR MAJESTIC CARRIERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167735 : April 18, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF SALVADOR ENCINAS AND JACOBA DELGADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177761 : April 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REMEDIOS TANCHANCO Y PINEDA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 200030 : April 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELSON BAYOT Y SATINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193415 : April 18, 2012] SPOUSES DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO, PETITIONERS, VS. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARA�AQUE CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175039 : April 18, 2012] ADDITION HILLS MANDALUYONG CIVIC & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, INC., WILFREDO I. IMPERIAL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, NCR, AND HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177611 : April 18, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO L. LEGASPI, SR., QUEROBIN L. LEGASPI, OFELIA LEGASPI-MUELA, PURISIMA LEGASPI VDA. DE MONDEJAR, VICENTE LEGASPI, RODOLFO LEGASPI II, AND SPOUSES ROSALINA LIBO-ON AND DOMINADOR LIBO-ON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192514 : April 18, 2012] D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. AND/OR DAVID M. CONSUNJI, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTELITO L. JAMIN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180898 : April 18, 2012] PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS & SERVICE CORPORATION RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188921 : April 18, 2012] LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C. ROMERO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163700 : April 18, 2012] CHARLIE JAO, PETITIONER, VS. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC., AND TERRANCE TY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163657 : April 18, 2012] INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES/MARILYN C. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. ROEL P. LOGARTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3004 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3483-P) : April 18, 2012] JUDGE ANDREW P. DULNUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ESTEBAN D. DACSIG, CLERK OF COURT II, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163125 : April 18, 2012] JOSE ABELGAS, JR. AND LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS, PETITIONERS, VS. SERVILLANO COMIA, RURAL BANK OF SOCORRO INC. AND RURAL BANK OF PINAMALAYAN, INC. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182331 : April 18, 2012] MA. CORINA C. JIAO, RODEN B. LOPEZ, FRANCISCO L. DIMAYUGA, NORMA G. DEL VALLE, MACARIO G. MARASIGAN, LANIE MARIA B. PASANA, NILO M. DE CASTRO, ANGELITO M. BALITAAN, CESAR L. RICO, CRISPIN S. CONSTANTINO, GLENDA S. CORPUZ, LEONILA C. TUAZON, ALFREDO S. DAZA, LORNA R. CRUZ, MARIA M. AMBOJIA, NOEMI M. JAPOR, ANGELITO V. DANAN, GLORIA M. SALAZAR, JOHN V. VIGILIA, ROEL D. ROBINO, WILLIAM L. ENDAYA, TERESITA M. ROMAN, ARTURO M. SABALLE, AUGUSTO N. RIGOR, ALLAN O. OLANO, RODOLFO T. CABATU, NICANOR R. BRAVO, EDUARDO M. ALCANTARA, FELIPE F. OCAMPO, ELPIDIO C. ADALIA, RENATO M. CRUZ, JOSE C. PEREZ, JR., FERNANDO V. MAPILE, ROMEO R. PATRICIO, FERNANDO N. RONGAVILLA, FERMIN A. COBRADOR, ANTONIO O. BOSTRE, RALPH M. MICHAELSON, CRISTINA G. MANIO, EDIGARDO M. BAUTISTA, CYNTHIA C. SANIEL, PRISCILLA F. DAVID, MACARIO V. ARNEDO, NORLITO V. HERNANDEZ, ALFREDO G. BUENAVENTURA, JOSE R. CASTRONUEVO, OLDERICO M. AGORILLA, CESAR M. PEREZ, RONALD M. GENER, EMMANUEL G. QUILAO, BENJAMIN C. CUBA, EDGARDO S. MEDRANO, GODOFREDO D. PATENA, VIRGILIO G. ILAGAN, MYRNA C. LEGASPI, ELIZABETH P. REYES, ANTONIO A. TALON, ROMEO P. CRUZ, ELEANOR T. TAN, FERDINAND G. PINAUIN, MA. OLIVETTE A. NAKPIL, GILBERT NOVIEM A. COLUMNA, ARTHUR L. ABELLA, BENJAMIN L. ENRIQUEZ, ANTONINO P. QUEVEDO, ADFEL GEORGE MONTEMAYOR, RAMON S. VELASCO, WILFREDO M. HALILI, ANTONIO M. LUMANGLAS, ANDREW M. MAGNO, SONNY S. ESTANISLAO, RODOLFO S. ALABASTRO, MICAH B. MARALIT, LINA M. QUEBRAL, REBECCA R. NARCISO, RONILO T. TOLENTINO, RUPERTO B. LETAN, JR., MEDARDO A. VASQUEZ, VALENTINA A. SANTIAGO, RODELO S. DIAZ, JOHN O. CORDIAL, EDWIN J. ANDAYA, RODRIGO M. MOJADO, GERMAN L. ESTRADA, BENJAMIN B. DADUYA, MARLYN A. MUNOZ, MARIVIC M. DIONISIO, CESAR M. FLORES, JACINTO T. GUINTO, JR., BELEN C. SALAVERRIA, EVELYN M. ANZURES, GLORIA D. ABELLA, LILIAN V. BUNUAN, MA. CONCEPCION G. UBIADAS, ROLANDO I. CAMPOSANO, MONICO R. GOREMBALEM, ELADIO M. VICENCIO, AMORSOLO B. BELTRAN, LEOPOLDO B. JUAREZ, NEPHTALI V. SALAZAR, SANGGUNI P. ROQUE, ROY O. SAPANGHILA, MELVIN A. DEVEZA, CARMENCITA D. ABELLA, PRIMITIVO S. AGUAS, JOSE MA. ANTONIO I. BUGAY, HILARIO P. DE GUZMAN, WILLIAM C. VENTIGAN, NOEL L. AMA, ROMEO G. USON, RAOUL E. VELASCO, FLORENCIO B. PAGSALIGAN, RUBEN C. CRUZ, ANGELA D. CUSTODIO, NOEL C. CABEROY, GUILLERMO V. GAVINO, JR., GAUDENCIO P. BESA, AIDA M. PADILLA, ROWENA M. BAUYON, HENRY C. EPISCOPE, ALVIN T. PATRIARCA, EUSTAQUIO C. AQUINO, JR., VALENTINO T. ARELLANO, REYNALDO J. AUSTRIA, BAYANI A. CUNANAN, EFREN T. JOSE, EDUARDO P. LORIA, REYNALDO M. PORTILLO, ARMANDO B. DUPAYA, SESINANDO S. GOMEZ, BRICCIO B. GAFFUD III, DANILO N. PALO, MARIO F. SOLANO, MARIANITO B. GOOT AND ELSA S. TANGO, ZENAIDA N. GARIN, RUBY L. TEJADA, JOEL B. GARCIA, MA. RUBY L. JIMENEA, ARLENE L. MADLANGBAYAN, ROCELY P. MARASIGAN, MA. ROSARIO H. RIVERA, OSCAR G. BARACHINA, EDITA M. REMO, ROBERTO P. ENDAYA, ALELI B. ALANO, FRANCISCO T. MENEZ, CAMILO N. CARILLO, ROSEMARIE A. DOMINGO, LYNDON D. ENOROBA, MERLY H. JAVELLANA, HERNES M. MANDABON, LUZ G. ONG, GILBERTO B. PICO, CRISPIN A. TAMAYO, RICARDO C. VERNAIZ, RENATO V. SACRAMENTO, CLODUALDO O. GOMEZ, MARINEL O. ALPINO, ELY P. RAMOS, NICANOR E. REYES, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GLOBAL BUSINESS BANK, INC., CORPORATE OFFICERS OF GLOBAL BANK: ROBIN KING, HENRY M. SUN, BENJAMIN G. CHUA, JR., JOVENCIO F. CINCO, EDWARD S. GO, MARY VY TY, TAKANORI NAKANO, JOHN K.C. NG, FLORENCIO T. MALLARE, EDMUND/EDDIE GAISANO, FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN, SAMUEL S. YAP, ALFRED VY TY, GEN TOMII, CHARLES WAI-BUN CHEUNG AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170425 : April 23, 2012] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. RIZZA G. MENDOZA, CARLITO LEE, GRESHIELA G. COMPENDIO, RAUL RIVERA, REY BELTRAN, REX ALMOJUELA, LINDA P. CAPALUNGAN, HILDA R. RONQUILLO, MA. LODA CALMA, TERESITA P. ALMOJUELA, RUFINA ABAD AND AMADOR A. PASTRANA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 143264 : April 23, 2012] LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. REPRESENTED BY LOLITA A. SORIANO, AND LOLITA A. SORIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK),[*] LILIAN S. SORIANO, ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. SORIANO, JR., REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGASPI CITY, AND JESUS L. SARTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179488 : April 23, 2012] COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711 : April 23, 2012] RAMONCITO AND JULIANA LUARCA, VS. COMPLAINANTS, JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BONGABONG, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. MTJ-08-1716] JENY AGBAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BONGABONG, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2948 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3049-P] : April 23, 2012] EVELYN V. JALLORINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICHELLE TANEO-REGNER, DATA ENTRY MACHINE OPERATOR II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175042 : April 23, 2012] DANILO A. DU, PETITIONER, VS. VENANCIO R. JAYOMA, THEN MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MABINI, BOHOL, VICENTE GULLE, JR., JOVENIANO MIANO, WILFREDO MENDEZ, AGAPITO VALLESPIN, RENE BUCIO, JESUS TUTOR, CRESCENCIO BERNALES, EDGARDO YBANEZ, AND REY PAGALAN, THEN MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB) OF MABINI, BOHOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7481 : April 24, 2012] LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171101 : April 24, 2012] HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA[1] AND HIS SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. AND WINDSOR ANDAYA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191970 : April 24, 2012] ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 184379-80 : April 24, 2012] RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA LOZADA AND ARTURO LOZADA, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON, ANGEL ATUTUBO AND SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164987 : April 24, 2012] LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL, CEFERINO PADUA, MEMBERS, ALBERTO ABELEDA, JR., ELEAZAR ANGELES, GREGELY FULTON ACOSTA, VICTOR AVECILLA, GALILEO BRION, ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA, EFREN CARAG, PEDRO CASTILLO, NAPOLEON CORONADO, ROMEO ECHAUZ, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, ROGELIO KARAGDAG, JR., MARIA LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA, LEO LUIS MENDOZA, ANTONIO P. PAREDES, AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES, EMMANUEL SANTOS, TERESITA SANTOS, RUDEGELIO TACORDA, SECRETARY GEN. ROLANDO ARZAGA, BOARD OF CONSULTANTS, JUSTICE ABRAHAM SARMIENTO, SEN. AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., AND BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192791 : April 24, 2012] DENNIS A. B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REYNALDO A. VILLAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181367 : April 24, 2012] LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HON. JEFFREY P. FERRER, AND THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-MAYOR, HON. DEMIE JOHN C. HONRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. REX G. ROJO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193261 : April 24, 2012] MEYNARDO SABILI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORENCIO LIBREA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 7940 : April 24, 2012] RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184528 : April 25, 2012] NILO OROPESA, PETITIONER, VS. CIRILO OROPESA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2161-MTJ) : April 25, 2012] DR. RAMIE G. HIPE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROLANDO T. LITERATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAINIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183706 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMSON ESCLETO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170865 : April 25, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG AND OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170892] SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG AND OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183308 : April 25, 2012] INSULAR INVESTMENT AND TRUST CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES CORP. (NOW KNOWN AS CAPITAL ONE HOLDINGS CORP.) AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189434 : April 25, 2012] FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 189505] IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER , VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190610 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ AND JOSE BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED. JOSE BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 192737 : April 25, 2012] NEMIA CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3058 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3357-P] : April 25, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194813 : April 25, 2012] KAKAMPI AND ITS MEMBERS, VICTOR PANUELOS, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY DAVID DAYALO, KAKAMPI VICE PRESIDENT AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. KINGSPOINT EXPRESS AND LOGISTIC AND/OR MARY ANN CO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189127 : April 25, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BERNARDO AND MINDALUZ SALUDARES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187919 : April 25, 2012] RAFAEL H. GALVEZ AND KATHERINE L. GUY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ASIA UNITED BANK, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 187979] ASIA UNITED BANK, PETITIONER, VS. GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, KATHERINE L. GUY, RAFAEL H. GALVEZ AND EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 188030] GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG AND EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188497 : April 25, 2012] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190321 : April 25, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMMY UMIPANG Y ABDUL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190569 : April 25, 2012] P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO, PETITIONER, VS. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ILOILO; EDITO AGUILLON, BRGY. CAPT., BRGY. LANJAGAN, AJUY, ILOILO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190749 : April 25, 2012] VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA AND EROLL MARCELINO Y REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194024 : April 25, 2012] PHILIP L. GO, PACIFICO Q. LIM AND ANDREW Q. LIM PETITIONERS, VS. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183916 : April 25, 2012] SPOUSES NICANOR MAGNO AND CARIDAD MAGNO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO PARULAN, REPRESENTED BY EMILIANO PARULAN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, BALIUAG, BULACAN, OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF GUIGUINTO, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172538 : April 25, 2012] ISABELO ESPERIDA, LORENZO HIPOLITO, AND ROMEO DE BELEN, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCO K. JURADO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161909 : April 25, 2012] PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FELIX PARAS AND INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173870 : April 25, 2012] OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. GERONIMO BACOY, GUARDIAN AND REPRESENTING THE CHILDREN, NAMELY: MARY MARJORIE B. MONSALUD, ERIC B. MONSALUD, METZIE ANN B. MONSALUD, KAREEN B. MONSALUD, LEONARDO B. MONSALUD, JR., AND CRISTINA B. MONSALUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMPOSED OF DEBORAH T. MARCO (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT), ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA, ENGR. MANUEL C. OREJOLA, ALFONSO F. QUILAPIO, RAUL DE GUZMAN AND PONCIANO R. ROSALES (GENERAL MANAGER AND EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR), PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS D. SELUDO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M No. P-11-3003 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 08-2970-P) : April 25, 2012] RE: COMPLAINT FILED BY PAZ DE VERA LAZARO AGAINST EDNA MAGALLANES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28; AND BONIFACIO G. MAGALLANES, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 30, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA.

  • [G.R. No. 192190 : April 25, 2012] BILLY M. REALDA, PETITIONER, VS. NEW AGE GRAPHICS, INC. AND JULIAN I. MIRASOL, JR. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193250 : April 25, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. AMELIO TRIA AND JOHN DOE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185829 : April 25, 2012] ARMANDO ALILING, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. LARIOSA, AND WIDE WIDE WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.