Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > February 2012 Decisions > [G.R. No. 181485 : February 15, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENT. :




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 181485 : February 15, 2012]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N


LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Submitted for our consideration is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks the reversal of the Decision[2] dated September 28, 2007 and the Resolution[3] dated January 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75108.  The appellate court�s decision set aside the Order[4] dated December 20, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. TM-1108; while the appellate court�s resolution denied the motion for reconsideration of said court�s September 28, 2007 decision.cralaw

The antecedents of the case are as follows:

Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage)

On July 27, 2000, herein respondent Gateway Property Holdings, Inc. (GPHI) filed a Complaint with Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[5] against herein petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB).  The case was docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1022 in the RTC of Trece Martires City, Branch 23.

According to the complaint, GPHI was a subsidiary company of Gateway Electronics Company (GEC).  In 1995 and 1996, GEC obtained long term loans from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in the amount of P600,000,000.00.  The loans were secured by mortgages executed by GEC over its various properties.  Subsequently, LBP offered to provide additional funds to GEC by inviting other banking institutions to lend money therefor.  LBP allegedly agreed to submit the properties mortgaged to it by GEC as part of the latter�s assets that will be covered by a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI), ensuring that �all participating banks in the loan syndicate will have equal security position.�[6]  Before the formal execution of an MTI, LBP and a consortium of banks entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), whereby LBP agreed to release the mortgaged properties to the consortium of banks on the basis of an MTI.  Relying on the said undertaking, the participating banks released funds in favor of GEC.  PNB later became part of this consortium of creditor banks.[7]

Thereafter, GEC allegedly encountered difficulties in paying its obligations to the banks, including those owed to PNB.  GEC then requested PNB to convert its long-term loans into a Convertible Omnibus Credit Line.  In a letter[8] dated August 13, 1997 addressed to Israel F. Maducdoc, the Senior Vice President of GEC, PNB approved such a conversion subject to certain conditions.  As part of the requirements of PNB, GPHI was made a co-borrower in the agreement and was obligated to execute in favor of PNB a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-636816 and T-636817.[9]  The letter likewise provided that PNB shall hold physical possession of the said titles until GPHI shall have made the assignment of the sales proceeds of the aforementioned real properties, up to a minimum of P112 million, to be applied towards the repayment of GEC�s outstanding obligations with PNB.  Furthermore, the letter stated that the real estate mortgage �shall be registered with the Registry of Deeds in an event of default.�[10]

In March 1998, LBP allegedly refused to abide by its undertaking to share the mortgaged properties of GEC with the consortium of creditor banks.  GEC, thus, filed a complaint for specific performance against LBP, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-782.

On or about June 19, 2000, PNB purportedly demanded from GEC the full payment of the latter�s obligations.  Thereafter, GPHI learned of PNB�s supposedly underhanded registration of the real estate mortgage with intent to foreclose the same.

GPHI principally alleged in its complaint that �[t]he understanding between GEC and PNB is that the GPHI properties would stand merely as a �temporary security� pending the outcome of Civil Case No. 98-782 which was filed by GEC against LBP.  The GPHI Property was never contemplated at any time as a collateral for GEC�s loan obligations to PNB.�[11]  Also, GPHI argued that �[t]he execution of a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of [PNB] over the GPHI Property did not reflect the true intention of the parties thereto, GEC and PNB.  The documents attached as Annexes to [the complaint] clearly show the interim or temporary nature of the mortgage arrangement.�[12]  GPHI contended that PNB had no legal right to effect the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties.

GPHI, thus, prayed that upon receipt of the complaint by the trial court, a temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued to enjoin PNB from foreclosing on the properties of GPHI covered by TCT Nos. T-636816 and T-636817, as well as from registering the fact of foreclosure or performing any act that would deprive GPHI of its ownership of the said properties.  GPHI likewise prayed that, after trial on the merits, judgment be issued declaring that: (1) the real estate mortgage involving the properties of GPHI and executed in favor of PNB is null and void; (2) PNB be enjoined from foreclosing on the aforementioned properties of GPHI and from registering the same; and (3) PNB be ordered to pay to GPHI the amount of P500,000.00 as attorney�s fees and litigation expenses.[13]

It appears that the RTC did not issue a TRO in favor of GPHI in the above case such that, on May 3, 2001, PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-636816 and T-636817.[14]  The properties were sold at a public auction on June 20, 2001.  According to the Minutes of Public Auction Sale[15] executed by the RTC Deputy Sheriff of Cavite, PNB was the sole bidder and it thereby acquired the properties for a sale bid price of P168,000,000.00.

Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale)

On August 14, 2001, GPHI filed a Petition for Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[16]  Docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1108, the petition was also raffled in Branch 23 of the RTC of Trece Martires City.

GPHI argued that, in conducting the foreclosure proceedings, the sheriff failed to observe the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 that the �sale shall be made at public auction.�  The entries in the minutes of the foreclosure sale allegedly did not indicate that a valid public auction was carried out in keeping with the requirements of the law.  More importantly, among its causes of action, GPHI contended that:

17.  [PNB] should not have proceeded in registering as well as in foreclosing [GPHI�s] mortgaged assets since the latter cannot yet be considered in default in accordance with the Amendment to Credit Agreement executed by [GEC], petitioner GPHI and respondent PNB on November 28, 1997.  Moreover, [PNB] knows all along that the subject real properties was never intended to be used as permanent collateral for GEC, but one which was simply used as an unregistered security until [GPHI] incurs in default if sold and the proceeds of which should be used in payment for the obligation of GEC.

Section 5.(5.01) of said Amendment to Credit Agreement states that:

�5.01. Undertaking to Sell and Assignment.  The borrowers hereby undertake to sell the Mortgaged Properties to third parties and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of the Seven-Year Term Loan up to the extent of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED TWELVE MILLION (P112,000,000.00).  Any shortfall in such amount shall be funded by GEC.  For this purpose, the Borrowers hereby assign, transfer and convey unto and in favor of the Bank the said amount of P112,000,000.00 out of the proceeds of the sale of the Mortgaged Properties.

The Borrowers� failure to remit to the Bank the amount of P112,000,000.00 within three (3) banking days reckoned from the sale of the Mortgaged Properties shall be considered an Event of Default (as such term is hereinafter defined) and shall be subject to the consequences herein provided.�

x x x x

19.  Moreover, it was clearly provided in [PNB�s] letter dated August 13, 1997 that the [real estate mortgage] shall be unregistered and will be registered with the Registry of Deeds only �in an event of default.�  It is also clear in the said letter that [PNB] shall only hold physical possession of said TCT Nos. 636817 and 636816 x x x until the condition of assigning the sales proceeds of the mentioned real properties up to a minimum of US$ equivalent of PhP112,000,000.00 to [PNB] is complied with.[17]

GPHI, thereafter, sought for a judgment: (1) perpetually prohibiting PNB from divesting GPHI of its possession and ownership of the mortgaged properties, as well as taking possession, administration and ownership thereof; (2) declaring the foreclosure sale conducted on June 20, 2001 as null and void; (3) ordering PNB to pay GPHI P2,000,000.00 as moral damages, P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages, P500,000.00 as attorney�s fees and costs of suit.

On September 11, 2001, PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss[18] the above petition, and contended that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.  Essentially, PNB argued that GPHI resorted to a splitting of a cause of action by first filing a complaint for the annulment of the contract of real estate mortgage and then filing a petition for the annulment of the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage.  PNB further alleged that the subsequent petition of GPHI failed to state a cause of action.

On December 20, 2001, the RTC ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108.  The trial court elucidated thus:

Prior to the filing of the above-entitled case, [GPHI] filed against [PNB] an action for annulment of Mortgage with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1022.  While the first action was filed on July 27, 2001, above-entitled case was filed on August 14, 2001 because there was no Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued in the first case, the foreclosure sale of the [mortgage] sought to be enjoined by [GPHI] as against [PNB] from this Court, proceeded in the ordinary course of law and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of the bank.  Not obtaining the relief desired, [GPHI] endeavored the remedy of filing this case; Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage with Application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [and/or] writ of Preliminary Injunction thinking it to be the right resources instead of pursuing to attack [PNB] in the first case thus filed.

Both cases, Civil Case No. TM-1022 and TM-1108 practically involved the same parties, substantially identical causes of action and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts.  Ironically, these cases are now both filed in this Court.

Considering the foregoing circumstances where a single cause of action has been split and pursuant to Rule 16, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the Motion to Dismiss filed by [PNB] through counsel, on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or [litis pendentia], is proper.

Suffice to state that the Court deemed no longer necessary to discuss the second ground relied upon in [PNB�s] pleading.

ACCORDINGLY, this case is DISMISSED. [19]  (Emphasis ours.)

GPHI filed a Motion for Reconsideration[20] of the above ruling, but the trial court denied the motion in an Order[21] dated March 14, 2002.  GPHI, thus, filed a Notice of Appeal,[22] which was given due course by the trial court.[23]

In the interregnum, after the parties presented their respective evidence in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Conform to the Evidence[24] on November 24, 2006.  In the Amended Complaint[25] attached therein, GPHI made mention of the foreclosure sale conducted on June 20, 2001 and the fact that the mortgaged properties were sold to PNB for P168 million.  Since GPHI�s liability was allegedly limited only to P112 million in accordance with the letter of PNB dated August 13, 1997 and the Amendment to the Credit Agreement between GEC, GPHI and PNB, GPHI claimed that it should be refunded the amount of P56 million.  GPHI then prayed for a judgment declaring the real estate mortgage, the foreclosure and the sale of the mortgaged properties null and void; or, alternatively, for a judgment ordering PNB to return to GPHI the amount of P56 million, plus interest.[26]

The Judgment of the Court of Appeals

GPHI�s appeal in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 75108.  GPHI primarily argued that the causes of action in the two cases filed before the RTC were separate and distinct such that a decision in one case would not necessarily be determinative of the issue in the other case.

On September 28, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting the appeal of GPHI.  The relevant portions of the appellate court�s ruling stated:

For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata to the other.

While it is true that there is an identity of parties and subject matter, the third requisite of litis pendentia is not present.  x x x x

The former suit is for the annulment of the real estate mortgage while the present case is one for the annulment of the foreclosure of the mortgage.  It may be conceded that if the final judgment in the former action is for the annulment of the mortgage, such an adjudication will deny the right of the bank to foreclose on the properties.  Following the above doctrine, the immediate question would thus be: Will a decree holding the mortgage contract valid prevent a party from challenging the propriety of the foreclosure and the conduct of its proceedings?

Verily, an adjudication holding the real estate mortgage valid does not preclude an action predicated on or involving an issue questioning the validity of the foreclosure.  In this respect, the test of identity fails.  The answer being in the negative, the judgment in Civil Case No. TM-1022 would not be a bar to the prosecution of the present action.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the assailed order is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The case is ordered REMANDED to the court a quo for further proceedings.[27] (Emphases ours.)


PNB moved for the reconsideration[28] of the above decision but the Court of Appeals denied the same in the assailed Resolution dated January 24, 2008.

PNB, thus, instituted the instant petition.

The Ruling of the Court

In its Memorandum before this Court, PNB averred that �[t]he central issue in this case is whether or not the requisites of litis pendentia exist to warrant the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108 [Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale].  Stated otherwise, the primary issue is whether or not there is an identity of parties and causes of action in the two subject cases, such that judgment that may be rendered in one would amount to res judicata to the other.�[29]

PNB asserts that the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and the incidents thereto were primary issues tried in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage).  PNB points out that GPHI even filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Conform to the Evidence[30] dated November 23, 2006 to incorporate the issue of the validity of the foreclosure proceedings.  Also, one of the reliefs prayed for in the amended complaint of GPHI in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) is for the declaration of the nullity of the foreclosure sale.  PNB insists that the validity of the foreclosure sale was squarely put in issue during the trial of Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) wherein GPHI prayed for the nullity of both the real estate mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale issued in favor of PNB.

For its part, GPHI counters that the causes of action in the two cases filed before the court a quo are not the same.  GPHI explains that it filed Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) inasmuch as the real estate mortgage executed in favor of PNB did not reflect the true intention of the parties thereto.  GPHI reiterates that the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-636816 and T-636817 merely served as temporary securities for the loan of GEC from PNB.  On the other hand, GPHI maintains that it filed Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) in view of the failure of the sheriff to comply with the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 that foreclosure proceedings shall be conducted through a public auction.

GPHI further elaborates that should the RTC grant the prayer in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), it would follow that the subsequent foreclosure proceedings involving the mortgaged properties will likewise be rendered null and void.  Even so, GPHI opines that if the trial court declares the validity of the real estate mortgage in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), the same will not automatically render valid the ensuing foreclosure proceedings.

We grant the petition of PNB.

As a ground for a motion to dismiss a complaint or any other pleading asserting a claim, litis pendentia is provided for under Section 1(e), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

Section 1. Grounds. - Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

x x x x

(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

As we held in Dotmatrix Trading v. Legaspi,[31] �[l]itis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means �a pending suit� and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.  As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.�[32]

We further emphasized in Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation[33] that �[t]here is litis pendentia or another action pendente lite if the following requisites are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.�[34]

With respect to the first requirement of litis pendentia, the same is undisputedly present in this case.  GPHI is the plaintiff in both Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 and TM-1108, while PNB is the party against whom GPHI is asserting a claim.  That the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite was named as an additional respondent in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) bears little significance.  The Court has clarified in Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale[35] that �identity of parties does not mean total identity of parties in both cases.  It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.  The inclusion of new parties in the second action does not remove the case from the operation of the rule of litis pendentia.�[36]

The crux of the controversy in the instant case is whether there is an identity of causes of action in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 and TM-1108.

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as �the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.�  Section 3 of Rule 2 provides that �[a] party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.�  Anent the act of splitting a single cause of action, Section 4 of Rule 2 explicitly states that �[i]f two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.�

Apropos, Carlet v. Court of Appeals[37] states that:

As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two actions be different.  If the same facts or evidence would sustain both actions, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.[38]

In the case at bar, a perusal of the allegations in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) reveal that the said cases invoke the same fundamental issue, i.e., the temporary nature of the security that was to be provided by the mortgaged properties of GPHI.

To repeat, in the original complaint in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI�s main argument was that the agreement between GEC and PNB was that the mortgaged properties of GPHI would merely stand as temporary securities pending the outcome of Civil Case No. 98-782, the case filed by GEC against LBP.  The mortgaged properties were never contemplated to stand as bona fide collateral for the loan obligations of GEC to PNB.  Also, GPHI claimed that the execution of the real estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI did not reflect the true intention of GEC and PNB.  As such, GPHI concluded that PNB had no legal right to pursue the remedy of foreclosure of the mortgaged properties in light of the inability of GEC to pay its loan obligations to PNB.

On the other hand, in its petition in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale), GPHI asserted that PNB knew that the mortgaged properties were �never intended to be used as permanent collateral for GEC, but one which was simply used as an unregistered security until [GPHI] incurs in default if sold and the proceeds of which should be used in payment for the obligation of GEC.�[39]  In addition, GPHI argued that the letter of PNB dated August 13, 1997 was clear in that the real estate mortgage was to remain unregistered until an �event of default� occurs and PNB shall possess the titles covering the properties �until the condition of assigning the sales proceeds of the mentioned real properties up to a minimum of US$ equivalent of PhP112,000,000.00 to [PNB] is complied with.�[40]

Therefore, in essence, the cause of action of GPHI in both cases is the alleged act of PNB of reneging on a prior agreement or understanding with GEC and GPHI vis-�-vis the constitution, purpose and consequences of the real estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI.  While the reliefs sought in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) are seemingly different, the ultimate question that the trial court would have to resolve in both cases is whether the real estate mortgage over the properties of GPHI was actually intended to secure the loan obligations of GEC to PNB so much so that PNB can legally foreclose on the mortgaged properties should GEC fail to settle its loan obligations.  In this regard, GPHI made reference to the letter of PNB dated August 13, 1997 and the Amendment to the Credit Agreement between GEC, GPHI and PNB as the primary documents upon which GPHI based its arguments regarding the supposed intention of the parties in both Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale).[41]  Thus, the same documentary evidence would necessarily sustain both cases.

That GPHI put forward additional grounds in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale), i.e., that the auction sale was not conducted at a public place in contravention of the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 and that the foreclosure was prematurely resorted to given that GPHI cannot yet be considered in default, does not alter the fact that there exists an identity of causes of action in the two cases.  In Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[42] the Court held that �[t]he well-entrenched rule is that �a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.��[43]

Be that as it may, while the appeal of the dismissal of Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) was still pending with the Court of Appeals, GPHI filed on November 23, 2006 a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Conform to the Evidence in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage).  GPHI stated therein that after the parties presented their evidence, the fact of foreclosure and the acquisition of the mortgaged properties by PNB were duly established.[44]  In the accompanying Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI prayed, inter alia, for the declaration of the nullity of the foreclosure and auction sale of the mortgaged properties.  As a consequence of such an action, the two cases that GPHI filed before the court a quo henceforth contained an identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same factual allegations.  Thus, any doubt as to the act of GPHI of splitting its cause of action has since been removed.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The Decision dated September 28, 2007 and the Resolution dated January 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75108 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The Order dated December 20, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. TM-1108 is hereby REINSTATED.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 22-41.

[2] Id. at 43-49; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring.

[3] Id. at 51.

[4] Id. at 52-54; penned by Executive Judge Aurelio G. Icasiano, Jr.

[5] CA rollo, pp. 45-55.

[6] Rollo, pp. 60-61.

[7] Id. at 61-62.

[8] Records, pp. 37-38.

[9] Id. at 14-17.

[10] Id. at 37.

[11] CA rollo, p. 50.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 53-54.

[14] Records, pp. 18-21.

[15] Id. at 23.

[16] Id. at 1-13.

[17] Id. at 5-6.

[18] Id. at 40-47.

[19] Id. at 69-70.

[20] Id. at 71-80.

[21] Id. at 88.

[22] Id. at 93-94.

[23] Id. at 97.

[24] Rollo, pp. 55-58.

[25] Id. at 59-72.

[26] On March 14, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. TM-1022 (Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby orders the annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage.  The parties shall restore to each other the things which have been the subject matter of the contract, with their fruits, and the price with its interest, except in cases provided by law.

GEC is hereby ordered to fulfill its loan obligation with PNB and the latter to exhaust the properties of GEC until full satisfaction of the loan.

The foreclosure sale as well as the Certificate of Sale be declared null and void.

The Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 1016921 and 1016920 issued in the name of PNB be cancelled and the Transfer of Certificate of Title Nos. 636817 and 636816 which [were] originally issued in the name of GPHI be reinstated.  (Rollo, p. 150.)

PNB moved for a reconsideration of the above judgment, but the same was denied in an Order dated July 30, 2008.  (Id. at 152-156.)  GPHI thereafter filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.  (Id. at 177)  The records of this case do not indicate whether or not the case has already been decided by the appellate court.

[27] Rollo, pp. 47-48.

[28] CA rollo, pp. 133-138A.

[29] Rollo, pp. 29-30.

[30] Id. at 55-58.

[31] G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009, 604 SCRA 431.

[32] Id. at 436.

[33] G.R. No. 159786, August 15, 2006, 498 SCRA 613.

[34] Id. at 629-630.

[35] G.R. No. 163344, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 67.

[36] Id. at 79.

[37] 341 Phil. 99 (1997).

[38] Id. at 110.

[39] Records, p. 5.

[40] Id. at 6.

[41] CA rollo, p. 48; records, pp. 5-6.

[42] G.R. No. 191388, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 205.

[43] Id. at 217.

[44] Rollo, p. 55.



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






February-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 179579 : February 01, 2012] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF SUBIC, PETITIONERS, VS. HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188722 : February 01, 2012] BANK OF LUBAO, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROMMEL J. MANABAT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186226 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. YUSOP TADAH, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185669 : February 01, 2012] JUAN GALOPE, PETITIONER, VS. CRESENCIA BUGARIN, REPRESENTED BY CELSO RABANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183093 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIOSDADO TUBAT Y VERSOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181974 : February 01, 2012] LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR ROSENDO S. DE BORJA, PETITIONERS, VS. ANDRES G. ARIOLA, JESSIE D. ALCOVENDAS, JIMMY B. CALINAO AND LEOPOLDO G. SEBULLEN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 194320 : February 01, 2012] MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. RODELIO ALBERTO AND ENRICO ALBERTO REYES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151258 : February 01, 2012] ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 154954] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNEL ANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE MONTECILLO, VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL, SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO, JAIME MARIA FLORES II, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE VERDADERO, ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE FERNANDEZ, AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN, PERCIVAL BRIGOLA, PAUL ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS KARL B. PEREZ, RENATO BANTUG, JR., ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, AND RONAN DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 155101] FIDELITO DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NOS. 178057 & 178080] GERARDA H. VILLA, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO CRUZ SARUCA, JR., AND ANSELMO ADRIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172455 : February 01, 2012] ANTONIO CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. TOTAL OFFICE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (TOPROS), INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182769 : February 01, 2012] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. CYNTHIA L. REYES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 174941 : February 01, 2012] ANTONIO P. SALENGA AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184109 : February 01, 2012] CELERINO E. MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. BELEN* ESPINOCILLA** AND FERDINAND ESPINOCILLA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186541 : February 01, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE VILBAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 167952 : February 01, 2012] GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RUBEN ALCAIDE (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY GLORIA ALCAIDE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189496 : February 01, 2012] D.M. FERRER & ASSOCIATES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 186659-710 : February 01, 2012] ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ABAS A. CANDAO AND ISRAEL B. HARON, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2926 : February 01, 2012] JUDGE LUCINA ALPEZ DAYAON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MACABEBE, PAMPANGA, BRANCH 54, COMPLAINANT, VS. JESUSA V. DE LEON, COURT STENOGRAPHER III OF THE SAME COURT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173531 : February 01, 2012] LEONCIO C. OLIVEROS, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS,* MOISES DE LA CRUZ,** AND THE HEIRS OF LUCIO DELA CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY FELIX DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. BERSAMIN, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALOOCAN CITY, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171513 : February 06, 2012] ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO- DE CASTRO, HON. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA AND HON. EFREN N. DE LA CRUZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND NIERNA S. DOLLER, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190963] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189647 : February 06, 2012] NANCY T. LORZANO, PETITIONER, VS. JUAN TABAYAG, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199150 : February 06, 2012] CARMINA G. BROKMANN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172223 : February 06, 2012] CANADIAN OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED, INC., PETITIONER, VS. BART Q. DALANGIN, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193346 : February 06, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND EVELYN ROQUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 194306 : February 06, 2012] SEBASTIAN F. OASAY, JR. PETITIONER, VS. PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION AND/OR OMAR T. CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157838 : February 07, 2012] CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. (IN HIS FORMER CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), PETITIONER, VS. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT), RAUL C. FLORES, CELSO D. GANGAN, SOFRONIO B. URSAL AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : February 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), IMELDA R. MARCOS, JOSE CONRADO BENITEZ AND GILBERT C. DULAY,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 180989 : February 07, 2012] GUALBERTO J. DELA LLANA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185572 : February 07, 2012] CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP. (GROUP), PETITIONER, VS. HON. CESAR D. SANTAMARIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 145, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL, ROMEL R. BAGARES, CHRISTOPHER FRANCISCO C. BOLASTIG, LEAGUE OF URBAN POOR FOR ACTION (LUPA), KILUSAN NG MARALITA SA MEYCAUAYAN (KMM-LUPA CHAPTER), DANILO M. CALDERON, VICENTE C. ALBAN, MERLYN M. VAAL, LOLITA S. QUINONES, RICARDO D. LANOZO, JR., CONCHITA G. GOZO, MA. TERESA D. ZEPEDA, JOSEFINA A. LANOZO, AND SERGIO C. LEGASPI, JR., KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), EDY CLERIGO, RAMMIL DINGAL, NELSON B. TERRADO, CARMEN DEUNIDA, AND EDUARDO LEGSON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173291 : February 08, 2012] ROMEO A. GALANG, PETITIONER, VS. CITYLAND SHAW TOWER, INC. AND VIRGILIO BALDEMOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184015 : February 08, 2012] SPOUSES MARIANO P. MARASIGAN AND JOSEFINA LEAL, PETITIONERS, VS. CHEVRON PHILS., INC., ACCRA INVESTMENTS, CORP., AND ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176085 : February 08, 2012] FEDERICO S. ROBOSA, ROLANDO E. PANDY, NOEL D. ROXAS, ALEXANDER ANGELES, VERONICA GUTIERREZ, FERNANDO EMBAT, AND NANETTE H. PINTO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), CHEMO-TECHNISCHE MANUFACTURING, INC. AND ITS RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS LED BY FRANKLIN R. DE LUZURIAGA, AND PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160278, February 08, 2012] GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK AND LIFE PLAN, INC. AND PAULINA T. REQUI�O, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER FELIPE T. GARDUQUE II AND HILARIA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158413 : February 08, 2012] CELSO M. MANUEL, EVANGELISTA A. MERU, FLORANTE A. MIANO, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), MELCHOR M. MALLARE AND ELIZABETH GOSUDAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 161133] MELCHOR M. MALLARE AND ELIZABETH GOSUDAN, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194653 : February 08, 2012] ANTONIO MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. FIL-HOMES REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761 : February 08, 2012] AIDA R. CAMPOS, ALISTAIR R. CAMPOS, AND CHARMAINE R. CAMPOS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ELISEO M. CAMPOS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186720 : February 08, 2012] ELSA D. MEDADO, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING, AS REPRESENTED BY DR. SOLEDAD CONSING, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 183622 : February 08, 2012] MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN, PETITIONER, VS. LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187733 : February 08, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO �REY� BUYAGAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 192274 : February 08, 2012] NORBERTO LEE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187490 : February 08, 2012] ANTONIA R. DELA PE�A AND ALVIN JOHN B. DELA PE�A, PETITIONERS, VS. GEMMA REMILYN C. AVILA AND FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2291 : February 08, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CELSO L. MANTUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 17, PALOMPON, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3335-RTJ) : February 08, 2012] SPOUSES DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, GINGOOG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183132 : February 08, 2012] RICHARD CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2111 : February 08, 2012] ANNABELLE F. GARCIA, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, OLONGAPO CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. HERMINIO C. REYES AND ZOSIMA S. DE VERA, INTERPRETER AND STENOGRAPHER, RESPECTIVELY, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187736 : February 08, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190375 : February 08, 2012] TAN SHUY, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES GUILLERMO MAULAWIN AND PARING CARI�O-MAULAWIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 171701 : February 08, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PETITIONER, VS. MA. IMELDA "IMEE" R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND "BONGBONG" R. MARCOS, JR., GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA, YEUNG CHUN FAN, YEUNG CHUN HO, YEUNG CHUN KAM, AND PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA)-PTGWO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161796 : February 08, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 161830] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,[1] PETITIONER, NORBERTO RESULTA, EDITHA ABAD, LEDELIA ASIDOY, GIL PAGARAGAN, ROSALITO PAGHUBASAN, EDWIN FAUSTINO, FELOMINO JUSOL, EDELBERTO POBLARES, EFREN APON, NELSON VILLAREAL, JIMMY ZONIO, SERLISTO ZONIO, WILFREDO MARCELINO, ROGELIO RODERO, SERGIO ZONIO, NORBERTO FRANCISCO, AURORA VILLACORTE, JOVITO NINONUEVO, ELIZABETH ZAUSA, RUBEN VILLANUEVA, VICENTA RACCA, ROGELIO RACCA, MERCEDES VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO BIUTE, APOLINARIO TORRAL, BENJAMIN TANJER, JR., MINDA SOLIMAN, CIPRIANO REQUIOLA, GLORIA ROMERO, SILVERIO ZONIO, NESTOR ZONIO, NILO ZAUSA, ROMUALDO ZAUSA, REYNALDO ZAUSA, LUMILYN ZAUSA, GILBERT BAUTISTA, GILDA PACETES, ALUDIA CALUB, LOURDES CAGNO, ABELARDO CAGNO, BENJAMIN MARINAS, CRISPINA ARNAIZ, MARIA CABUS, RESTITUTA PRETENCIO, MA. LUZ ABALOS, ABELARDO DEL ROSARIO, CANDELARIA CEPEDA, HAYDEE MARQUILENCIA, LEONCIA ZATA, LUCIA LOPEZ, MARGARITA MANLANGIT, CRISTINA PACIS, LEONELDA FIDELA, MA. BLESS MASAGNAY, AGUSTIN CADAO, DOLORES FELICIANO, MA. JESSICA FELICIANO, MA. LOURDES FELICIANO, MA. JULITA FELICIANO, FEDERICO ZONIO, NENITA SINGSON, LIBRADA ZASPA, THELMA ELISERIO, SALVADOR VILLORENTE, SATURNINA TESORERO, ROGELIO PARACUELES, ANITA MENDOZA, AMADEO MASAGNAY, ELVIRA CAMPOS, LAURIANO CAMPOS, BENITO VILLAGANAS, VIRGILIO FERRER, SALVADOR RESULTA, NORLITO RESULTA, DIANA SEPTIMO, SALVADOR SEPTIMO, DIOSDADO LAGMAN, CLAUDIA MIRALLES, RICARDO FRANCISCO, RODOLFO FRANCISCO, ALEXANDER YURONG, ALFREDO BUENAVENTURA, ISIDRO DELA CRUZ, REMEDIOS CABUNDOC, ARTEMIO MIRASOL, MINDA COPINO, ANDRES IBARBIA, WILFREDO BALLOS, ELSA BANGCA, ARTURO CANTURIA, PABLITO SAGUIBO, CARLITO VILLONES, JOSEFINA TABANGCURA, NEDA MASAGNAY, PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS, ESTELA MARIE MALOLOS, LORETO DELA CRUZ, JOSE PAJARILLO, IMELDA ZAUSA, FEDERICO ZAUSA REPRESENTED BY ROSALINDA ZAUSA, LUDEVICO ZAUSA, GLORIA VILLANUEVA, ZENAIDA MASAGNAY, ELSIO ESTO, RODOLFO VILLONES, ALVINO NARCI REPRESENTED BY LILIA VILLONES, RUFINO ZONIO, ALBERTO ROSI, ZENAIDA VILLENA, ANTONIO ZAUSA, SALDITO ZONIO, ZACARIAS CORTEZ, LARRY MASAGNAY REPRESENTED BY LEONEL MASAGNAY, ERLINDA MORISON, JUAN CORTEZ, PRIMITIBO NICASIO, CARMELO CESAR, ANDRES ZONIO REPRESENTED BY RUFINO ZONIO, JUANITO ZONIO, JERENCIO ZONIO, ALEX CORTEZ, PEPITO VILLAREAL, PETITIONERS-MOVANTS, VS. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 190456] ERNESTO B. DURAN, LOPE P. ABALOS (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LOPE ABALOS, JR., ARTEMIO T. GONZALES (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY PAUL GONZALES, AUGUSTO LIM, IMELDA MARCELINO, ERNESTO NAVARTE (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY SURVIVING SPOUSE NELIA NAVARTE, FLORANTE M. QUIMZON, MANUEL R. QUIMZON (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY FLORANTE M. QUIMZON, NELIA ZAUSA, PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS, VS. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165935 : February 08, 2012] BRIGHT MARITIME CORPORATION (BMC)/DESIREE P. TENORIO, PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO B. FANTONIAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175558 : February 08, 2012] SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. AND SKIPPERS MARITIME SERVICES, INC., LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. NATHANIEL DOZA, NAPOLEON DE GRACIA, ISIDRO L. LATA, AND CHARLIE APROSTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185665 : February 08, 2012] EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EASTERN TELECOMS EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183444 : February 08, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, VS. RONALDO E. QUIWA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME �R.E.Q. CONSTRUCTION,� EFREN N. RIGOR, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME �CHIARA CONSTRUCTION,� ROMEO R. DIMATULAC, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME �ARDY CONSTRUCTION,� AND FELICITAS C. SUMERA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME �F.C.S. CONSTRUCTION,� REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ROMEO M. DE LEON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197815 : February 08, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JULIETO SANCHEZ @ "OMPONG," APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180157 : February 08, 2012] EQUITABLE CARDNETWORK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JOSEFA BORROMEO CAPISTRANO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 11-10-7-SC : February 14, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF JUSTICE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, COURT OF APPEALS, THAT HER SERVICES AS ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF LAGUNA BE CREDITED AS PART OF HER SERVICES IN THE JUDICIARY FOR PURPOSES OF HER RETIREMENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194710 : February 14, 2012] MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180784 : February 15, 2012] INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, PETITIONER, VS. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175932 : February 15, 2012] WUERTH PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RODANTE YNSON, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 8254 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1310) : February 15, 2012] NESA ISENHARDT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178593 : February 15, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), PETITIONER, VS. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. (PNEI), PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO), EUSEBIO RAMOSO, CIRIACO M. MAGSINO, A. CACHUELA, A. CAMUS, M. CALAHI, R. CANO, B.T. LANTANO, L. BERSAMINA, A. ALFARO AND 495 OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190022 : February 15, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CORPORATION, JAPHET ESTRANAS AND BEN SAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. PURIFICACION VIZCARA, MARIVIC VIZCARA, CRESENCIA A. NATIVIDAD, HECTOR VIZCARA, JOEL VIZCARA AND DOMINADOR ANTONIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2951 (Formerly A.M. No. 10-3544-P) : February 15, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. LEONCIO K. GUTIERREZ III, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 116, PASAY CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152262 : February 15, 2012] FELIMON MANGUIOB, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL, RTC, BRANCH 12, DAVAO CITY AND ALEJANDRA VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174445 : February 15, 2012] SPOUSES WILLIAM GUIDANGEN AND MARY GUIDANGEN, PETITIONERS, VS. DEVOTA B. WOODEN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173882 : February 15, 2012] JULIE�S BAKESHOP AND/OR EDGAR REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. HENRY ARNAIZ EDGAR NAPAL,* AND JONATHAN TOLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185053 : February 15, 2012] EUSTAQUIO CANDARI, JR., RENE ESPULGAR, EDITHA DACIA, GONZALO PALMA, JR., ANDRES DE LEON, ARNOLD BAJAR, PETER BAYBAYAN, EUGENIO TABURNO, MATEO ALOJADO, ANSELMO LIGTAS, FLORITA BULANGIS, ADELAIDA PENIG, ATTY. LEVI SALIGUMBA, EDITHA JIMENA, CYNTHIA BELARMA AND ANTONIA BANTING, PETITIONERS, VS. ROLAND DONASCO, LIDIO VILLA, RENE GAID, PEPITO GUMBAN, OSCAR ANDRADA, ROMEO CASTONES, ROSEMARY CORDOVA, GLORIA MATULLANO, PONCIANO ABALOS, RESTITUTO BATIANCILLA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187926 : February 15, 2012] DR. EMMANUEL JARCIA, JR. AND DR. MARILOU BASTAN, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173128 : February 15, 2012] MARITIMEINDUSTRY AUTHORITY (MARINA) AND/OR ATTY. OSCAR M. SEVILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. MARC PROPERTIES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185212 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARITESS ALOLOD, EFREN DEOCAMPO, ELMER DEOCAMPO AND EDWIN DEOCAMPO, ACCUSED, EFREN DEOCAMPO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187157 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL CLARITE Y SALAZAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187567 : February 15, 2012] THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NORA FE SAGUN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175025 : February 15, 2012] ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM AND GODOFREDO B. DULFO PETITIONERS, VS. ROBERTO S. BARANGAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175980 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,APPELLEE, VS. ADRIANO CABRILLAS, ACCUSED, BENNY CABTALAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179469 : February 15, 2012] C.F. SHARP & CO. INC. AND JOHN J. ROCHA, PETITIONERS, VS. PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, WILFREDO C. AGUSTIN AND HERNANDO G. MINIMO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161771 : February 15, 2012] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO HONG, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE �SUPER LINE PRINTING PRESS� AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186269 : February 15, 2012] SPOUSES ROMAN A. PASCUAL AND MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL, FRANCISCO A. PASCUAL, MARGARITA CORAZON D. MARIANO, EDWIN D. MARIANO AND DANNY R. MARIANO PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ANTONIO BALLESTEROS AND LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184851 : February 15, 2012] VALIENTE C. VILLEGAS PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, CONRADO S. ANCIADO, JR., ROLLY P. DANILA, ANDREI S. ARABIT AND JAIME M. BARON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192558 : February 15, 2012] BITOY JAVIER (DANILO P. JAVIER), PETITIONER, VS. FLY ACE CORPORATION/ FLORDELYN CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157810 : February 15, 2012] ROLANDO SOFIO AND RUFIO SOFIO, PETITIONERS, VS. ALBERTO I. VALENZUELA, GLORIA I. VALENZUELA, REMEDIOS I. VALENZUELA, AND CESAR I. VALENZUELA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181485 : February 15, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 7430 : February 15, 2012] MARTIN LAHM III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LABOR ARBITER JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186961 : February 20, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185463 : February 22, 2012] TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILS., INC., AND/OR TEEKAY SHIPPING CANADA, PETITIONERS, VS. RAMIER C. CONCHA RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190794 : February 22, 2012] JOSAN, JPS, SANTIAGO CARGO MOVERS, AND MARY GRACE S. PARUNGAO,* PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO RAMOS ADUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186983 : February 22, 2012] MA. LOURDES S. FLORENDO, PETITIONER, VS. PHILAM PLANS, INC., PERLA ABCEDE AND MA. CELESTE ABCEDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 180631-33 : February 22, 2012] PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CENTRAL COLLEGES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DYNAMIC PLANNERS AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177320 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172448 : February 22, 2012] THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ABEDIN LIMPAO OSOP, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : February 22, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON, PETITIONER, VS. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2298 : February 22, 2012] ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA AND ATTY. CLARITO SERVILLAS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SURIGAO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 189021 : February 22, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LUCIA M. GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165413 : February 22, 2012] PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE CO., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AND D.M. CONSUNJI INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169055 : February 22, 2012] SPOUSES JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191365 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO NAVARETTE, JR. Y NATO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181368 : February 22, 2012] GEORGE S. TOLENTINO, MONICA S. TOLENTINO, GUSTAVO S. TOLENTINO, JR., MA. MARJORIE S. TOLENTINO, MARILYN S. TOLENTINO, MICHAEL GLEN S. TOLENTINO, MYLENE S. TOLENTINO, MILAGROS M. GUEVARRA, MA. VICTORIA T. RAMIREZ, LORENZA T. ANDES, MICHAEL T. MEDRANO AND JACINTO T. MEDRANO, PETITIONERS, VS. PACIFICO S. LAUREL, HEIRS OF ILUMINADA LAUREL-ASCALON, CONSUELO T. LAUREL, BIENVENIDO LAUREL, HEIRS OF ARCHIMEDES LAUREL, TEODORO LAUREL, FE LAUREL-LIMJUCO AND CLARO LAUREL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173008 : February 22, 2012] NENITA GONZALES, SPOUSES GENEROSA GONZALES AND RODOLFO FERRER, SPOUSES FELIPE GONZALES AND CAROLINA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES LOLITA GONZALES AND GERMOGENES GARLITOS, SPOUSES DOLORES GONZALES AND FRANCISCO COSTIN, SPOUSES CONCHITA GONZALES AND JONATHAN CLAVE, AND SPOUSES BEATRIZ GONZALES AND ROMY CORTES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND CO-PETITIONER NENITA GONZALES, PETITIONERS, VS. MARIANO BUGAAY AND LUCY BUGAAY, SPOUSES ALICIA BUGAAY AND FELIPE BARCELONA, CONEY �CONIE� BUGAAY, JOEY GATAN, LYDIA BUGAAY, SPOUSES LUZVIMINDA BUGAAY AND REY PAGATPATAN AND BELEN BUGAAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187122 : February 22, 2012] NEGROS SLASHERS, INC., RODOLFO C. ALVAREZ AND VICENTE TAN, PETITIONERS, VS. ALVIN L. TENG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173476 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO SALAFRANCA Y BELLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184556 : February 22, 2012] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. QBRO FISHING ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187229 : February 22, 2012] ARNEL SISON Y ESCUADRO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181497 : February 22, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO SARMIENTO SAMANDRE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2999 [formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3517-P] : February 27, 2012] SHEILA G. DEL ROSARIO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARY ANNE C. PASCUA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, SAME COURT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 197540 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. DINNES OLASO AND ROLLY ANGELIO, ACCUSED. ROLLY ANGELIO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186132 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NESTOR TUGUINAY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180168 : February 27, 2012] MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. AVIA FILIPINAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186123 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARITES VALERIO Y TRAJE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182650 : February 27, 2012] TOMAS K. CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. WESTMONT BANK, REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF PARA�AQUE CITY, REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF PASAY CITY, NOTARY PUBLIC MANUEL FONACIER, AND JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182197 : February 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO HONRADO AND ROMULO HONRADO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193065 : February 27, 2012] DEUTSCHE BANK AG, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162196 : February 27, 2012] SAN JOSE TIMBER CORPORATION AND CASILAYAN SOFTWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, TIERRA FACTOR CORPORATION AND OTHER CREDITORS OF SAN JOSE TIMBER CORPORATION AND CASILAYAN SOFTWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192565 : February 28, 2012] UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196271 : February 28, 2012] DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, AND IN REPRESENTATION OF MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION OF AUTONOMOUS IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HADJI MUHMINA J. USMAN, JOHN ANTHONY L. LIM, JAMILON T. ODIN, ASRIN TIMBOL JAIYARI, MUJIB M. KALANG, ALIH AL-SAIDI J. SAPI-E, KESSAR DAMSIE ABDIL, AND BASSAM ALUH SAUPI, PETITIONERS, VS. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THRU SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THRU ITS CHAIRMAN, SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLORENCIO ABAD, JR., SECRETARY OF BUDGET, AND ROBERTO TAN, TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 196305] BASARI D. MAPUPUNO, PETITIONER, VS. SIXTO BRILLANTES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FLORENCIO ABAD, JR. IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE PRESIDENT, AND FELICIANO BELMONTE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197221] REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, PETITIONER, VS. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197280] ALMARIM CENTI TILLAH, DATU CASAN CONDING CANA, AND PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO LAKAS NG BAYAN (PDP-LABAN), PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND HON. ROBERTO B. TAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197282] ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197392] LOUIS �BAROK� C. BIRAOGO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 197454] JACINTO V. PARAS, PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. MINORITY RIGHTS FORUM, PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS-INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 193978 : February 28, 2012] JELBERT B. GALICTO, PETITIONER, VS. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192984 : February 28, 2012] ROLANDO D. LAYUG, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIANO VELARDE (ALIAS �BROTHER MIKE�) AND BUHAY PARTY-LIST, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169903 : February 29, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 158379 : February 29, 2012] SPOUSES PONCIANO & PACITA DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO SUNIA, ETC.,[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 197788 : February 29, 2012] RODEL LUZ Y ONG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,[1] RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189327 : February 29, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188132 : February 29, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSEMARIE MAGUNDAYAO Y ALEJANDRO ALIAS �ROSE,� ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 196830 : February 29, 2012] CESAR V. GARCIA, CARLOS RAZON, ALBERTO DE GUZMAN, TOMAS RAZON, OMER E. PALO, RIZALDE VALENCIA, ALLAN BASA, JESSIE GARCIA, ORAG, ROMMEL PANGAN, RUEL SOLIMAN, AND CENEN CANLAPAN, REPRESENTED BY CESAR V. GARCIA, PETITIONERS, VS. KJ COMMERCIAL AND REYNALDO QUE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170098 : February 29, 2012] DANIEL O. PADUATA, PETITIONER,VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193667 : February 29, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARIAVIC ESPENILLA Y MERCADO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185582 : February 29, 2012] TUNA PROCESSING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304 : February 29, 2012] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. JAN CARLO GALA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189191 : February 29, 2012] MID-ISLANDS POWER GENERATION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, POWER ONE CORPORATION, ISLANDS GRID NETWORK PHILIPPINES, INC., DAVID TAN, AND MANUEL LAURON,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197043 : February 29, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO BALDOMAR Y LISCANO, APPELLANT.