Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > July 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 153511 - Legend Hotel Manila, owned by Titatium Corporation, et al. v. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa:




G.R. No. 153511 - Legend Hotel Manila, owned by Titatium Corporation, et al. v. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 153511 - July 18, 2012]

LEGEND HOTEL (MANILA), owned by TITANIUM CORPORATION, and/or, NELSON NAPUD, in his capacity as the President of Petitioner Corporation, Petitioner, v. HERNANI S. REALUYO, also known as JOEY ROA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

This labor case for illegal dismissal involves a pianist employed to perform in the restaurant of a hotel. On August 9, 1999, respondent, whose stage name was Joey R. Roa, filed a complaint for alleged unfair labor practice, constructive illegal dismissal, and the underpayment/nonpayment of his premium pay for holidays, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13111 month pay. He prayed for attorney's fees, moral damages off P100,000.00 and exemplary damages for P100,000.00.1ςrνll

Respondent averred that he had worked as a pianist at the Legend Hotel s Tanglaw Restaurant from September 1992 with an initial rate of P400.00/night that was given to him after each night s performance; that his rate had increased to P750.00/night; and that during his employment, he could not choose the time of performance, which had been fixed from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm for three to six times/week. He added that the Legend Hotel s restaurant manager had required him to conform with the venue s motif; that he had been subjected to the rules on employees representation checks and chits, a privilege granted to other employees; that on July 9, 1999, the management had notified him that as a cost-cutting measure his services as a pianist would no longer be required effective July 30, 1999; that he disputed the excuse, insisting that Legend Hotel had been lucratively operating as of the filing of his complaint; and that the loss of his employment made him bring his complaint.2ςrνll

In its defense, petitioner denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship with respondent, insisting that he had been only a talent engaged to provide live music at Legend Hotel s Madison Coffee Shop for three hours/day on two days each week; and stated that the economic crisis that had hit the country constrained management to dispense with his services.

On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit upon finding that the parties had no employer-employee relationship.3 The LA explained thusly:ςrαlαω

x x x

On the pivotal issue of whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between the parties, our finding is in the negative. The finding finds support in the service contract dated September 1, 1992 xxx. crvll

x x x

Even if we grant the initial non-existence of the service contract, as complainant suggests in his reply (third paragraph, page 4), the picture would not change because of the admission by complainant in his letter dated October 8, 1996 (Annex "C") that what he was receiving was talent fee and not salary.

This is reinforced by the undisputed fact that complainant received his talent fee nightly, unlike the regular employees of the hotel who are paid by monthly xxx. crvll

x x x

And thus, absent the power to control with respect to the means and methods by which his work was to be accomplished, there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties xxx.

x x x

WHEREFORE, this case must be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.4ςrνll

Respondent appealed, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA on May 31, 2001.5ςrνll

Respondent assailed the decision of the NLRC in the Court of Appeals (CA) on certiorari .

On February 11, 2002, the CA set aside the decision of the NLRC,6 holding:

x x x

Applying the above-enumerated elements of the employee-employer relationship in this case, the question to be asked is, are those elements present in this case?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The answer to this question is in the affirmative.

x x x

Well settled is the rule that of the four (4) elements of employer-employee relationship, it is the power of control that is more decisive.

In this regard, public respondent failed to take into consideration that in petitioner s line of work, he was supervised and controlled by respondent s restaurant manager who at certain times would require him to perform only tagalog songs or music, or wear barong tagalog to conform with Filipiniana motif of the place and the time of his performance is fixed by the respondents from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, three to six times a week. Petitioner could not choose the time of his performance. xxx. crvll

As to the status of petitioner, he is considered a regular employee of private respondents since the job of the petitioner was in furtherance of the restaurant business of respondent hotel. Granting that petitioner was initially a contractual employee, by the sheer length of service he had rendered for private respondents, he had been converted into a regular employee xxx. crvll

x x x

xxx In other words, the dismissal was due to retrenchment in order to avoid or minimize business losses, which is recognized by law under Article 283 of the Labor Code, xxx. crvll

x x x

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this petition is GRANTED. xxx.7ςrνll

Issues

In this appeal, petitioner contends that the CA erred:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

I. XXX WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER HOTEL AND RESPONDENT ROA.

II. XXX IN FINDING THAT ROA IS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND THAT THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES WAS ILLEGAL. THE CA LIKEWISE ERRED WHEN IT DECLARED THE REINSTATEMENT OF ROA TO HIS FORMER POSITION OR BE GIVEN A SEPARATION PAY EQUIVALENT TO ONE MONTH FOR EVERY YEAR OF SERVICE FROM SEPTEMBER 1999 UNTIL JULY 30, 1999 CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

III. XXX WHEN IT DECLARED THAT ROA IS ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE AND OTHER BENEFITS CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NO EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

IV. XXX WHEN IT NULLIFIED THE DECISION DATED MAY 31, 2001 IN NLRC NCR CA NO. 023404-2000 OF THE NLRC AS WELL AS ITS RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 29, 2001 IN FAVOR OF HEREIN PETITIONER HOTEL WHEN HEREIN RESPONDENT ROA FAILED TO SHOW PROOF THAT THE NLRC AND THE LABOR ARBITER HAVE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DECISIONS.

V. XXX WHEN IT OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE PETITION WHICH ROA FILED IS IMPROPER SINCE IT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT.

VI. XXX WHEN IT GAVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FILED BY ROA WHEN IT IS CLEARLY IMPROPER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT CONSIDERING THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 IS LIMITED ONLY TO QUESTIONS OR ISSUES OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR LACK OF JURISDICTION COMMITTED BY THE NLRC OR THE LABOR ARBITER, WHICH ISSUES ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.

chanrobles virtual law library

The assigned errors are divided into the procedural issue of whether or not the petition for certiorari filed in the CA was the proper recourse; and into two substantive issues, namely: (a) whether or not respondent was an employee of petitioner; and (b) if respondent was petitioner s employee, whether he was validly terminated.

Ruling

The appeal fails.

Procedural Issue:

Certiorari was a proper recourse

Petitioner contends that respondent s petition for certiorari was improper as a remedy against the NLRC due to its raising mainly questions of fact and because it did not demonstrate that the NLRC was guilty of grave abuse of discretion.

The contention is unwarranted. There is no longer any doubt that a petition for certiorari brought to assail the decision of the NLRC may raise factual issues, and the CA may then review the decision of the NLRC and pass upon such factual issues in the process.8 The power of the CA to review factual issues in the exercise of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is based on Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which pertinently provides that the CA "shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings."

Substantive Issue No. 1:

Employer-employee relationship existed between the parties

We next ascertain if the CA correctly found that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent is essentially a question of fact.9 The factors that determine the issue include who has the power to select the employee, who pays the employee s wages, who has the power to dismiss the employee, and who exercises control of the methods and results by which the work of the employee is accomplished.10 Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted,11 a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.12ςrνll

Generally, the Court does not review factual questions, primarily because the Court is not a trier of facts. However, where, like here, there is a conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the one hand, and those of the CA, on the other hand, it becomes proper for the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.13ςrνll

A review of the circumstances reveals that respondent was, indeed, petitioner s employee. He was undeniably employed as a pianist in petitioner s Madison Coffee Shop/Tanglaw Restaurant from September 1992 until his services were terminated on July 9, 1999.

First of all, petitioner actually wielded the power of selection at the time it entered into the service contract dated September 1, 1992 with respondent. This is true, notwithstanding petitioner s insistence that respondent had only offered his services to provide live music at petitioner s Tanglaw Restaurant, and despite petitioner s position that what had really transpired was a negotiation of his rate and time of availability. The power of selection was firmly evidenced by, among others, the express written recommendation dated January 12, 1998 by Christine Velazco, petitioner s restaurant manager, for the increase of his remuneration.14ςrνll

Petitioner could not seek refuge behind the service contract entered into with respondent. It is the law that defines and governs an employment relationship, whose terms are not restricted to those fixed in the written contract, for other factors, like the nature of the work the employee has been called upon to perform, are also considered. The law affords protection to an employee, and does not countenance any attempt to subvert its spirit and intent. Any stipulation in writing can be ignored when the employer utilizes the stipulation to deprive the employee of his security of tenure. The inequality that characterizes employer-employee relations generally tips the scales in favor of the employer, such that the employee is often scarcely provided real and better options.15ςrνll

Secondly, petitioner argues that whatever remuneration was given to respondent were only his talent fees that were not included in the definition of wage under the Labor Code; and that such talent fees were but the consideration for the service contract entered into between them.

The argument is baseless.

Respondent was paid P400.00 per three hours of performance from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, three to six nights a week. Such rate of remuneration was later increased to P750.00 upon restaurant manager Velazco s recommendation. There is no denying that the remuneration denominated as talent fees was fixed on the basis of his talent and skill and the quality of the music he played during the hours of performance each night, taking into account the prevailing rate for similar talents in the entertainment industry.16ςrνll

Respondent s remuneration, albeit denominated as talent fees, was still considered as included in the term wage in the sense and context of the Labor Code, regardless of how petitioner chose to designate the remuneration. Anent this, Article 97(f) of the Labor Code clearly states:ςrαlαω

xxx wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.

Clearly, respondent received compensation for the services he rendered as a pianist in petitioner s hotel. Petitioner cannot use the service contract to rid itself of the consequences of its employment of respondent. There is no denying that whatever amounts he received for his performance, howsoever designated by petitioner, were his wages.

It is notable that under the Rules Implementing the Labor Code and as held in Tan v. Lagrama,17 every employer is required to pay his employees by means of a payroll, which should show in each case, among others, the employee s rate of pay, deductions made from such pay, and the amounts actually paid to the employee. Yet, petitioner did not present the payroll of its employees to bolster its insistence of respondent not being its employee.

That respondent worked for less than eight hours/day was of no consequence and did not detract from the CA s finding on the existence of the employer-employee relationship. In providing that the " normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day," Article 83 of the Labor Code only set a maximum of number of hours as "normal hours of work" but did not prohibit work of less than eight hours.

Thirdly, the power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.18 This is the so-called control test, and is premised on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end.19ςrνll

Petitioner submits that it did not exercise the power of control over respondent and cites the following to buttress its submission, namely: (a) respondent could beg off from his nightly performances in the restaurant for other engagements; (b) he had the sole prerogative to play and perform any musical arrangements that he wished; (c) although petitioner, through its manager, required him to play at certain times a particular music or song, the music, songs, or arrangements, including the beat or tempo, were under his discretion, control and direction; (d) the requirement for him to wear barong Tagalog to conform with the Filipiniana motif of the venue whenever he performed was by no means evidence of control; (e) petitioner could not require him to do any other work in the restaurant or to play the piano in any other places, areas, or establishments, whether or not owned or operated by petitioner, during the three hour period from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, three to six times a week; and (f) respondent could not be required to sing, dance or play another musical instrument.

A review of the records shows, however, that respondent performed his work as a pianist under petitioner s supervision and control. Specifically, petitioner s control of both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end was demonstrated by the following, to wit:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

A. He could not choose the time of his performance, which petitioners had fixed from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, three to six times a week;

b. He could not choose the place of his performance;

c. The restaurant s manager required him at certain times to perform only Tagalog songs or music, or to wear barong Tagalog to conform to the Filipiniana motif; andcralawlibrary

d. He was subjected to the rules on employees representation check and chits, a privilege granted to other employees.

chanrobles virtual law library

Relevantly, it is worth remembering that the employer need not actually supervise the performance of duties by the employee, for it sufficed that the employer has the right to wield that power.

Lastly, petitioner claims that it had no power to dismiss respondent due to his not being even subject to its Code of Discipline, and that the power to terminate the working relationship was mutually vested in the parties, in that either party might terminate at will, with or without cause.

The claim is contrary to the records. Indeed, the memorandum informing respondent of the discontinuance of his service because of the present business or financial condition of petitioner20 showed that the latter had the power to dismiss him from employment.21ςrνll

Substantive Issue No. 2:

Validity of the Termination

Having established that respondent was an employee whom petitioner terminated to prevent losses, the conclusion that his termination was by reason of retrenchment due to an authorized cause under the Labor Code is inevitable.

Retrenchment is one of the authorized causes for the dismissal of employees recognized by the Labor Code. It is a management prerogative resorted to by employers to avoid or to minimize business losses. On this matter, Article 283 of the Labor Code states:ςrαlαω

Article 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. xxx. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

The Court has laid down the following standards that an employer should meet to justify retrenchment and to foil abuse, namely:ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ

(a) The expected losses should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent;

(b) The substantial losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent;

(c) The retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses; andcralawlibrary

(d) The alleged losses, if already incurred, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.22ςrνll

chanrobles virtual law library

Anent the last standard of sufficient and convincing evidence, it ought to be pointed out that a less exacting standard of proof would render too easy the abuse of retrenchment as a ground for termination of services of employees.23ςrνll

Was the retrenchment of respondent valid?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In termination cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause rests upon the employer. Here, petitioner did not submit evidence of the losses to its business operations and the economic havoc it would thereby imminently sustain. It only claimed that respondent s termination was due to its "present business/financial condition." This bare statement fell short of the norm to show a valid retrenchment. Hence, we hold that there was no valid cause for the retrenchment of respondent.

Indeed, not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by an employer can justify retrenchment. The employer must prove, among others, that the losses are substantial and that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary to avert such losses. Thus, by its failure to present sufficient and convincing evidence to prove that retrenchment was necessary, respondent s termination due to retrenchment is not allowed.

The Court realizes that the lapse of time since the retrenchment might have rendered respondent's reinstatement to his former job no longer feasible. If that should be true, then petitioner should instead pay to him separation pay at the rate of one. month pay for every year of service computed from September 1992 (when he commenced to work for the petitioners) until the finality of this decision, and full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until the finality of this decision.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari, and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on February 11, 2002, subject to the modification that should reinstatement be no longer feasible, petitioner shall pay to respondent separation pay of one month for every year of service computed from September 1992 until the finality of this decision, and full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until the finality of this decision.

Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.


Endnotes:


* Vice Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, who is on wellness leave, per Special Order No. 1252 issued on July 12, 2012.

1 Rollo. p. 45.

2 Id. at 53-54.

3 Id. at 53-58.

4 Id. at 55-58.

5 Id. at 60-64.

6 Id. at 67-77; penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired), with Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (retired) concurring.

7 Id. at 71-76.

8 Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152459, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 691, 697; St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494, 502.

9 Lopez v. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 56, 64; Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, G.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 53, 58.

10 Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 8, p. 700.

11 Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 473, 478.

12 Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People s Broasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 724, 753.

13 Lopez v. Bodega City, supra, p. 64; Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena, supra, pp. 58-59; Tiu v. Pasaol, Sr., G.R. No. 139876, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 312, 319.

14 Rollo, p. 47.

15 Paguio v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147816, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 190, 198.

16 Rollo, p. 14.

17 G.R. No. 151228, August 15, 2002, 387 SCRA 393.

18 Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120466, May 17, 1999, 307 SCRA 131, 139.

19 Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 8, p. 700.

20 Rollo, p. 46.

21 Television and Production Exponents, Inc. v. Servaña, G.R. No. 167648, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 578, 587.

22 Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 151818, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 106, 115; Anino v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123226, May 21, 1998, 290 SCRA 489, 502.

23 Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, supra, pp. 115-116.

chanrobles virtual law library



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






July-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY (PRA), Petitioner, v. CITY OF PARA�AQUE Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M. KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H. JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN. JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN, P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT. BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D. VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A. VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.c

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES-PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G. VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P. KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO, RESPONDENTS.cr

  • [G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D. NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR, EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN, PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA, RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V. SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON; REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON; ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D. SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS, VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B. TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING, HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING, VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO- JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS. SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS. ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA. MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ; HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO, WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS. RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR); HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA, ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO, WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS. VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M. KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H. JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN. JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN, P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT. BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D. VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A. VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS.c

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES-PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G. VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P. KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO, RESPONDENTS.cr

  • [G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D. NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR, EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN, PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA, RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V. SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON; REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON; ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D. SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS, VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B. TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING, HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING, VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO- JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.cra

  • [G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS. SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS. ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA. MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ; HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO, WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS. RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR); HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA, ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO, WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

  • [G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS. VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 6910 - Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo and Jun Basilio v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro

  • A.C. No. 6622 - Manuel G. Villatuya v. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos

  • A.C. No. 7360 - Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. v. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa

  • A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC - Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court

  • A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-2255-MTJ - Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, MCTC, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte

  • A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-2191-MTJ - Murphy Chu, et al. v. Hon. Mario B. Capellan, Assisting Judge, MeTC, Br. 40, Quezon City

  • A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2179-MTJ - City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado v. Judge Abraham A. Bayona, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City

  • A.M. No. P-06-2186 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P and A.M. No. P-12-3026 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2081-P - Filomena B. Consolacion v. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC, Binalonan, Pangasinan/Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas v. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC, Binalonan, Pangasinan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2241 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P - Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Nicomedes Dela Cruz, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan

  • A.M. No. P-06-2246 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2287-P - Lambayong Teachers and Employees Cooperative, represented in this act by its Manager, Gudelio S. Valeroso v. Carlos P. Diaz, in his capacity as Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong City

  • A.M. No. P-09-2647 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Lunalinda M. Peradilla, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, E1 Nido-Linapacan, Palawan

  • A.M. No. P-11-2952 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3502-P - Anecita Panaligan v. Clerk of Court II Ethelda B. Valente, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Patno gon, Antique

  • A.M. No. P-11-2965 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3029-P and A.M. No. P-10-2752 Formerly A.M. No. 09-1 0-173-MTC - Commission on Audit, represented by Atty. Francisco R. Velasco v. Arlene B. Asetre, Clerk of Court, MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur/Re: Financial Audit conducted in the MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur

  • A.M. No. P-11-2983 Formerly OCA l.P.I. No. 10-3439-P - Ruby C. Campomanes v. Nancy S. Violon, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, Oroquieta City

  • A.M. No. P-11-3024 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Ma. Irissa G. Musni, Court Legal Researcher II RTC, Judicial Region III, Branch 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

  • A.M. No. P-12-3062 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3651-P - Normandy R. Bautista v. Marking G. Cruz, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 53, Rosales, Pangasinan

  • A.M. No. P-12-3067 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3400-P - Rhea Airene P. Katague, et al. v. Jerry A. Ledesma, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 - Criselda C. Gacad v. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr., RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3378-RTJ - Atty. Felino U. Bangalan v. Judge Benjamin D. Turgano, RTC, Br. 15, Laoag City

  • B.M. No. 2112 - In Re: Petition to re-acquire the privelege to practive law in the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. NO. 132361 - Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao in his capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al./Eduardo Adriano, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al..

  • G.R. No. 153511 - Legend Hotel Manila, owned by Titatium Corporation, et al. v. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa

  • G.R. No. 154952 - Hilarion F. Dimagiba, Irma Mendoza, and Ellen Rasco v. Julita Espartero, Ma. Berndardita L. Carreon and Melina San Pedro

  • G.R. No. 155680 - First Leverage and Services Group, Inc. v. Solid Builders, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 159746 - Spouses Ramon Mendiola and Araceli v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161090 and G.R. NO. 161092 - Sps. Romeo LL. Plopenio and Rosielinda Plopenio, etc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al./Eduardo LL. Plopenio, etc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167732 - Team Pacific Corporation v. Josephine Daza, etc.

  • G.R. No. 168771 - Roberto Dipad and Sandra Dipad v. Sps. Rolando Olivan and Brigida Olivan, and Rubio Guijon Madrigallo

  • G.R. No. 169272 - National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Philippines, etc. v. Alfredo S. Pascual, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director, DENR, Regional Office No. 02

  • G.R. No. 169957 and G.R. No. 171558 - National Power Corporation v. Sps. Florimon V. Lleto, et al./Danilo Brillo, et al. v. National Power Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170038 - China Banking Corporation v. Sps. Harry Ciriaco and Esther Ciriaco

  • G.R. No. 170071 and G.R. No. 170125 - Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al. v. G & S Transport Corporation/G & S Transport Corporation v. Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171050 - Far East Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., Gregoria Pilares Santos and Rhoel P. Santos

  • G.R. No. 171337 - Benjamin Cua (Cua Hian Tek) v. Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. and Advance Shipping Corporation

  • G.R. No. 171359, G.R. NO. 171755 and G.R. NO. 171776 - Benjamin A. Umipag v. People of the Philippines/Renato B. Palomo and Margie C. Mabitad v. People of the Philippines/Carmencita Fontanilla-Payabyab v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 171514 - Republic of the Philippines v. Domingo Espinosa

  • G.R. No. 172035 - Fernando Q. Miguel v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan

  • G.R. No. 172418 - Nemesio V. Saycon (deceased), substituted by his heirs, Joven V. Saycon and Spouse Eillen G. Saycon, et al. v. Anacieta Barot Vda. De Tulabing, Dionisio B. Tulabing, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172438 - Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 172829 - Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez and Lauro H. Rodriguez v. Bernardo Vergara, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 173171 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174893 - Flordeliza Maria Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175123 - Moldex Realty, Inc. and Anselmo Agero v. Sps. Ricardo J. Villabona and Gilda G. Villabona, and Eduardo J. Villabona

  • G.R. No. 175552 - Spouses Rolando D. Soller and Nenita T. Soller v. Heirs of Jeremias Ulayao, namely, Nelson Ulayao, Ferelyn Ulayao-Del Mundo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175851 - Emilia Lim v. Mindanao Wines & Liqour Galleria a Single Proprietorship Business Outfit Owned by Evelyn S. Valdevieso

  • G.R. No. 176556 - Brigido B. Quia v. Rita C. Quiao, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176570 - Spouses Ramon Villuga and Mercedita Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply Inc., represented by Ernesto V. Yu, Executive Vice-President and General Manager

  • G.R. No. 178477 - Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares, represented by Emelinda Gayares, et al. v. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. and Kuwait Oil Tanker S.A.K.

  • G.R. No. 179265 - People of the Philippines v. Cristina Gustafsson

  • G.R. No. 180027 - Republic of the Philippines v. Michael C. Santos, et al., etc.

  • G.R. No. 179545 - Engr. Emelyne P. Cayetano, et al. v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran-Calamba

  • G.R. No. 180036 - Situs Development Corporation, et al. v. Asiatrust Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 180245 - Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. v. Tekanaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation

  • G.R. No. 181250 - People of the Philippines v. Emmalyn Dela Cerna y Quindao @ "Inday", et al., accused; Regie Medenceles y Istil

  • G.R. No. 181491 - People of the Philippines v. Henry Arcillas

  • G.R. No. 181995 - Bibiano C. Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 182059 - People of the Philippines v. Camilo D. Nicart and Manuel T. Capanpan

  • G.R. No. 182069 - Arnold D. Vicencio v. Hon. Reynaldo A. Villar, et al.

  • G.R. No. 183260 - Philippine Sports Commission, Cesar Pradas, Noel Elnar, Emereciana Samson, Cesar Abalon, Julia Llanto, Edgardo Mateo and Eric Buhain v. Dear John Services, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 183573 - Dizon Copper Silver Mines, Inc. v. Dr. Luis D. Dizon

  • G.R. No. 183987 - Asiatrust Development Bank v. Carmelo H. Tuble

  • G.R. No. 184300 - Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine First Insurance, Co., Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 184482 - Bethel Realty and Development Corporation v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185460 - Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 185491 - Julieta E. Bernardo v. Andrew L. Tan

  • G.R. No. 185527 - Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo Jerry Ngo and Jane Go v. The People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, Ltd., et al.

  • G.R. No. 185806 - Generoso Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit and National Housing Authority

  • G.R. No. 187298 - Jamar M. Kulayan, et al. v. Gov. Abdusakur M. Tan etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 187316 - Wonder Book Corporation v. Philippine Bank of Communications

  • G.R. No. 188612 - People of the Philippines v. Diosdado Camat and Mamerto Dulay

  • G.R. No. 189041 - Civil Service Commission v. Dr. Agnes Quida P. Yu

  • G.R. No. 189082 - Josephine Ruiz v. Wendel Osaka Realty Corp., et al.

  • G.R. No. 189755 - Emeteria Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 189767 - Philippine Econimic Zone Authority (PEZA) v. Commission on Audit and Reynaldo A. Villar, Chairman, Commission on Audit

  • G.R. No. 190102 - Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 191109 - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) v. City of Para aque

  • G.R. No. 192250 - People of the Philippines v. Hermogenes De Guzman @ Mong

  • G.R. No. 192377 - Cesar V. Madriaga, Jr. v. China Banking Corporation

  • G.R. No. 192450 - Santiago V. Soquillo v. Jorge P. Tortola

  • G.R. No. 192591 - Efren L. Alvarez v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation

  • G.R. No. 192999 - Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Eliseo Emanel, Voltaire Lopez, Ruel Romero, Patricio Capricio, Ernesto Fatallo, Zosimo Gomez and 100 John Doeste1

  • G.R. No. 193089 - Rose a Fontelar Ogawa v. Elizabeth Gache Menigishi

  • G.R. No. 193636 - Marynette R. Gamboa v. P/Ssupt. Marlou C. Chan, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 193679 - C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Joel D. Taok

  • G.R. No. 194581 - People of the Philippines v. Danilo Mirasol Agustin, et al., accused; Danilo Mirasol Agustin, accused-appellant

  • G.R. No. 194608 - People of the Philippines v. Antonio Baraoil

  • G.R. No. 194785 - Virgilio S. David v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 194945 - People of the Philippines v. Alex Watamama y Esil @ Alex

  • G.R. No. 195770 - Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Sergio Tadeo and Nelson Alcantara v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa and Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman of the Department of Social Welfare and Development

  • G.R. No. 196425 - Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs-Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198554 - Major General Carlos F. Garcia, AFP (Ret.) v. The Executive Secretary, representing the Office of the President; The Secretary of National Defense Voltaire T. Gazmin; The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Gen. Eduardo SL. Oban, Jr., and Lt. Gen. Gaudencio S. Pangilinan, AFP (Ret.) Director, Bureau of Corrections

  • G.R. No. 198585 - Republic of the Philippines v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation

  • G.R. No. 198588 - United Merchants Corporation v. Country Bankers Insurance Corporation

  • G.R. No. 198589 - People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Fourt Division and Julieta G. Ando

  • G.R. No. 198860 - Abraham Rimando v. Naguilan Emission Testing Center, Inc., etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 200242 - Chief Justice Renato C. Corona v. Senate of the Philippines sitting as an Impeachment Court, BPI, Phil. Savings Bank, et al.

  • G.R. No. 200922 - People of the Philippines v. Cesar Concepcion y Bulanio