Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > September 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 174982 : Jose Vicente Atilano II, Heirs of Carlos V. Tan, represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, Nelida F. Atilano and Isidra K. Tan v. Hon. Judge Tibing A. Asaali, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and Atlantic Merchandising, Inc.:




G.R. No. 174982 : Jose Vicente Atilano II, Heirs of Carlos V. Tan, represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, Nelida F. Atilano and Isidra K. Tan v. Hon. Judge Tibing A. Asaali, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and Atlantic Merchandising, Inc.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 174982 : September 10, 2012

JOSE VICENTE ATILANO II, HEIRS OF CARLOS V. TAN represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl K. Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, NELIDA F. ATILANO and ISIDRA K. TAN, Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE TIBING A. ASAALI, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and ATLANTIC MERCHANDISING, INC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the May 27, 2005 Resolution 1ςrνll and September 6, 2006 Resolution2ςrνll of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00231 which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Jose Vicente Atilano II, Heirs of Carlos V. Tan represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl K. Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, Nelida F. Atilano and Isidra K. Tan for failure to comply with the rules of procedure.

The Factual Antecedents

Sometime in January 1990, private respondent Atlantic Merchandising, Inc. filed an action for revival of judgment against Zamboanga Alta Consolidated, Inc. (ZACI) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 17, docketed as Civil Case No. 3776. In its January 31, 1991 Decision, the RTC revived the judgment in Civil Case No. 3049 and ordered ZACI to pay private respondent the amount of P 673,536.54 representing its principal obligation, interest, attorney's fees and costs, plus 12% legal interest per annum computed from the time of the filing of the complaint until the same is fully paid. ZACI was likewise directed to pay private respondent attorney's fees equivalent to 15% of the unpaid amount as well as expenses of litigation and costs.

A writ of execution was issued to enforce the RTC's January 31, 1991 Decision but because it was returned unsatisfied, private respondent sought the examination of ZACI's debtors, which included petitioners as its stockholders. In the course of the proceedings, petitioners denied liability for any unpaid subscriptions with ZACI and offered various documentary evidence to support their claim.

The RTC Ruling

In the proceedings before the RTC, petitioners offered official records from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which revealed the following information3ςrνll as of February 20, 1988 with respect to ZACI's incorporators, their respective subscriptions:

Name Amount Subscribed Amount Paid-in
Jose Vicente F. Atilano II P 300,000.00 P 75,000.00
Carlos F. Tan 150,000.00 37,500.00
Arthur M. Lopez 150,000.00 37,500.00
Nelida F. Atilano 150,000.00 37,500.00
Isidra K. Tan 150,000.00 37,500.00
Mauro Tan 100,000.00 25,000.00

However, the RTC noted4ςrνll that ZACI had folded up and ceased business operations as early as 1983, and when inquiries regarding its paid-in capital were made in 1992, or almost ten (10) years later, no changes were reflected in the company books.

Finding petitioners to be indebted to ZACI as its incorporators in the aggregate amount of P 750,000.00 by way of unpaid stock subscriptions on the basis of the records of the SEC, the RTC, in its September 29, 2004 Decision,5ςrνll ordered petitioners to settle their obligations to the capital stock of ZACI.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the RTC's December 9, 2004 Order.6ςrνll

The CA Ruling

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate court, imputing grave abuse of discretion upon the RTC for failing to consider Section 43, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which substantially provides for the proceedings that should be conducted when a third person allegedly indebted to a judgment debtor denies the debt. However, the CA dismissed7ςrνll their petition outright on the following grounds: (1) failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed RTC Decision and Order; (2) only three out of four petitioners signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping; (3) the IBP Official Receipt Number of the counsel for petitioners was outdated, violating Bar Matter No. 287; and (4) deficiency in the docket and other fees in the sum of P 1,530.00.

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the dismissal of their petition and substantially complied with the procedural defects enumerated. However, in its September 6, 2006 Resolution,8ςrνll the CA, while acknowledging petitioners' compliance with the technical defects of their petition, nonetheless, denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, finding that the payment of the deficiency in the docket fee was made beyond the reglementary period.

Issues Before The Court

In this petition for review, petitioners maintain that the CA's outright dismissal of their petition on procedural grounds, despite substantial compliance, and the RTC Decision directing them to pay private respondent the amount of their alleged unpaid stock subscriptions to ZACI, are tantamount to a denial of due process of law.

The Court's Ruling

The petition has merit.

Payment of the full amount of docket fees is an indispensable step to the perfection of an appeal, and the Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon such payment.9ςrνll Corollary to this, the Court has consistently held that procedural rules are not to be disregarded simply because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a partys substantive rights.10ςrνll

However, these same rules may be relaxed, for persuasive and weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with procedure.11ςrνll Thus, in La Salette College v. Pilotin,12ςrνll the Court explained:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.

After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court finds that compelling and substantial reasons exist in this case as to justify the relaxation of procedural rules.

Records show that petitioners merely became involved in this case when, upon failure to execute the revived final judgment in its favor in Civil Case No. 3776, respondent sought to examine the debtors of ZACI, the judgment obligor, which included petitioners on the allegation that they had unpaid stock subscriptions to ZACI, as its incorporators and stockholders. During the proceedings, petitioners vehemently denied any such liability or indebtedness.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the RTC should have directed respondent to institute a separate action against petitioners for the purpose of recovering their alleged indebtedness to ZACI, in accordance with Section 43, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Section 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the property. If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged to have property of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him or denies the debt, the court may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt within one hundred twenty (120) days from notice of the order, and may punish disobedience of such order as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at any time by the court which issued it, or the court in which the action is brought, upon such terms as may be just. (Emphasis supplied)

It is well-settled that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court.13ςrνll Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party thereto, did not have his day in court.14ςrνll Due process dictates that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against innocent third parties.15ςrνll

In National Power Corporation v. Gonong,16ςrνll the Court explained:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Execution may issue against such person or entity only upon an incontrovertible showing that the person or entity in fact holds property belonging to the judgment debtor or is indeed a debtor of said judgment debtor, i.e., that such holding of property, or the indebtedness, is not denied. In the event of such a denial, it is not, to repeat, within the judge's power to order delivery of property allegedly belonging to the judgment debtor or the payment of the alleged debt. A contrary rule would allow a court to adjudge substantive liability in a summary proceeding, incidental merely to the process of executing a judgment, rather than in a trial on the merits, to be held only after the party sought to be made liable has been properly summoned and accorded full opportunity to file the pleadings permitted by the Rules in ventilation of his side. This would amount to a denial of due process of law. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

Petitioners were total strangers to the civil case between ZACI and respondent, and to order them to settle an obligation which they persistently denied would be tantamount to deprivation of their property without due process of law. The only power of the RTC, in this case, is to make an order authorizing respondent to sue in the proper court to recover an indebtedness in favor of ZACI. It has no jurisdiction to summarily try the question of whether petitioners were truly indebted to ZACI when such indebtedness is denied.17ςrνll On this note, it bears stressing that stock subscriptions are considered a debt of the stockholder to the corporation.18ςrνll

Under this factual backdrop, the CA, therefore, should have exercised its sound judicial discretion when it dismissed petitioners' certiorari action.

It should have carefully weighed, with circumspection and prudence, the issues and grievances that petitioners have raised vis-a-vis the procedural defect of their petition. Records show that petitioners had fully paid the deficiency in the docket fee in the sum of PI ,530.0019ςrνll notwithstanding the fact that it was made beyond the reglementary period under the rules. What is significant, however, is that petitioners have fully complied with all the deficiencies enumerated by theCA in its assailed May 27, 2005 Resolution.

Considered in this light, the Court, therefore, deems it in the interest of substantial justice and petitioners' constitustionally-guaranteed right to due process to relax the rules of procedure in order to prevent an apparent travesty of justice in this case.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the assailed May 27, 2005 and September 6, 2006 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The September 29, 2004 Decision and December 9, 2004 Order of the RTC are likewise NULLIFIED, without prejudice to the institution of a separate action against petitioners in accordance with Section 43, Rule 39 ofthe Rules of Court.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


1ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Nonnandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., concurring, rolla, pp. 35-36.

2ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez, concurring, id. at 37-40.

3ςrνll Id. at 94.

4ςrνll Id. at 95.

5ςrνll Id. at 93-96.

6ςrνll Id. at 108-109.

7ςrνll Supra note 1.

8ςrνll Supra note 2.

9ςrνllPanay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 154061, January 25, 2012.

10ςrνll Id.

11ςrνllFar Corporation v. Magdaluyo, G.R. No. 148739, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 218, 230.

12ςrνll G.R. No. 149227, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 381, 387.

13ςrνllFermin v. Hon. Antonio Esteves, G.R. No. 147977, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 424, 428.

14ςrνllPanotes v. City Townhouse Development Corporation, G.R. No. 154739, January 23, 2007, 512 SCRA 269.

15ςrνllMariculum Mining Corporation v. Brion, G.R. Nos. 157696-97, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 87.

16ςrνll G.R. No. 87140, September 7, 1989, 177 SCRA 365, 372.

17ςrνllEconomic Insurance Co. Inc. v. Torres, L-28488, October 21, 1977, 79 SCRA 519, 523-524, cited in National Power Corporation v. Gonong, supra.

18ςrνllNava v. Peers Marketing Corporation, 74 SCRA 65, November 25, 1976, citing Velasco v. Poizat, 37 Phil. 802, March 15, 1918.

19ςrνll Supra note 2, at 39, 5th paragraph.




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






September-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6753 - Mila Virtusio v. Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ - Government Service Insurance System by Atty. Lucio L. Yu, Jr. v. Executive Judge Maria Cancino-Erum, Regional Trial Court, Br. 210, Mandaluyong City and Presiding Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela, Regional Trial court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City

  • G.R. No. 148607, G.R. NO. 167202, G.R. NO. 167223 and G.R. NO. 167271 - Elsa B. Reyes v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Artemio C. Mendoza v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Elsa B. Reyes v. People of the Philippines/Caridad A. Miranda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 153799, G.R. NO. 157169, G.R. NO. 157327 and G.R. NO. 157506 - Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Corporation, etc., et al. v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

  • G.R. No. 171107 - Anita C. Vianzon, Heirs of the late Lucila Candelaria Gonzales v. Minople Macaraeg

  • G.R. No. 173425 - Fort Bonifacio Develoment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Revenue District Officer, etc.

  • G.R. No. 175170 - Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative (MORESCO II) v. Virgilio M. Cagalawan

  • G.R. No. 176343 - Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Phil. v. Rosario S. Manalang-Demigillo

  • G.R. No. 184606 - People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales

  • G.R. No. 188979 - People of the Philippines v. Christopher Pareja y Velasco

  • G.R. No. 189486 and G.R. NO. 189699 - Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the Heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. Gilbert Guy/Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. The Hon. Ofelia C. Calo, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Mandaluyong City-Branch 211 and Gilbert Guy

  • G.R. No. 191062 - People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Milang

  • G.R. No. 191753 - People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua

  • G.R. No. 191837 - Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Marilyn Lim and George Lim and The Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City

  • G.R. No. 192117 and G.R. NO. 192118 - Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission/Central Luzon Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

  • G.R. No. 192945 - City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur III Electric Cooperative Inc.

  • G.R. No. 194014 - Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando

  • G.R. No. 195592 - Magdiwang Realty Corporation, Renato P. Dragon and Esperanza Tolentino v. The Manila Banking Corporation, substituted by First Sovereign Asset Management [SPV-AMC], Inc.

  • G.R. No. 195619 - Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal

  • G.R. No. 196355 - Bienvenido William D. Lloren v. The Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 196231 and G.R. NO. 196232 - Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, acting through and represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al./Wendell Barreras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Atty. Dennis F. Ortiz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 197528 - Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Amando A. Vinuya, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198662 - Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. and Eric S. Canoy v. Domingo Z. Ybarola, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199084 - Antonia P. Ceron v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 200951 - People of the Philippines v. Jose Almodiel alias "Dodong Astrobal"

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ : Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan v. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City

  • A.C. No. 6753 - Mila Virtusio v. Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 : Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug v. Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental

  • A.M. No. P-06-2161 : Atty. Dennis A. Velasco v. Myra L. Baterbonia/In Re: Report on the financial audit conducted in the RTC, Branch 38, Alabel etc.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2920 : Lucia Nazar Vda. De Feliciano v. Romeo L. Rivera, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Valenzuela City

  • A.M. No. P-12-3086 : Office of the Court Administrator v. Susana R. Fontanilla, Clerk of Court, MCTC, San Narciso-Buenavista, San Narciso, Quezon

  • A.M. No. P-12-3087 : Dionisio P. Pilot v. Renato B. Baron, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 264, Pasig City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ - Government Service Insurance System by Atty. Lucio L. Yu, Jr. v. Executive Judge Maria Cancino-Erum, Regional Trial Court, Br. 210, Mandaluyong City and Presiding Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela, Regional Trial court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2271 : Lucio O. Magtibay v. Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj., RTC, Branch 14 Cotabato City

  • G.R. No. 148607, G.R. NO. 167202, G.R. NO. 167223 and G.R. NO. 167271 - Elsa B. Reyes v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Artemio C. Mendoza v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Elsa B. Reyes v. People of the Philippines/Caridad A. Miranda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 148843 : Antioquia Development Corporation, et al. v. Benjamin P. Rabacal, et al.

  • G.R. No. 153799, G.R. NO. 157169, G.R. NO. 157327 and G.R. NO. 157506 - Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Corporation, etc., et al. v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

  • G.R. Nos. 154470-71 : Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, et al./Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Planters Develoment Bank

  • G.R. No. 161122 : Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng, Spouses Martin and Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162372 : Government Service Insurane System (GSIS), et al. v. Commission on Audit (COA), et al.

  • G.R. No. 162809 : Pacific Ocean Manning Inc., et al. v. Benjamin D. Penales

  • G.R. No. 165355 : Tomas T. Teodoro, et al. v. Continental Cement Corporation

  • G.R. No. 166467 : Danilo R. Querijero, Johnny P. Lilang and Ivene D. Reyes v. Lina Palmes-Limitar, Isagani G. Palmes and the Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 167366 : Dr. Pedro Dennis Cereno and Dr. Santos Zafe v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170787 : Crispino Pangilinan v. Jocelyn N. Balatbat substituted by her heirs, namely, Vicente Balatbat, Ana Lucia N. Balatbat, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171107 - Anita C. Vianzon, Heirs of the late Lucila Candelaria Gonzales v. Minople Macaraeg

  • G.R. No. 171118 : Park Hotel, J's Playhouse Burgos Corp., Inc., and/or Gregg Harbutt, General Manager, Atty. Roberto Enriquez, President, and Bill Percy v. Manolo Soriano, Lester Gonzales, and Yolanda Badilla

  • G.R. No. 171219 : Atty. Fe Q. Palmiano-Salvador v. Constantino Angeles substituted by Luz G. Angeles

  • G.R. No. 173036 : Agoo Rice Mill corporation, etc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 173425 - Fort Bonifacio Develoment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Revenue District Officer, etc.

  • G.R. No. 174376 : Zosima Incorporated v. Lilia Salimbagat and all persons claiming rights under her

  • G.R. No. 174669 : Belle Corporation v. Erlinda De Leon-Banks, Rhodora De Leon Tiatco, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174982 : Jose Vicente Atilano II, Heirs of Carlos V. Tan, represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, Nelida F. Atilano and Isidra K. Tan v. Hon. Judge Tibing A. Asaali, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and Atlantic Merchandising, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 175170 - Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative (MORESCO II) v. Virgilio M. Cagalawan

  • G.R. No. 175284 : BP Philippines, Inc. (formerly Burmah Castrol Philippines, Inc.) v. Clark Trading Corporation

  • G.R. No. 176343 - Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Phil. v. Rosario S. Manalang-Demigillo

  • G.R. No. 177438 : Amada Resterio v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 177711 : Suico Industrial Corporation and Spouses Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico v. Hon. Marilyn Lagura-Yap, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP), Now First E-Bank, and Antonio Agro Development Corporation

  • G.R. Nos. 177857-58 : Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), et al. v. Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 179115 : Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 182045 : Gulf Air Company, Philippines Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 182230 : People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Lupac y Flores

  • G.R. No. 183097 : People of the Philippines v. Antonio Venturina

  • G.R. No. 183533 : In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, Francis Saez, petitioner versus Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., respondents

  • G.R. No. 184500 : People of the Philippines v. Wenceslao Nelmida, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184606 - People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales

  • G.R. No. 185282 : People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Bravo y Estabillo

  • G.R. No. 186002 : Apo Chemical Manufacturing and Michael Cheng v. Ronaldo A. Bides

  • Gr_187052_2012

  • G.R. No. 187801 : Heirs of Leonardo Banaag, namely: Marta R. Banaag, et al. v. AMS Farming Corporation and Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 188417 : Milagros De Belen Vda. De Cabalu, Meliton Cabali, Sps. Angela Cabalu and Rodolfo Talavera and Patricio Abus v. Sps. Renato Tabu and dolores Laxamana, MTCC, Tarlac city, Branch II

  • G.R. No. 188979 - People of the Philippines v. Christopher Pareja y Velasco

  • G.R. No. 189486 and G.R. NO. 189699 - Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the Heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. Gilbert Guy/Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. The Hon. Ofelia C. Calo, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Mandaluyong City-Branch 211 and Gilbert Guy

  • G.R. No. 190680 : Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals and Ayala Land, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 191062 - People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Milang

  • G.R. No. 191128 : Carmencita Guizano, substituted by her heirs namely, Eugenio M. Guizano, Jr., Emmanuel M. Guizano, et al. v. Reynaldo S. Veneracion

  • G.R. No. 191753 - People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua

  • G.R. No. 191837 - Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Marilyn Lim and George Lim and The Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City

  • G.R. No. 192117 and G.R. NO. 192118 - Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission/Central Luzon Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

  • G.R. No. 192945 - City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur III Electric Cooperative Inc.

  • G.R. No. 193753 : Living @ Sense, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 193789 : Alex Q. Naranjo. Donnalyn De Guzman, Ronald V. Cruz, Rosemarie P. Pimentel and Rowena B. Bardaje v. Biomedica Health Care, Inc. and Carina "Karen" J. Motol

  • G.R. No. 193854 : People of the Philippines v. Dina Dulay y Pascual

  • G.R. No. 194014 - Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando

  • G.R. No. 195592 - Magdiwang Realty Corporation, Renato P. Dragon and Esperanza Tolentino v. The Manila Banking Corporation, substituted by First Sovereign Asset Management [SPV-AMC], Inc.

  • G.R. No. 195619 - Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal

  • G.R. No. 195909 : Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke'sj Medical Center, Inc./St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 196161 : Cyril Calpito Qui v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 196355 - Bienvenido William D. Lloren v. The Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 196231 and G.R. NO. 196232 - Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, acting through and represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al./Wendell Barreras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Atty. Dennis F. Ortiz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 197205 : Jessie V. David, represented by his wife, Ma. Theresa S. David, and chinldren, Katherine and Kristina David v. OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. and/or Michaelmar Shipping Services

  • G.R. No. 197528 - Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Amando A. Vinuya, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198662 - Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. and Eric S. Canoy v. Domingo Z. Ybarola, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199084 - Antonia P. Ceron v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199082 : Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Department of Justice, et al./Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. v. Hon. Leila de Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, et al./Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Commission on Elections, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 199547 : The New Philippine Skylanders, Inc. and/or Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote v. Francisco N. Dakila

  • G.R. No. 200529 : People of the Philippines v. Juanito Garcia y Gumay @ Wapog

  • G.R. No. 200951 - People of the Philippines v. Jose Almodiel alias "Dodong Astrobal"

  • G.R. No. 202914 : Government Service Insurance System, etc. v. Heidi B. Chua