Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > September 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 186002 : Apo Chemical Manufacturing and Michael Cheng v. Ronaldo A. Bides:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 186002 : September 19, 2012

APO CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and MICHAEL CHENG, Petitioners, v. RONALDO A. BIDES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to partially set aside the October 23, 2008 Decision1ςrνll of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its January 12, 2009 Resolution, in CA-G.R. SP No. 91323, affirming with modification the January 25, 2005 Decision2and the June 17, 2005 Resolution3ςrνll of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The Facts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In January 1992, petitioner Apo Chemical Manufacturing Corporation (ACMC) hired respondent Ronaldo A. Bides (Bides). In his eleven (11) years of service, Bides held various positions in ACMC. Initially, he served as a "laminator," then becoming a stay-in employee sometime in October 2000, before working as a "packager" in January 2003.4ςrνll

On May 14, 2003, Matthew Cheng (Matthew), the plant manager of ACMC, sent a written memorandum requiring Bides to explain in writing within forty eight (48) hours his refusal to sign the disciplinary form in connection with his alleged infractions of loitering in the comfort room for about five (5) to eight (8) minutes, two (2) to three (3) times a day, on March 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 2003 under pain of revocation of his housing privileges.5ςrνll

On the same day, instead of submitting a written explanation in compliance with the memorandum, Bides orally explained to William Uy (William), another plant manager of ACMC, his justification for his alleged infractions. First, Bides questioned the delay of more than two (2) months in requiring him to explain the alleged infraction. He then argued that urinating, as he was "nababalisawsaw" at the time, was not an infraction. He conveyed his willingness to have his housing privileges forfeited as stated in the memorandum.6ςrνll

On May 19, 2003, Matthew allegedly confronted Bides and prohibited him from reporting for work the following day, as he would be terminated from the company. On May 20, 2003, the day he was supposed to be dismissed from the service, Bides instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal, with prayer for payment of pro-rata 13th month pay, backwages and separation pay, and with claim for damages against ACMC. Bides alleged that ACMC neither formally charged him with any infraction nor served him any written notice of his termination.7ςrνll

In response, ACMC asserted that it never dismissed Bides and it had no intention to do so. On the contrary, it was Bides who voluntarily stopped working. It stressed that the alleged confrontation never took place. Further, Matthew had no authority to dismiss employees pursuant to the companys working rules which stated that "supervisors or managers could impose disciplinary measures on employees except dismissal."8ςrνll ACMC went on to manifest its willingness to accept him back for work anytime he would decide to do so.9ςrνll

On March 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision10ςrνll in favor of Bides. The fallo of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal as illegal. As such, respondent Apo Chemical Manufacturing Corporation is hereby ordered to pay complainant the following:

1. The sum of ₱82,361.07 as backwages;

2. The sum of ₱87,874.80 as separation pay;

3. The sum of ₱2,524.47 as pro-rata 13th month pay for the year 2003; and

4. The sum equivalent to ten percent of the foregoing monetary awards as attorneys fee.

All other claims are ordered dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.11ςrνll

In concluding that Bides was illegally dismissed, the LA explained that for him to quit his job without any reason, as ACMC had insisted, simply defied logic. The LA gave credence to Bides version that indeed a confrontation took place between Matthew and him, and found Matthews statement, prohibiting Bides to report for work, sufficient enough to create the impression in the latters mind that his services were being terminated. The LA concluded that ACMC failed to discharge its evidentiary burden that Bides was dismissed for cause with due process. In awarding separation pay, the LA took into consideration his desire not to be reinstated due to strained relations.

Dissatisfied, ACMC sought recourse with the NLRC. In its Decision, dated January 25, 2005, the NLRC reversed the LAs Decision. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby reversed. Respondents are adjudged not guilty of illegal dismissal. The awards of backwages and separation pay are deleted from the assailed decision. Respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position or equivalent position, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges but without backwages. Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainant the pro-rata 13th month pay for the year 2003.

SO ORDERED.12ςrνll

In granting ACMCs appeal, the NLRC explained that "aside from the non-binding utterances of the plant manager, there was no overt act displayed by ACMC which would have indicated a desire to dismiss Bides." 13ςrνll Between an affirmative allegation of illegal dismissal and a negative allegation of non-dismissal, the NLRC believed that Bides, making the affirmative allegation, had the burden of proof which he failed to discharge. Moreover, the NLRC did not find any factual basis to support the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Bides moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC in its June 17, 2005 Resolution.

Aggrieved, Bides elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in rendering the assailed decision and resolution.

In its Decision, dated October 23, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the January 25, 2005 Decision of the NLRC. The CA, in awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, took into account the fact of strained relations between the parties. The decretal portion of its decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed NLRC decision absolving the respondent of the charge of illegal dismissal and deleting the awards of backwages and separation, but providing 13th month pay pro-rata for the year 2003, is AFFIRMED. In lieu of reinstatement, the respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner financial assistance by way of separation pay of one-half month salary per year based on current rate, for eleven years.

SO ORDERED.14ςrνll

ACMC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA in its January 12, 2009 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.

THE ISSUES

ACMC seeks relief from this Court raising the following issues:WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WERE "STRAINED RELATIONS" BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND BIDES NOTWITHSTANDING TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY BIDES "FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF SEPARATION PAY," IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT, SOLELY BASED ON THE UNFOUNDED CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE "STRAINED RELATIONS" BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND BIDES.15ςrνll

In sum, the sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether strained relations exist between ACMC and Bides to bar the latters reinstatement and justify the award of separation pay.

In its Memorandum, 16ςrνll ACMC contends that there is absolutely no evidence of strained relations in the records. The refusal of Bides to be reinstated cannot, by itself, be used as basis to consider the relationship between ACMC and Bides as automatically strained.

In his Memorandum, Bides maintains that his refusal to be reinstated is clearly indicative of strained relations.

THE COURTS RULING

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

At the outset, it should be stressed that a determination of the applicability of the doctrine of strained relations is essentially a factual question and, thus, not a proper subject in this petition.17ςrνll This rule, however, admits of exceptions. In cases where the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC are conflicting, the Court, in the exercise of Its equity jurisdiction, may review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.18ςrνll

As the records bear out, the LA found that patent animosity existed between ACMC and Bides considering the confrontation that took place between the latter and Matthew. This confrontation coupled with Bides refusal to be reinstated led to the LAs finding of "strained relations" necessitating an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The NLRC, on the other hand, deleted the said award for lack of factual basis. The CA reinstated the LAs finding of "strained relations" and explained that too much enmity had developed between ACMC and Bides that necessarily barred the latters reinstatement.

On this point, the Court agrees with the LA.

The Court is well aware that reinstatement is the rule and, for the exception of "strained relations" to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that, if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.19ςrνll

Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.20ςrνll Moreover, the doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay.21ςrνll

In the present case, Bides has consistently maintained, from the proceedings in the LA up to the CA, his refusal to be reinstated due to his fear of reprisal which he could experience as a consequence of his return. By doing so, Bides unequivocally foreclosed reinstatement as a relief.

In Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation v. Concepcion, 22ςrνll the Court ruled that "if reinstatement is no longer feasible x x x, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service shall be awarded as an alternative." Clearly, the CA erred in awarding a half month salary only for every year of service. Considering, however, that Bides did not question that portion of the CA decision, the Court is of the view that he was satisfied

and would no longer disturb it.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed October 23,2008 Decision and January 12, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 91323, are hereby AFFIRMED.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


* Designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1299, dated August 28,2012.

1ςrνll Rollo pp. 27-35. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guarifta Ill with Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.

2ςrνll Id. at 52-59. Penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan with Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay. concurring.

3ςrνll Id. at 62-63.

4ςrνll Id. at 27.

5ςrνll Id. at 27-28.

6ςrνll Id. at 28.

7ςrνll Id. at 28-29.

8ςrνll Id. at 31.

9ςrνll Id. at 45-46.

10ςrνll Id. at 43-49. Penned by Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas.

11ςrνll Id. at 49.

12ςrνll Id. at 34.

13ςrνll Id. at 58.

14ςrνll Id. at 34.

15ςrνll Id. at 130.

16ςrνll Id. at 125-143.

17ςrνll Bank of Lubao, Inc. v. Manabat, G.R. No. 188722, February 1, 2012.

18ςrνll Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, February 15, 2012.

19ςrνll Cabigting v. San Miguel Foods Inc., G.R. No. 167706, November 5, 2009, 605 SCRA 14, 25-26.

20ςrνll Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, G.R. No. 187200, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 283, 289-290.

21ςrνll Cabigting v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., supra note 19 at 28.

22ςrνll G.R. No. 172349, June 13, 2012, citing Blg. AA Manufacturer v. Antonio, 519 Phil. 30, 42 (2006).




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