Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2013 > July 2013 Decisions > G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013 - GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, Petitioners, v. NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “JAY” LOPEZ, JR., Respondents.:




G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013 - GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, Petitioners, v. NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “JAY” LOPEZ, JR., Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013

GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, Petitioners, v. NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “JAY” LOPEZ, JR., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

 

By this Rule 45 petition, petitioners Gilda C. Fernandez and Bernadette A. Beltran appeal the Decision1 dated February 23, 2012 and Resolution2 dated May 18, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 118766.  The CA reversed the decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and dismissed petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal.

The antecedent facts follow:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc. (Newfield) hired Fernandez as Recruitment Manager starting September 30, 20084 with a salary of P50,000 and an allowance of P6,000 per month.  It was provided in the employment agreement that Fernandez will receive a loyalty bonus of P60,000 and life insurance worth P500,000 upon reaching six months of employment with Newfield.5  Newfield also hired Beltran as probationary Recruitment Specialist starting October 7, 20086 with a salary of P15,000 and an allowance of P2,000 per month.  Her employment contract provided that Beltran will receive a 10% salary and allowance increase upon reaching 12 months of employment with Newfield.7

Petitioners guaranteed to perform their tasks for six months and breach of this guarantee would make them liable for liquidated damages of P45,000.  It was further provided in their employment agreements that if they want to terminate their employment agreements8 after the “guaranteed period of engagement,” they should send a written notice 45 days before the effective date of termination.  They should also surrender any equipment issued to them and secure a clearance.  If they fail to comply, Newfield can refuse to issue a clearance and to release any amount due them.9

On October 17, 2008, respondent Arnold “Jay” Lopez, Jr., Newfield’s General Manager, asked petitioners to come to his office and terminated their employment on the ground that they failed to perform satisfactorily.  Lopez, Jr. ordered them to immediately turn over the records in their possession to their successors.10

A week later, petitioners received Lopez, Jr.’s return-to-work letters11 dated October 22, 2008.  The letters stated that they did not report since October 20, 2008 without resigning, in violation of their employment agreements.  They were directed to report and explain their failure to file resignation letters.

Fernandez countered with a demand letter12 dated November 11, 2008.  She claimed that her salary of P36,400 from September 30 to October 17, 2008 and mobile phone expenses of P3,000 incurred in furtherance of Newfield’s business were not paid.  She also said that she was able to hire one team leader and 12 agents in three weeks, but Newfield still found her performance unsatisfactory and told her to file her resignation letter.  Thus, she referred the matter to her lawyer.  She threatened to sue unless Newfield responds favorably.  Beltran for her part also sent a demand letter.  Her demand letter13 dated November 17, 2008 is similar to Fernandez’s letter except for the amount of the claim for unpaid salary which is P7,206.80.

When they failed to receive favourable action from respondents, petitioners filed on December 9, 2008, a complaint14 for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salary and overtime pay, reimbursement of cell phone billing, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against respondents.

In their verified position paper,15 petitioners stated that on October 17, 2008, Lopez, Jr. asked them to come to his office and terminated their employment on the ground that they failed to perform satisfactorily.  Lopez, Jr. told them: “YOU[‘RE] FIRED, x x x this is your last day and turn over the records to your successors.”16

In their verified joint position paper,17 respondents stated that petitioners signed fixed-term employment agreements where they agreed to perform their tasks for six months.  They also agreed to give a written notice 45 days in advance if they want to terminate their employment agreements.  But they never complied with their undertakings.  Three weeks after working for Newfield, Fernandez did not report for work.  She never bothered to communicate with respondents despite the return-to-work letter.  Hence, Newfield declared her absent without official leave (AWOL) and terminated her employment on the ground of breach of contract.  Similarly, Newfield declared Beltran AWOL and terminated her employment on the ground of breach of contract.  Beltran stopped reporting two weeks after she was hired and never bothered to communicate with respondents despite the return-to-work letter.  Respondents claimed that no evidence shows or even hints that petitioners were forced not to report for work.  Petitioners simply no longer showed up for work.

In reply to respondents’ position paper,18 petitioners insisted that Lopez, Jr. terminated their employment.  In their own reply to petitioners’ position paper,19 respondents claimed that petitioners abandoned their jobs.20

In their rejoinder,21 petitioners repeated that Lopez, Jr. terminated their employment and they attached Josette Pasman’s affidavit22 to prove that they were dismissed.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners’ dismissal was illegal, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainants dismissal illegal.  Concomitantly, respondents are ordered to pay them their salary from the time of their dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision plus their separation pay.  Furthermore, respondents are ordered to pay complainants their unpaid salaries and allowances for the period October 1 to October 17, 2008 plus ten percent (10%) of the total judgment award by way of and as attorney’s fees.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.23

The Labor Arbiter rejected respondents’ claim of abandonment and held that petitioners cannot be said to have abandoned their work since they took steps to protest their layoff.  Their complaint is proof of their desire to return to work and negates any suggestion of abandonment.  The Labor Arbiter also believed petitioners that Lopez, Jr. dismissed them on October 17, 2008 and ordered them to immediately turn over the records to their successors.

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and said that it is supported by substantial evidence.  But since petitioners signed fixed-term employment agreements, the NLRC limited the award of back wages to six months.  The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision dated July 20, 2010 in NLRC LAC No. 11-003163-09 (NLRC NCR-12-17096-08) reads:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, that is, the backwages shall be limited to the periods provided in their respective contracts; Gilda Fernandez (from September 30, 2008 to March 30, 2009) and Bernadette Beltran (from October 7, 2008 to April 7, 2009).

SO ORDERED.24

In its Resolution25 dated January 25, 2011, the NLRC denied the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners and respondents.

Thereafter, respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rules 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, before the CA.  Petitioners no longer assailed the NLRC decision and resolution.

As aforesaid, the CA reversed the NLRC and dismissed petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted.  The Decision dated 20 July 2010 and the Resolution dated 25 January 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission are reversed and set aside.  The complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.26

The CA ruled that petitioners abandoned their jobs and pre-terminated their six-month employment agreements.  They walked out after their meeting with Lopez, Jr. on October 17, 2008 when they were advised of their unsatisfactory performance.  The CA held that the meeting did not prove that they were dismissed.  However, it seems that they cannot accept constructive criticism and opted to discontinue working.  Instead of reporting for work and explaining their absence, they demanded payment of wages and mobile phone expenses for the two to three weeks that they worked in Newfield.  Thus, it seems that they no longer wished to continue working for the remaining period of their six-month employment.  For breach of their employment agreements, they also opened themselves to liability for liquidated damages, said the CA.

On May 18, 2012, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 anchored on the following grounds:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

[I.] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.  THE DECISION DATED 23 FEBRUARY 2012 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND SETTLED RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

[II.] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE NLRC AND LABOR ARBITER THAT PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT.27

Petitioners argue that for dismissal to be valid there must be a just or authorized cause and due process must be observed.  But respondents terminated their employment on October 17, 2008 when Lopez, Jr. asked them to come to his office, fired them and ordered them to turn over the records to their successors.  They were dismissed without any written notice informing them of the cause for their termination.28

In their comment, respondents claim that “no such incident took place” on October 17, 2008.  Lopez, Jr. “merely called [p]etitioners’ attention and advised them of their unsatisfactory work performance.”  Respondents also point out that petitioners refused to comply with the return-to-work letters and demanded instead payment of their salaries and reimbursement of mobile phone expenses.29

As a rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must raise only questions of law.  However, the rule has exceptions such as when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA vary,30 as in this case.

After our own review of the case, we are constrained to reverse the CA.  We agree with the NLRC and Labor Arbiter that petitioners were illegally dismissed.

The CA erred in ruling that the meeting on October 17, 2008 did not prove that petitioners were dismissed.  We find that Lopez, Jr. terminated their employment on said date.

Petitioners stated in their verified position paper that Lopez, Jr. fired them on October 17, 2008, told them that it was their last day and ordered them to turn over the records to their successors.  We reviewed respondents’ verified position paper and reply to petitioners’ position paper filed before the Labor Arbiter and found nothing there denying what happened as stated under oath by petitioners.  Respondents merely said that no evidence shows or even hints that petitioners were forced not to report for work and that petitioners abandoned their jobs.  Even respondents’ appeal memorandum31 filed before the NLRC is silent on petitioners’ claim that Lopez, Jr. fired them.  Respondents’ silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the truth of petitioners’ narration.  As we held in Tegimenta Chemical Phils. v. Oco32:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Most notably, the [Labor Arbiter] observed that the employers “did not deny the claims of complainant [Oco] that she was simply told not to work.”  As in Solas v. Power & Telephone Supply Phils. Inc., this silence constitutes an admission that fortifies the truth of the employee’s narration.  Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.

We also note respondents’ confirmation that Lopez, Jr. met petitioners on October 17, 2008.  But we seriously doubt respondents’ claim in their comment filed before this Court that Lopez, Jr. did not fire petitioners, that “no such incident took place.”  This denial was not raised in respondents’ position paper, reply to petitioners’ position paper, and appeal memorandum.  Respondents were not forthcoming in said pleadings that indeed Lopez, Jr. met petitioners on October 17, 2008.

We further note that during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners submitted Josette Pasman’s affidavit as additional evidence.  Pasman stated under oath that on October 21, 2008 she called Newfield’s Timog Office to inquire about her salary, that she looked for Fernandez or Beltran, and that she was surprised to find out they were no longer employed at Newfield.

The CA also erred in ruling that petitioners abandoned their jobs.

We clarify first that petitioners’ employment agreements are not fixed-term contracts for six months because Fernandez becomes entitled to a loyalty bonus of P60,000 and life insurance worth P500,000 upon reaching six months of employment with Newfield.  Beltran will also receive a 10% salary and allowance increase upon reaching 12 months of employment with Newfield.  Petitioners merely guaranteed to perform their tasks for six months and failure to comply with this guarantee makes them liable for liquidated damages.  The employment agreements also provide that if petitioners would want to terminate the agreements after the “guaranteed period of engagement,” they must notify respondents 45 days in advance.  Thus, respondents, the NLRC and CA misread the guarantee as the fixed duration of petitioners’ employment.

Petitioners are not fixed-term employees but probationary employees.  Respondents even admitted that Beltran was hired as probationary Recruitment Specialist.  A probationary employee may be terminated for a just or authorized cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.33

Abandonment is a form of neglect of duty, one of the just causes for an employer to terminate an employee.34  For abandonment to exist, two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor being manifested by some overt acts.35

Since both factors are not present, petitioners are not guilty of abandonment.  One, petitioners were absent because Lopez, Jr. had fired them.  Thus, we cannot fault them for refusing to comply with the return-to-work letters and responding instead with their demand letters.  Neither can they be accused of being AWOL or of breaching their employment agreements.  Indeed, as stated above, respondents cannot claim that no evidence shows that petitioners were forced not to report for work.  Two, petitioners’ protest of their dismissal by sending demand letters and filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement convinces us that petitioners have no intention to sever the employment relationship.  Employees who take steps to protest their dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work.  A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.  The filing thereof is proof enough of one’s desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.36

Hence, we disagree with the statement of the CA that petitioners no longer wish to continue working for Newfield since they sought payment of their unpaid salaries.  Petitioners did not limit their demand letters as claims for payment of salaries.  They also stated that they were told to resign despite their accomplishments.  Thus, they referred the matter to a lawyer and they threatened to sue if they receive no favorable response from respondents.  When they received none, they immediately sued for illegal dismissal.  Under the circumstances, we cannot infer petitioners’ intention to abandon their jobs.  As aptly observed also by the NLRC, Fernandez earns P56,000 and Beltran earns P17,000 per month.  “[I]t defies reason that [they] would leave their job[s] and then fight odds to win them back.  Human experience dictates that a worker will not just walk away from a good paying job and risk [unemployment] and damages as a result thereof UNLESS illegally dismissed.”37

We therefore agree that petitioners were illegally dismissed since there is no just cause for their dismissal.

Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.  However, the NLRC’s award of back wages for six months is binding on petitioners who no longer contested and are therefore presumed to have accepted the adjudication in the NLRC decision and resolution.  This is in accord with the doctrine that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the appealed decision.38

Similarly, the award of separation pay which was affirmed by the NLRC is binding on petitioners who even admitted that reinstatement is no longer possible.39

One last note.  The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, as affirmed and modified by the NLRC, stated that “respondents are ordered to pay” petitioners.  This gives the impression that Lopez, Jr. is solidarily liable with Newfield.  In Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. v. Estrella,40 we discussed how corporate agents incur solidary liability, as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.  In MAM Realty Development Corporation v. NLRC, the solidary liability of corporate officers in labor disputes was discussed in this wise:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
“A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees.  Obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent.  True, solidary liability may at times be incurred but only when exceptional circumstances warrant such as, generally, in the following cases:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
  1. When directors and trustees or, in appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation –

    (a)  vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
    (b) act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing the corporate affairs;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    x x x x
In labor cases, for instance, the Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of employees done with malice or in bad faith.” (Italics, emphasis and underscoring in the original; citations omitted.)

Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.41  To sustain such a finding, there should be evidence on record that an officer or director acted maliciously or in bad faith in terminating the employee.42

But here, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC have not found Lopez, Jr. guilty of malice or bad faith.  Thus, there is no basis to hold Lopez, Jr. solidarily liable with Newfield.  Payment of the judgment award is the direct accountability of Newfield.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.  We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated February 23, 2012 and Resolution dated May 18, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118766.  The Decision dated July 20, 2010 and Resolution dated January 25, 2011 of the NLRC in NLRC LAC No. 11-003163-09 (NLRC NCR-12-17096-08) are REINSTATED and UPHELD with clarification that respondent Arnold “Jay” Lopez, Jr. is not solidarily liable with respondent Newfield Staff Solutions, Inc.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Reyes, JJ., concur.


Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 21-37.  Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.cralawlibrary

2 Id. at 39-40.cralawlibrary

3 Id. at 78-86.cralawlibrary

4 Id. at 123.cralawlibrary

5 Id. at 138.cralawlibrary

6 Id. at 125.cralawlibrary

7 Id. at 90-91.cralawlibrary

8 Id. at 90-92, 137-139.cralawlibrary

9 Id. at 91-92, 139.cralawlibrary

10 Id. at 99.cralawlibrary

11 Id. at 157-158.cralawlibrary

12 Id. at 168-169.cralawlibrary

13 Id. at 167.cralawlibrary

14 Id. at 93-94.cralawlibrary

15 Id. at 97-110.cralawlibrary

16 Id. at 99.cralawlibrary

17 Id. at 122-136.cralawlibrary

18 Id. at 141-145.cralawlibrary

19 Id. at 146-156.cralawlibrary

20 Id. at 149.cralawlibrary

21 Id. at 159-166.cralawlibrary

22 Id. at 170.cralawlibrary

23 Id. at 177-178.cralawlibrary

24 Id. at 85-86.cralawlibrary

25 Id. at 71-77.cralawlibrary

26 Id. at 36-37.cralawlibrary

27 Id. at 11.cralawlibrary

28 Id. at 11-12.cralawlibrary

29 Id. at 332-333.cralawlibrary

30Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort, Inc. v. Dual, G.R. No. 180660, July 20, 2010, 625 SCRA 147, 155-156.cralawlibrary

31Rollo, pp. 180-216.cralawlibrary

32 G.R. No. 175369, February 27, 2013, p. 6.cralawlibrary

33 Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation v. Ranchez, G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 135, 142.cralawlibrary

34Galang v. Malasugui, G.R. No. 174173, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 622, 633.cralawlibrary

35Josan, JPS, Santiago Cargo Movers v. Aduna, G.R. No. 190794, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 679, 686.cralawlibrary

36 Id. at 686-687.cralawlibrary

37Rollo, p. 76.cralawlibrary

38 Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115395, February 12, 1998, 286 SCRA 245, 256.cralawlibrary

39Rollo, p. 14.cralawlibrary

40 G.R. No. 192416, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 391, 404.cralawlibrary

41 Malayang Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa v. Hon. Ramos, 409 Phil. 61, 83 (2001).cralawlibrary

42 See M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 169173, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 590, 611.



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-2013 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013 - JOYCE V. ARDIENTE, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JAVIER AND MA. THERESA PASTORFIDE, CAGAYAN DE ORO WATER DISTRICT AND GASPAR GONZALEZ,* JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013 - ROSALINDA DIMAPILIS-BALDOZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS THEN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196529, July 01, 2013 - WILLIAM T. GO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS TERESITA C. LOOYUKO, ALBERTO LOOYUKO, JR., ABRAHAM LOOYUKO AND STEPHANIE LOOYUKO (MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER TERESITA LOOYUKO), ALVIN, AMOS, AARON, DAVID, SOLOMON AND NOAH, ALL SURNAMED PADECIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172206, July 03, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, SR., DR. PORFIRIO C. LIGAYA, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, JR. AND GLORIA M. MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180281, July 01, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias “Budo”, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183805, July 03, 2013 - JAMES WALTER P. CAPILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201061, July 03, 2013 - SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2690 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2889-P], July 09, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. NOEL R. ONG, DEPUTY SHERIFF, BRANCH 49, AND ALVIN A. BUENCAMINO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, BRANCH 53 OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195481, July 10, 2013 - ORIENTAL PETROLEUM AND MINERALS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TUSCAN REALTY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 09, 2013 - RE: FAILURE OF FORMER JUDGE ANTONIO A. CARBONELL TO DECIDE CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION AND TO RESOLVE PENDING MOTIONS IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION.

  • G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO A. SERRA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202709, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG AND MERCY ONIZA Y CABARLE, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. CA-13-51-J, July 02, 2013 - RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF MERLITA B. FABIANA AGAINST PRESIDING JUSTICE ANDRES B. REYES, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ISAIAS P. DICDICAN AND STEPHEN C. CRUZ; CARAG JAMORA SOMERA AND VILLAREAL LAW OFFICES AND ITS LAWYERS ATTYS. ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, JR. AND BEATRIZ O. GERONILLA-VILLEGAS, LAWYERS FOR MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION.

  • G.R. No. 188711, July 08, 2013 - TAN BROTHERS CORPORATION OF BASILAN CITY THROUGH ITS OWNER/MANAGER, MAURO F. TAN, Petitioners, v. EDNA R. ESCUDERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197789, July 08, 2013 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR PAUL A. AQUINO, FRANCIS A. PALAFOX, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO L. ESTRELLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185734, July 03, 2013 - ALFREDO C. LIM, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES TITO S. LAZARO AND CARMEN T. LAZARO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198680, July 08, 2013 - HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, NAMELY, ALVARO YPON, ERUDITA Y. BARON, CICERO YPON, WILSON YPON, VICTOR YPON, AND HINIDINO Y. PEÑALOSA, Petitioners, v. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A.K.A. “GAUDIOSO E. YPON,” AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TOLEDO CITY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 09, 2013 - LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, Complainsnts, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7749, July 08, 2013 - JOSEFINA CARANZA VDA. DE SALDIVAR, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170245, July 01, 2013 - THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195649, July 02, 2013 - CASAN MACODE MACQUILING, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO, AND LINOG G. BALUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179256, July 10, 2013 - FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RAQUEL M. CALIMBAS AND LUISA P. MAHILOM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186366, July 03, 2013 - HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO DE BELEN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6942, July 17, 2013 - SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. NONNATUS P. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177050, July 01, 2013 - CARLOS LIM, CONSOLACION LIM, EDMUNDO LIM,* CARLITO LIM, SHIRLEY LEODADIA DIZON,** AND ARLEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198759, July 01, 2013 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 206844-45, July 23, 2013 - COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. [SENIOR CITIZENS PARTY-LIST], REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON AND FIRST NOMINEE, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G. R. NO. 206982 - COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND INCUMBENT REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013 - FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO, JR., Petitioner, v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN, ARLEEN DE GUZMAN, PHILIP RYAN DE GUZMAN, AND ROSELLA DE GUZMAN­ BAUTISTA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189686, July 15, 2013 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION AND LANCE Y. GOKONGWEI, Petitioners, v. WILFREDO Z. CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013 - RAFAEL L. COSCOLLUELA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE LABIAGA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196741, July 17, 2013 - PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY (Now known AS TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENTERPRISE ZONE AUTHORITY), Petitioner, v. MARCOSA A. SABANDAL-HERZENSTIEL, PEDRO TAPALES, LUIS TAPALES, AND ROMEO TAPALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176111, July 12, 2013 - CAROLINA B. JOSE, Petitioner, v. PURITA SUAREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192306, July 15, 2013 - JESSIE G. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENPELCO), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179334, July 01, 2013 - SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND DISTRICT ENGINEER CELESTINO R. CONTRERAS, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013 - JOSIELENE LARA CHAN, Petitioner, v. JOHNNY T. CHAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186264, July 08, 2013 - DR. LORNA C.FORMARAN, Petitioner, v. DR. GLENDA B. ONG AND SOLOMON S. ONG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191068, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRIS CORPUZ Y BASBAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013 - BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION (FORMERLY BONIFACIO VIVENDI WATER CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200895, July 31, 2013 - ROLANDO M. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, v. COMMERZ TRADING INT’L., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199294, July 31, 2013 - RALPH LITO W. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206505, July 24, 2013 - JEREME G. VILLANUEVA, SR., Petitioner, v. BALIWAG NAVIGATION, INC., VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO AND UNITRA MARITIME CO., LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188500, July 24, 2013 - PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. ALVARO T. ANTONIO, GOVERNOR, AND ROBERT ADAP, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH LASAM LARA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193874, July 24, 2013 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RICORDITO N. DE ASIS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172346, July 24, 2013 - SPOUSES NAMEAL AND LOURDES BONROSTRO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JUAN AND CONSTANCIA LUNA, Respondents.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013 - CONCERNED CITIZEN, Complainant, v. NONITA V. CATENA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, PUERTO PRINCESA, PALAWAN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013 - FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197537, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO RAMOS AND MARISSA INTERO RAMOS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 179638, July 08, 2013 - HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR., namely: CIRILA (deceased), CORNELIO, NUMERIANO, JR., ERLINDA, LOLITA, RUFINA, DANILO, ALEJANDRO, FELIMON, TERESITA, ELIZABETH AND ANALIZA, ALL SURNAMED MIRANDA, Petitioners, v. PABLO R. MIRANDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173587, July 15, 2013 - ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ALICE M. SIBAL, MA. TERESA J. BARISO, PRESCILLANO L. GONZALES, LAURA B. BERNARDO, MAMERTA R. ZITA, JOSEPHINE JUDY C. GARCIA, MENDOZA,* AND MA. ASUNCION B. HERCE, EDITHA D. CARPITANOS, MA. LUZ B. BUENO, DANTE C. VERASTIGUE,** AGNES R. ALCOBER, ARWIN Y. CRUZ, ADONIS F. OCAMPO, SOPHIA P. ANGELES, JOEL B. BUSTAMANTE, EDITHA B. COLE, LUDIVINA C. PACIA, ROSELLE M. DIZON, RODOLFO A. ABCEDE, WILFREDO RICAFRENTE, RODOLFO R. ROBERTO, ROSALIE R. LUNAR, BENJAMIN R. CALAYCAY, GUILLERO YAP CADORNA, THROVADORE TOBOSO, CAROLINA S. UY, MARIA LORETTO M. REGIS, ALMAR C. CALUAG,** VILMA R. SAPIWOSO, ANATALIA L. CALPITO, FELIPE S. CALINAWAN, VIVIELIZA DELMAR MANULAT, MA. LIZA L. RAFINAN,** AMMIE V. GATILAO, ALEX B. SADAYA AND REGINO EDDIE PANGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013 - BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CITY-FUBU (BPIEU-DAVAO CITY-FUBU), Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI), AND BPI OFFICERS CLARO M. REYES, CECIL CONANAN AND GEMMA VELEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197360, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD CREDO AKA “ONTOG,” RANDY CREDO AND ROLANDO CREDO Y SAN BUENAVENTURA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 199082, G.R. NO. 199085, G.R. NO. 199118, July 23, 2013 - JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; AND THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE AND FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 199085 - BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMELEC CHAIRPERSON; RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMELEC COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEORGE C. DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO B. FORTES AND MICHAEL D. VILLARET, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON THE 2004 AND 2007 ELECTION FRAUD RESPONDENTS.; G.R. NO. 199118 - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR AQUILINO M. PIMENTEL III, AND DOJ-COMELEC FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175844, July 29, 2013 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. SARABIA MANOR HOTEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUT-MISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G. ALMAZAR, Petitioners, v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 11-10-03-0, July 30, 2013 - RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA-ACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFF’S EXPENSES

  • G.R. No. 179607, July 24, 2013 - CIRILA MANOTA, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, CLAIRE, CATHERINE, CHARLES, PHILIP CHRISTOPHER, CARMI JOY, CARLO JOHN AND CEDRIC JAMES, Petitioners, v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION AND/OR SEMBAWANG JOHNSON MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185740, July 23, 2013 - THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, v. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013 - HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS – HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013 - VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES, INC. AND DOLORES BAELLO TEJAD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183608, July 13, 2013 - FAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013 - MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO AND ROSELLER CABOVERDE, Petitioners, v. DOMINALDA ESPINA­CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, AND JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013 - MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, AND MA. FE DAYON, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO VILLANUEVA, JANETTE ROLDAN, DANILO OLAYVAR, ONOFRE ESTRELLA, CATALINO LEDDA, MANOLO GUBANGCO, GILBERT ORIBIANA, CONSTANCIO SANTIAGO, RUTH BAYQUEN, RUBY CASTANEDA, ALFRED LANDAS, JR., ROSELYN GARCES, EUGENE CRUZ, MENANDRO SAMSON, FEDERICO MUNOZ AND SALVADOR DIWA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172846, July 24, 2013 - MANILA POLO CLUB EMPLOYEES’ UNION (MPCEU) FUR-TUCP, Petitioner, v. MANILA POLO CLUB, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013 - NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (PAINTING) BENEDICTO CABRERA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (SCULPTURE) NAPOLEON ABUEVA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (PAINTING AND SCULPTURE) ARTURO LUZ, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR PRODUCTION DESIGN SALVADOR BERNAL, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EMERITUS GEMINO ABAD, DEAN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN (UP COLLEGE OF LAW), DEAN DANILO SILVESTRE (UP COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE), DEAN ROLAND TOLENTINO (UP COLLEGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION), PROF. JOSE DALISAY, DR. ANTON JUAN, DR. ALEXANDER CORTEZ, DR. JOSE NEIL GARCIA, DR. PEDRO JUN CRUZ REYES, PROF. JOSE CLAUDIO GUERRERO, PROF. MICHAEL M. COROZA, PROF. GERARD LICO, PROF. VERNE DE LA PENA, PROF. MARIAN ABUAN, PROF. THEODORE O. TE, DR. CRISTINA PANTOJA-HIDALGO, PROF. JOSE WENDELL CAPILI, PROF. SIR ANRIAL TIATCO, PROF. NICOLO DEL CASTILLO, PROF. HORACIO DUMANLIG, PROF. DANTON REMOTO, PROF. PRISCELINA PATAJO-LEGASTO, PROF. BELEN CALINGACION, PROF. AMIEL Y. LEONARDIA, PROF. VIM NADERA, PROF. MARILYN CANTA, PROF. CECILIA DELA PAZ, PROF. CHARLSON ONG, PROF. CLOD MARLON YAMBAO, PROF. KENNETH JAMANDRE, PROF. JETHRO JOAQUIN, ATTY. F.D. NICOLAS B. PICHAY, ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX ANGELES, MR. FERNANDO JOSEF, MS. SUSAN S. LARA, MR. ALFRED YUSON, MS. JING PANGANIBAN-MENDOZA, MR. ROMULO BAQUIRAN, JR., MR. CARLJOE JAVIER, MS. REBECCA T. ANONUEVO, MR. JP ANTHONY D. CUNADA, MS. LEAH NAVARRO, MR. MARK MEILLY, MR. VERGEL O. SANTOS, MR. GIL OLEA MENDOZA, MR. EDGAR C. SAMAR, MS. CHRISTINE BELLEN, MR. ANGELO R. LACUESTA, MS. ANNA MARIA KATIGBAK-LACUESTA, MR. LEX LEDESMA, MS. KELLY PERIQUET, MS. CARLA PACIS, MR. J. ALBERT GAMBOA, MR. CESAR EVANGELISTA BUENDIA, MR. PAOLO ALCAZAREN, MR. ALWYN C. JAVIER, MR. RAYMOND MAGNO GARLITOS, MS. GANG BADOY, MR. LESLIE BOCOBO, MS. FRANCES BRETANA, MS. JUDITH TORRES, MS. JANNETTE PINZON, MS. JUNE POTICAR-DALISAY, MS. CAMILLE DE LA ROSA, MR. JAMES LADIORAY, MR. RENATO CONSTANTINO, JR., AND CONCERNED ARTISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (CAP), Petitioners, v. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CULTURE AND THE ARTS, MS. CECILE GUIDOTE-ALVAREZ, MR. CARLO MAGNO JOSE CAPARAS,1 MR. JOSE MORENO, MR. FRANCISCO MAÑOSA, AND ALL PERSONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTION, CONTROL AND SUPERVISION IN RELATION TO THE CONFERMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL ARTIST AND THE RELEASE OF FUNDS IN RELATION TO THE CONFERMENT OF THE HONORS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE ORDER OF NATIONAL ARTISTS ON RESPONDENTS GUIDOTE-ALVAREZ, CAPARAS, MORENO AND MAÑOSA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189316, July 01, 2013 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BERNARD AND CRESENCIA MARAÑON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184908, July 03, 2013 - MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192394, July 03, 2013 - ROY D. PASOS, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177763, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY VERGARA Y ORIEL AND JOSEPH INOCENCIO1 y PAULINO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 181277, July 03, 2013 - SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198240, July 03, 2013 - LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., NAMELY NONITA NAVARRO, FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO, ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO-TABITA, AND LOURDES BARRUN-REJUSO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188217, July 03, 2013 - FERNANDO M. ESPINO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199932, July 03, 2013 - CAMILO A. ESGUERRA, Petitioner, v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES, INC., BELSHIPS MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD., AND/OR FERNANDO T. LISING, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159213, July 03, 2013 - VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION AND FRANCISCO SORIANO, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY AND SULPICIO LINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198534, July 03, 2013 - JENNY F. PECKSON, Petitioner, v. ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION, JODY GADIA, ROENA SARTE, AND RUBY ALEX, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192179, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITO HATSERO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013 - REMAN RECIO, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUEDO AND MARIA ALTAMIRANO, NAMELY: ALEJANDRO, ADELAIDA, CATALINA, ALFREDO, FRANCISCO, ALL SURNAMED ALTAMIRANO; VIOLETA ALTAMIRANO OLFATO, AND LORETA ALTAMIRANO VDA. DE MARALIT AND SPOUSES LAURO AND MARCELINA LAJARCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185160, July 24, 2013 - POLYMER RUBBER CORPORATION AND JOSEPH ANG, Petitioners, v. BAYOLO SALAMUDING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192896, July 24, 2013 - DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, GREG SERIEGO, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013 - JAIME JOVEN AND REYNALDO C. RASING, Ccomplainants, v. ATTYS. PABLO R. CRUZ AND FRANKIE O. MAGSALIN III, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188046, July 24, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN RUBBER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181163, July 24, 2013 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. (NOW CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013 - BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201728, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARVIN CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 160739, July 17, 2013 - ANITA MANGILA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ASST.CITY PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, AND NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR REYNALDO WYCOCO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORINO REYES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 157900, July 22, 2013 - ZUELLIG FREIGHT AND CARGO SYSTEMS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RONALDO V. SAN MIGUEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189343, July 10, 2013 - BENILDA N. BACASMAS, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 189369 - ALAN C. GAVIOLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.; G.R. NO. 189553 - EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 168951& 169000, July 17, 2013 - DR. ROGER R. POSADAS AND DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013 - GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, Petitioners, v. NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “JAY” LOPEZ, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH BARRA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 195528, July 04, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 162385, July 15, 2013 - SAMAR-MED DISTRIBUTION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND JOSAFAT GUTANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172504, July 31, 2013 - DONNA C. NAGTALON, Petitioner, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013 - MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN (IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED GABRIEL O. ESTEBAN), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RODRIGO C. MARCELO AND CARMEN T. MARCELO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALAMADA MACABANDO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 179326, July 31, 2013 - LUCIANO P. CAÑEDO,* Petitioner, v. KAMPILAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. AND RAMONCITO L. ARQUIZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013 - SALLY YOSHIZAKI, Petitioner, v. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2789 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3181-P), July 31, 2013 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, Complainant, v. DAMVIN V. FAMERO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, ROXAS, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165014, July 31, 2013 - HEIRS OF ALEJANDRA DELFIN, NAMELY: LEOPOLDO DELFIN (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, LUZ C. DELFIN, AND CHILDREN, LELANE C. DELFIN AND ANASTACIA C. DELFIN, MARCELITO DELFIN, FRANCISCO DELFIN, APOLLO DELFIN, ABRILES DELFIN, LYDIA D. DACULAN, OLIVIA D. CABALLERO, ALEJANDRO DELFIN, JULITO DELFIN, AND CANDIDO DELFIN, JR., Petitioners, v. AVELINA RABADON, PACIANO PANOGALING, HILARIA RABADON, PABLO BOQUILLA, CATALINA RABADON, PACIANO RABAYA, FE RABADON, GONZALO DABON, AND ROBERTO RABADON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013 - PHILMAN MARINE AGENCY, INC. (NOW DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC.) AND/OR DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ARMANDO S. CABANBAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013 - D. M. CONSUNJI CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROGELIO P. BELLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013 - GILFREDO BACOLOD, A.K.A. GILARDO BACOLOD, Accused-Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186610, July 29, 2013 - POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB, Petitioner, v. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013 - RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013 - ARNEL ALICANDO Y BRIONES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189570, July 31, 2013 - HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS, TEODORICO NISPEROS, RESTITUTA LARON, CARMELITA H. NISPEROS, VIRGILIO H. NISPEROS, CONCHITA H. NISPEROS, PURITA H. NISPEROS, PEPITO H. NISPEROS, REBECCA H. NISPEROS, ABRAHAM H. NISPEROS, IGNACIO F. NISPEROS, RODOLFO F. NISPEROS, RAYMUNDO F. NISPEROS, RENATO F. NISPEROS, FE N. MUNAR, BENITO F. NISPEROS, REYNALDO N. NISPEROS, MELBA N. JOSE, ELY N. GADIANO, REPRESENTED BY TEODORICO NISPEROS, Petitioners, v. MARISSA NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON, Accused-Appellant.

  • OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3589-RTJ, July 29, 2013 - KONRAD A. RUBIN AND CONRADO C. RUBIN, Complainants, v. JUDGE EVELYN CORPUS-CABOCHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 98, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191219, July 31, 2013 - SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY1 AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V. VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161211, July 17, 2013 - SPOUSES CELSO DICO, SR. AND ANGELES DICO, Petitioners, v. VIZCAYA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173226, July 29, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO, JR., JOSEPH L. GALLEGO AND CHRISTOPHER L. GALLEGO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013 - SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO, Petitioners, v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013 - AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON AND MARIA JENNIFER QUIAZON, Petitioners, v. MA. LOURDES BELEN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013 - OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, v. THE HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, REGISTRAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS, PASIG CITY, FRANCIS SERRANO, YVONNE S. YUCHENGCO, AND GEMA O. CHENG, Respondents.; G.R. No. 199115 - OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, v. POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 - MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165386, July 29, 2013 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SALVADOR AND NENITA CRUZ, SPOUSES EDMUNDO AND MERLA BARZAGA, SPOUSES CRISANTO AND JULIETA DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES LORENZO AND ROSALINA PALAGANAS, SPOUSES RICARDO AND LOLITA SAGUID, SPOUSES CARMELITA A-ND RESTITUTO ALCID, HIPOLITA NASALGA, CRISELDA AND 'REDENTOR REYES, ILUMINADA ALIPIO, REYNALDO ALIPIO, CORAZON PELAYO, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND FELICIDAD BOANGUTS, SPOUSES JOSELLTO AND CAROLINE MENDOZA, SPOUSES ERLINDA AND CELSO DE GUZMAN, SPOUSES MIGUEL AND VIRGINIA CASAS, SPOUSES ERLINDA AND CELSO DICCION, MA. RENITA MARIANO, VICTORIA ESPIRITU, SPOUSES VICTOR AND ROSARION SOTELO, RENATO GUIEB, DANIEL STA. MARIA, SPOUSES MELANIO AND SOTERIA TORRES, SPOUSES CIRIACO AND PERLITA BENDIJO, SPOUSES L.ILIA AND DOMINGO TORRES, PACITA TORRES AND GREGORIA.CASTILLO, SPOUSES HILARIO AND AMANDA DONIZA, SPOUSES JEREMIAS AND ISABEL GARCIA, SPOUSES EDUARDO AND MA. MARIN CALDERON, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND PELAGIA LUCAS, CORAZON ACOSTA, TERESITA LACSON AND JULIANA DE GUZMAN, PERLA REYES, SPOUSES ESMELITON AND REMEDIOS ESPIRITU, SPOUSES ROGELIO AND AURORA ABALON, DITAS GARCIA, TERESITA CAPATI, SPOUSES EFREN AND MERCEDES MARTIN, SPOUSES HIPOLITO AND ANTONIA STA. MARIA, DIONISIO AND ATANACIA DOMONDON, JAOQUIN AND MA. THERESA DELA ROSA, SPOUSES ROMULO AND NORMA DUCUSIN, GENOVEVA CRUZ AND A. BAUTISTA, PURITA SUNICO, SPOUSES MINERVA AND ROQUE NUALLA, AND SPOUSES GABINO, JR. AND CRISPINA ALIPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILSON ROMAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013 - SPOUSES JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NELLY SIAPNO­SANCHEZ and INOCENCIO BERMA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9906, July 29, 2013 - ATTY. LESTER R. NUIQUE, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO SEDILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013 - RHODORA PRIETO, Petitioner, v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184622, July 03, 2013 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC) AND PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. VICTOR AFRICA, ERLINDA I. BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, HONORIO POBLADOR III, VICTORIA C. DELOS REYES, JOHN BENEDICT SIOSON, AND JOHN/JANE DOES. Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 184712-14 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC) AND PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. HON. JENNY LIN ALDECOA-DELORINO, PAIRING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY-BRANCH 138, VICTOR AFRICA, PURPORTEDLY REPRESENTING PHILCOMSAT, AND JOHN/JANE DOES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186066 - PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CONCEPCION POBLADOR, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), REPRESENTED BY VICTOR AFRICA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186590 - PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Petitioner, v. PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182280, July 29, 2013 - TERESA C. AGUILAR, CESAR D. RAAGAS, VILLAMOR VILLEGAS, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MAKATI, Petitioners. v. MICHAEL J. O’PALLICK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE CANDELLADA, Accused-Appellant.