Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > March 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 190053, March 24, 2014 - NAVOTAS SHIPYARD CORPORATION and JESUS VILLAFLOR, Petitioners, v. INNOCENCIO MONT ALLANA, ALFREDO BAUTISTA, TEODORO JUDLOMAN, GUILLERMO BONGAS, ROGELIO BONGAS, DIOSDADO BUSANTE, EMILIANO BADU and ROSENDO SUBING-SUBING, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 190053, March 24, 2014 - NAVOTAS SHIPYARD CORPORATION and JESUS VILLAFLOR, Petitioners, v. INNOCENCIO MONT ALLANA, ALFREDO BAUTISTA, TEODORO JUDLOMAN, GUILLERMO BONGAS, ROGELIO BONGAS, DIOSDADO BUSANTE, EMILIANO BADU and ROSENDO SUBING-SUBING, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 190053, March 24, 2014

NAVOTAS SHIPYARD CORPORATION and JESUS VILLAFLOR, Petitioners, v. INNOCENCIO MONT ALLANA, ALFREDO BAUTISTA, TEODORO JUDLOMAN, GUILLERMO BONGAS, ROGELIO BONGAS, DIOSDADO BUSANTE, EMILIANO BADU and ROSENDO SUBING-SUBING, Respondents.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 that challenges the decision2 dated July 20, 2009 and the resolution3 dated October 7, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 96078.

The Antecedents

The case arose when respondents Innocencio Montallana, Alfredo Bautista, Teodoro Judloman, Guillermo Bongas, Rogelio Bongas, Diosdado Busante, Emiliano Badu and Rosendo Subing-Subing filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal, with money claims, against the petitioners, Navotas Shipyard Corporation (company) and its President/General Manager, Jesus Villaflor.

The respondents alleged that on October 20, 2003, the company’s employees (about 100) were called to a meeting where Villaflor told them: “Magsasara na ako ng negosyo, babayaran ko na lang kayo ng separation pay dahil wala na akong pangsweldo sa inyo. Marami akong mga utang sa krudo, yelo, at iba pa.”4 Since then, they were not allowed to report for work but Villaflor’s promise to give them separation pay never materialized despite their persistent demands and follow-ups.

The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that due to the “seasonal lack of fish caught and uncollected receivables[,]”5 the company suffered financial reverses. It was thus constrained to temporarily cease operations. They projected that the company could resume operations before the end of six months or on April 22, 2004. It reported the temporary shutdown to the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) and filed an Establishment Termination Report.

The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings

In a decision6 dated September 13, 2004, Labor Arbiter (LA) Geobel A. Bartolabac dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but awarded the respondents 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the year 2003 in the aggregate amount of P62,534.00. LA Bartolabac ruled that the respondents could not have been illegally dismissed. He declared that the “Notice of Temporary Closure filed before the DOLE belies complainants’ unsubstantiated allegation that they were informed in a meeting on 20 October 2003 x x x that [their] services were terminated.”7 He considered the temporary shutdown as a suspension of the employment relationship between the parties.

The respondents appealed the LA’s ruling. They argued before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that since they were not given work assignments for more than six months, they should have been considered constructively dismissed and granted backwages as well as separation pay. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed LA Bartolabac’s decision in toto.8 It also denied the respondents’ subsequent motion for reconsideration.9 The respondents sought relief from the CA by way of a petition for certiorari, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of their complaint.

The CA Proceedings

Before the CA, the respondents maintained that the company’s closure was intended to be permanent, as evidenced by Villaflor’s statement during the meeting on October 20, 2003 that he was closing the company and that they would be given separation pay. In such a case, they argued that they should have been given individual notices thirty days before the intended closure; in the absence of this notice, they should be considered illegally dismissed.

The CA found merit in the respondents’ submission that the company’s shutdown was not temporary, but permanent. While it acknowledged that initially, the shutdown was only temporary, it “has ripened into a closure or cessation of operations”10 after it exceeded the six months allowable period under Article 286 of the Labor Code in the manner this Court declared in Mayan Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana.11 It thus became a dismissal, it pointed out that, by operation of law, when the petitioners failed to reinstate the respondents after the lapse of six months. It noted that “during the proceedings [before] the LA covering a period in excess of six months, there is no showing on record that notices to return to work were given to the petitioners or that operations have resumed.”12cralawlawlibrary

The CA declared that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding LA Bartolabac’s ruling that no illegal dismissal took place as the LA disregarded the obtaining facts and the applicable provisions of law. It set aside the challenged NLRC decision and granted the respondents’ claims for service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay and backwages.

The Petition

The petitioners seek relief from this Court through the present Rule 45 appeal on the ground that the CA committed a reversible error of law when it awarded separation pay and backwages notwithstanding the closure of the company’s business operations. They argue that under the circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to backwages, pursuant to Article 283 of the Labor Code. They maintain that although they “suffered business losses that led to the disposition of their fishing vessels in order to pay their debts, diesel, salaries and others, they gave the separation pays of their employees.”13cralawlawlibrary

The Respondents’ Position

In their Comment filed on March 4, 2010,14 the respondents ask the Court to dismiss the petition considering that the issues raised by the petitioners had been squarely ruled upon by the CA. They stress that the CA committed no error in its appreciation of the established facts, as well as the application of the pertinent law and jurisprudence in the case.

The Court’s Ruling

We find the petition partially meritorious.

It appears from the records that the company was compelled to shutdown its operations due to serious business reverses during the period material to the case. It also appears that the petitioners initially intended the shutdown to be temporary as it expected to resume operations before the expiration of six months or on April 22, 2004, as the CA noted.15 The company reported the shutdown to the DOLE-NCR and filed an Establishment Termination Report which contained the names of the employees to be affected.16cralawlawlibrary

Before the lapse of the six-month period, the respondents filed a constructive dismissal case, rationalizing that they had to do so because the shutdown was merely a company ploy to remove them from the service. They were allegedly not notified to report back for work before the expiration of the six-month period; neither was there any notice of resumption of operations during the pendency of the case before the LA. The challenged CA rulings supported the respondents’ position.

The applicable law

To place the case in perspective, we first examine the applicable law in view of the disagreement between the petitioners and the respondents in that respect. According to the CA, the “[p]etitioners anchor their arguments mainly on Article 283 of the Labor Code, stating that private respondents resorted to retrenchment and permanent closure of business, while private respondents maintain that what is applicable is Article 286 x x x as the closure of business was merely temporary.”17 Articles 283 and 286 of the Labor Code provide:cralawlawlibrary

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

ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. - The bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.18cralawlawlibrary

As we earlier stated, the petitioners undertook a temporary shutdown. In fact, the company notified the DOLE of the shutdown and filed an Establishment Termination Report containing the names of the affected employees.19 The petitioners expected the company to recover before the end of the six-month shutdown period, but unfortunately, no recovery took place. Thus, the shutdown became permanent. According to the petitioners, they gave the company’s employees their separation pay.

We disagree with the company’s position that it resorted to a retrenchment under Article 283 of the Labor Code; it was a temporary shutdown under Article 286 where the employees are considered on floating status or whose employment is temporarily suspended. Citing Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission,20 the CA was correct when it said that “[t]here is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary retrenchment or lay-off.”21cralawlawlibrary

Were the respondents illegally dismissed and entitled to the CA award?

1. The illegal dismissal ruling

Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the company’s employees were illegally dismissed; rather, they lost their employment because the company ceased operations after failing to recover from their financial reverses. The CA itself recognized what happened to the company when it observed: “The temporary shutdown has ripened into a closure or cessation of operations. In this situation[,] private respondents are definitely entitled to the corresponding benefits of separation.”22 Even the respondents had an inkling of the company’s fate when they claimed before the LA that on October 20, 2003, they were called, together with all the other employees of the company, by Villaflor; the latter allegedly told them that he would be closing the company, but would give them their separation pay. He also disclosed to them the reason - he could no longer pay their salaries due to the company’s unsettled financial obligations on fuel and ice and other indebtedness.23cralawlawlibrary

The respondents’ verbal account of what happened during the meeting, particularly the company’s imminent closure, to our mind, confirmed the company’s dire situation. The temporary shutdown, it appears, was a last ditch effort on the part of Villaflor to make the company’s operations viable but, as it turned out, the effort proved futile. The shutdown became permanent as the CA itself acknowledged. The CA misappreciated the facts when it opined that the respondents were illegally dismissed because they were not reinstated by the petitioners after the lapse of the company’s temporary shutdown. It lost sight of the fact that the company did not resume operations anymore, a situation the CA itself recognized. The respondents, therefore, had no more jobs to go back to; hence, their non-reinstatement.

In these lights, the CA was not only incorrect from the point of law; it likewise disregarded, or at the very least, grossly misappreciated the evidence on record - that the petitioner was in distress and had temporarily suspended its operations, and duly reflected these circumstances to the DOLE. From this perspective, there was no grave abuse of discretion to justify the CA’s reversal of the NLRC’s findings and conclusions.

2. The award of backwages/nominal damages

Since there was no illegal dismissal, the respondents are not entitled to backwages. The term “backwages” presupposes illegal termination of employment. It is restitution of earnings unduly withheld from the employee because of illegal termination. Hence, where there is no illegal termination, there is no basis for claim or award ofbackwages.24cralawlawlibrary

The lack of basis for backwages notwithstanding, we note that the respondents claimed that they were not given individual written notices of the company’s temporary shutdown or of its closure. The records support the respondents’ position. Other than the Establishment Termination Report25 submitted by the company to the DOLE-NCR when it temporarily shut down its operations and which included the respondents’ names, there is no evidence (other than the petitioner’s informal talk with its employees, which did not strictly comply with the legal requirement) that they were served individual written notices at least thirty (30) days before the effectivity of the termination, as required under Section l(iii), Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.26Pursuant to existing jurisprudence, if the dismissal is by virtue of a just or authorized cause, but without due process, the dismissed workers are entitled to an indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

In the present case, the evidence on hand substantially shows that the company closed down due to serious business reverses, an authorized cause for termination of employment. The failure to notify the respondents in writing of the closure of the company will not invalidate the termination of their employment, but the company has to pay them nominal damages for the violation of their right to procedural due process. This amount is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances, as the Court explained in Agabon v. NLRC.27 In Agabon, the dismissed employees abandoned their jobs, a just cause for termination of employment. They were dismissed without notice and hearing. The Court awarded them P30,000.00 in nominal damages.

In Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot,28 the Court made a distinction between “just” and “authorized” cause in relation to the award of nominal damages. Thus, the Court said: “if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative.” The Court awarded P50,000.00 nominal damages in Jaka.

Further, in Industrial Timber Corp. v. Ababon,29 the Court emphasized that in the determination of the amount of nominal damages, “several factors are taken into account: (1) the authorized cause invoked - whether it was a retrenchment or a closure or cessation of operation of the establishment due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise; (2) the number of employees to be awarded; (3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards, taking into account their prevailing financial status as borne by the records; (4) the employer’s grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees; and (5) whether there was a bona fide attempt to comply with the notice requirements as opposed to giving no notice at all.” In this cited case, the Court, in considering the circumstances obtaining in the case, deemed it wise and just to reduce the amount of nominal damages to be awarded to each employee, to P10,000.00 instead of P50,000.00 each.30 Thus, the Court said:cralawlawlibrary

In the case at bar, there was valid authorized cause considering the closure or cessation of ITC’s business which was done in good faith and due to circumstances beyond ITC’s control. Moreover, ITC had ceased to generate any income since its closure on August 17, 1990. Several months prior to the closure, ITC experienced diminished income due to high production costs, erratic supply of raw materials, depressed prices, and poor market conditions for its wood products. It appears that ITC had given its employees all benefits in accord with the CBA upon their termination.31cralawlawlibrary

In the present case, there is no question that the company failed to resume operations anymore as it had been saddled with serious financial obligations due to unpaid debts for diesel fuel and ice and other indebtedness, and because of this it had to dispose of its fishing vessels. The respondents themselves were aware of the company’s heavy financial burden since Villaflor told them about it at the meeting on October 20, 2003. Then there was Villaflor’s undertaking to give them separation pay of which he also told them. Although the respondents were not individually served written notice of the termination of their employment, the company, nonetheless, filed an Establishment Termination Report which included the names of the respondents. The filing of the report indicates that the company made the bona fide effort to comply with the notice requirement under the law and the rules. Given the circumstances surrounding the company’s closure and guided by the ruling in Industrial Timber, we find it reasonable to award the respondents P10,000.00 in nominal damages.

3. The award of separation pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay

Under Article 283 of the Labor Code quoted earlier, the employer may terminate the employment of any employee due to, among other causes, the closure or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking. In such an eventuality, the employee mayor may not be entitled to separation pay. On this point, Article 283 provides: in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. whichever is his/her. A fraction of least six months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

Considering that the company’s closure was due to serious financial reverses, it is not legally bound to give the separated employees separation pay. In Reahs Corporation v. NLRC,32 the Court explained that “[t]he grant of separation pay, as an incidence of termination of employment under Article 283, is a statutory obligation on the part of the employer and a demandable right on the part of the employee, except only where the closure or cessation of operations was due to serious business losses or financial reverses and there is sufficient proof of this fact or condition.”33cralawlawlibrary

We note, however, that in his meeting with the employees, including the respondents, on October 20, 2003, Villaflor told them that he would be giving them separation pay as a consequence of the company’s closure. He should now honor his undertaking to the respondents and grant them separation pay. Except for the petitioners’ claim that “they gave the separation pays of their employees,”34 they failed to present proof of actual payment. In this light, Villaflor’s grant of separation pay to the respondents has still to be fulfilled.

Finally, the petitioners did not appeal the LA’s award of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for the year 2003 to the respondents. Accordingly, the award stands.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED IN PART. Petitioners Navotas Shipyard Corporation and Jesus Villaflor are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondents Innocencio Montallana, Alfredo Bautista, Teodoro Judloman, Guillermo Bongas, Rogelio Bongas, Diosdado Busante, Emiliano Badu and Rosendo Subing-Subing nominal damages of P10,000.00 each, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay for the year 2003, based on the labor arbiter’s computation, and separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year. The award of backwages is SET ASIDE. Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the labor arbiter for enforcement of this DECISION.

Except as above modified, the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CARPIO, J, Chairperson, BRION, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, and REYES*, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


*  Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. per Special Order No. 1650 dated March 13.2014.

1 Rollo, pp. 11-21; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Id. at 97-113; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.

3 Id. at 122-123.

4  Id. at 29.

5  Id. at 33.

6 Id.atI25-131.

7 Id. at 129.

8 Id.atI32-138.

9 Id. at 94-95.

10 Supra note 2, at 110.

11 497 Phil. 892, 916 (2005).

12 Supra note 2, at 110.

13 Supra note 1, at 16-17.

14 Rollo, pp. 145-149.

15 Supra note 2, at 99.

16 Rollo, pp. 59-60.

17 Supra note 2, at 106-107.

18 Italics supplied.

19 Supra note 16.

20 G.R. No. 115394, September 27, 1995, 248 SCRA 532.

21 Supra note 2, at 109.

22 Id. at 110.

23 Id. at 98.

24 C.A, Azucena, Jr., The LABOR CODE With Comments and Cases, Volume II, Sixth Edition, 2007, p. 827, citing Industrial Timber Corporation-Stanply Operations v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 754, 759 (1996).

25 Supra note 16.

26For termination of employment as defined in Article 283 of the Labor Code, the requirement of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service of a written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment at least thirty days before the effectivity of the termination, specifying the ground or grounds for the termination.

27 485 Phil. 248, 288 (2004).

28 494 Phil. 114, 121 (2005).

29 520 Phil. 522, 527-528 (2006); italics supplied.

30 Id. at 528.

31 Ibid.

32 337 Phil. 698, 705 (1997).

33 Emphasis ours.

34 Supra note 1, at 17.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-2014 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 189434, March 12, 2014 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT.; G.R. NO. 189505 - IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014 - ENRIQUE ALMERO Y ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIRASOL BARTOLOME, CLARITA P. MATIAS, ROSENDO P. MATIAS, AND ANTONIO P. MATIAS, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-13-1838 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI NO. 10-2260-MTJ], March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO, Complainants, v. JUDGE RAMSEY DOMINGO G. PICHAY, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 78, PARAÑAQUE CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184371, March 05, 2014 - SPOUSES MARIO AND JULIA CAMPOS, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014 - SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA AND ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190837, March 05, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS (NOW FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION), Petitioner, v. DRUGMAKER’S LABORATORIES, INC. AND TERRAMEDIC, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-12-3070 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3327-P], March 11, 2014 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, v. NENITA C. LONGOS, CLERK II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, DEL CARMEN-NUMANCIA-SAN ISIDRO-SAN BENITO, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. ­10164, March 10, 2014 - STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, Complainants, v. ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014 - LICERIO DIZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014 - PEDRO LUKANG, Petitioner, v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y BAUTISTA, Appellant.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3625-RTJ], March 05, 2014 - MA. LIZA M. JORDA, CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, TACLOBAN CITY, Complainant, v. JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, RESPONDENT.; A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2377 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3645-RTJ] - PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014 - ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VICENTE A. PICHON, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193684, March 05, 2014 - ONE NETWORK RURAL BANK, INC.,* Petitioner, v. DANILO G. BARIC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180134, March 05, 2014 - RAFAEL VALES, CECILIA VALES-VASQUEZ, AND YASMIN VALES-JACINTO, Petitioners, v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO, ERNESTO CHORESCA, TEOFILO AMADO, LORNA PARIAN MEDIANERO, REBECCA PORCAL, AND VIVENCIO ORDOYO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180069, March 05, 2014 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.), Petitioner, v. ARTURO P. FRANCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MAURICIA P. FRANCO, FLORIBEL P. FRANCO, AND ALEXANDER P. FRANCO,1 Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208660, March 05, 2014 - PEÑAFRANCIA SUGAR MILL, INC., Petitioner, v. SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193047, March 03, 2014 - FIL-PRIDE SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., CAPTAIN NICOLAS T. DOLLOLASA AND OCEAN EAGLE SHIPMANAGEMENT COMPANY, PTE. LTD., Petitioners, v. EDGAR A. BALASTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171496, March 03, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182399, March 12, 2014 - CS GARMENT, INC.,* Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176055, March 17, 2014 - SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ AND AMELIA CONCIO-DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RUFINO R. CAPCO AND MARTY1 C. CAPCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHERWIN BIS Y AVELLANEDA, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9896, March 19, 2014 - MA. ELENA CARLOS NEBREJA, Petitioner, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN REONAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014 - SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA, NAMELY: EPIFANIA G. BAUTISTA AND ZOEY G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO LINDO AND WELHILMINA LINDO; AND HEIRS OF FILIPINA DAQUIGAN, NAMELY: MA. LOURDES DAQUIGAN, IMELDA CATHERINE DAQUIGAN, IMELDA DAQUIGAN AND CORSINO DAQUIGAN, REBECCA QUIAMCO AND ANDRES QUIAMCO, ROMULO LORICA AND DELIA LORICA, GEORGE CAJES AND LAURA CAJES, MELIDA BAÑEZ AND FRANCISCO BAÑEZ, MELANIE GOFREDO, GERVACIO CAJES AND ISABEL CAJES, EGMEDIO SEGOVIA AND VERGINIA SEGOVIA, ELSA N. SAM, PEDRO M. SAM AND LINA SAM, SANTIAGO MENDEZ AND MINA MENDEZ, HELEN M. BURTON AND LEONARDO BURTON, JOSE JACINTO AND BIENVENIDA JACINTO, IMELDA DAQUIGAN, LEO MATIGA AND ALICIA MATIGA, FLORENCIO ACEDO JR., AND LYLA VALERIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172909, March 05, 2014 - SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA, Petitioners, v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON GOLOSENO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014 - WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY- PHILIPPINES FACULTY AND STAFF ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUILLERMO B. CADANO, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188539, March 12, 2014 - MARIANO LIM, Petitioner, v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION,* Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190724, March 12, 2014 - DIAMOND TAXI AND/OR BRYAN ONG, Petitioners, v. FELIPE LLAMAS, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183034, March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES FERNANDO AND MA. ELENA SANTOS, Petitioners, v. LOLITA ALCAZAR, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT DELFIN CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO VENTURA, SR., Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201234, March 17, 2014 - HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA, NAMELY: ELESEO A. ZAULDA AND RODOLFO A. ZAULDA, Petitioners, v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014 - MARYLOU CABRERA, Petitioner, v. FELIX NG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195872, March 12, 2014 - FORTUNE MEDICARE, INC., Petitioner, v. DAVID ROBERT U. AMORIN, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014 - NESTOR B. FIGUERAS AND BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR., Complainants, v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. NOEL ENOJAS Y HINGPIT, ARNOLD GOMEZ Y FABREGAS, FERNANDO SANTOS Y DELANTAR, AND ROGER JALANDONI Y ARI, Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014 - SPOUSES JOSE M. ESTACION, JR. and ANGELINA T. ESTACION, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR, REGION 7, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR, GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL, PRESIDENT, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DUMAGUETE BRANCH, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192100, March 12, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH)1, Petitioner, v. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186621, March 12, 2014 - SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. AND/OR ESTANISLAO1 AGBAY, Petitioners, v. JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. HERMANOS CONSTANTINO, JR. Y BINAYUG, A.K.A. “JOJIT,” Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191455, March 12, 2014 - DREAMLAND HOTEL RESORT AND WESTLEY J. PRENTICE, PRESIDENT, Petitioners, v. STEPHEN B. JOHNSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HENRY T. GO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ–08–2151, March 11, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE EDWIN C. LARIDA, JR., RTC, BRANCH 18, TAGAYTAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 163767, March 10, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN I. COROMINA (SUBSTITUTED BY ANITA COROMINA, ELIZABETH COROMINA AND ROSIEMARIE COROMINA), VICENTE E. GARCIA (SUBSTITUTED BY EDGAR JOHN GARCIA), FELIPE CONSTANTINO, RONALD ARCILLA, NORBETO ABELLANA, DEMETRIO BALICHA, ANGELITA LHUILLIER, JOSE E. GARCIA, AND VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY (VECO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 164408, March 24, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ZURBARAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200468, March 19, 2014 - MACARIA ARGUELLES AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETRONIO ARGUELLES, Petitioners, v. MALARAYAT RURAL BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201643, March 12, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. JOSE T. CAPULONG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192717, March 12, 2014 - MINDA S. GAERLAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014 - DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–12–3055 (O.C.A. IPI No. 10–3509–P), March 26, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHNI GLENN D. RUNES,1 Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7961, March 19, 2014 - ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALICIA A. RISOS–VIDAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY OBOGNE, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199146, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCDO, NAMELY, RITA POCDO GASIC, GOLIC POCDO, MARCELA POCDO ALFELOR, KENNETH POCDO, NIXON CADOS, JACQUELINE CADOS LEE, EFLYN CADOS, AND GIRLIE CADOS DAPLIN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY–IN–FACT JOHN POCDO, Petitioners, v. ARSENIA AVILA AND EMELINDA CHUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014 - RAUL V. ARAMBULO AND TERESITA A. DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. GENARO NOLASCO AND JEREMY SPENCER NOLASCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 162063, March 31, 2014 - LEONORA A. PASCUAL, REPRESENTED BY FLOREBHEE N. AGCAOILI, ATTORNEY–IN–FACT, Petitioner, v. JOSEFINO L. DAQUIOAG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CENRO OF BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; EMILIO R. D. DOLOROSO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, DENR, CENRO–BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; ALBERTO B. BAGUIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPECIAL LAND INVESTIGATOR; RENATO C. TUMAMAO AND NILO C. CERALDE, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CARTOGRAPHERS/DPLIS, CENRO–BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE; AND CATALINA ALMAZAN–VILLAMOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193768, March 05, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191727, March 31, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO AND JACKSON DANGLAY Y BOTIL, ACCUSED, MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 189176, March 19, 2014 - BARRY LANIER AND PERLITA LANIER, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181055, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF TERESITA MONTOYA, REPRESENTED BY JOEL MONTOYA, HEIRS OF PATRICIO OCAMPO, REPRESENTED BY VIOLETA OCAMPO, AND BARTOLOME OCAMPO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, DORITA GONZALES AND ERNESTO GONZALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AND AS ATTORNEY–IN–FACT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 177493, March 19, 2014 - ERIC GODFREY STANLEY LIVESEY, Petitioner, v. BINSWANGER PHILIPPINES, INC. AND KEITH ELLIOT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014 - BJDC CONSTRUCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR JANET S. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NENA E. LANUZO, CLAUDETTE E. LANUZO, JANET E. LANUZO, JOAN BERNABE E. LANUZO, AND RYAN JOSE E. LANUZO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187944, March 12, 2014 - CARMENCITA SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY, JR. AND MARILOU P. EMBOY–DELANTAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193628, March 19, 2014 - SPLASH PHILIPPINES, INC., LORENZO ESTRADA, TAIYO SANGYO TRADING AND MARINE SERVICE, LTD. (TST PANAMA S.A.) AND M/V HARUTAMOU, Petitioners, v. RONULFO G. RUIZO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195031, March 26, 2014 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. CELESTE M. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197204, March 26, 2014 - DANILO O. GARCIA AND JOVEN SD. BRIZUELA, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196142, March 26, 2014 - VENUS B. CASTILLO, LEAH J. EVANGELISTA, DITAS M. DOLENDO, DAWN KAREN S. SY AND PRUDENTIAL PLANS, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION – FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (PPEU–FFW), Petitioners, v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS, INC., AND/OR JOSE ALBERTO T. ALBA, ATTY. CEFERINO A. PATIÑO, JR., AND ROSEMARIE DE LEMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014 - TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TESDA), Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., AND COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193494, March 07, 2014 - LUI ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195542, March 19, 2014 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. OUDINE SANTOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 154390, March 17, 2014 - METROPOLITAN FABRICS, INC. AND ENRIQUE ANG, Petitioners, v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC., DOMINGO ANG AND CALEB ANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193107, March 24, 2014 - SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC. AND JANETTE G. LAGAZO, Petitioners, v. LARRY S. LABRADOR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5329, March 18, 2014 - HEINZ R. HECK, Complainant, v. CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10179 (Formerly CBD 11–2985), March 04, 2014 - BENJAMIN Q. ONG, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188828, March 05, 2014 - CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., TANAWAN PORT SERVICES, EFREN CO SAY AND YVETTE SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR, MARVIN A. BALTASAR, RAYMUNDO A. BOTALON, NILO B. BORDEOS, JR., CARLO B. BOTALON AND GERONIMO B. BAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 150326, March 12, 2014 - THE NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (NWPC) AND THE REGIONAL TRIPARTITE WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY BOARD (RTWPB)– NCR, Petitioners, v. THE ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR (APL) AND THE TUNAY NA NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA ROYAL (TNMR–APL),Respondents.

  • OCA IPI No. 12–204–CA–J, March 11, 2014 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO.

  • G.R. No. 158916, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. Nos. 197942–43, 199528, March 26, 2014 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS AND RESORTS, INC., EASTBAY RESORTS, INC., AND HON. CICERO JURADO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 11, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 157485, March 26, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY AKLAN NATIONAL COLLEGE OF FISHERIES (ANCF) AND DR. ELENITA R. ANDRADE, IN HER CAPACITY AS ANCF SUPERINTENDENT, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN, NAMELY: SALVACION L. SIN, ROSARIO S. ENRIQUEZ, FRANCISCO L. SIN, MARIA S. YUCHINTAT, MANUEL L. SIN, JAIME CARDINAL SIN, RAMON L. SIN, AND CEFERINA S. VITA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171482, March 12, 2014 - ASHMOR M. TESORO, PEDRO ANG AND GREGORIO SHARP, Petitioners, v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS, INC. (BANDAG) AND/OR NORTHERN LUZON RETREADERS, INC. (BANDAG) AND/OR POWER TIRE AND RUBBER CORP. (BANDAG), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014 - REVELINA LIMSON, Petitioner, v. EUGENIO JUAN GONZALEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–12–3074 (Formerly A.M. No. 12–6–48–MCTC), March 17, 2014 - THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLARITA R. PEREZ, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN TEODORO–BACO–PUERTO GALERA, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P–09–2648 (formerly A.M. No. 09–4–181–RTC), March 26, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA, CLERK OF COURT V; AND MS. JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, CLERK III, BOTH OF THE RTC, BR. 38, ILOILO CITY, Respondents.; A.M. No. P–13–3174 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09–3128–P) - ATTY. REX G. RICO, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT V LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA AND CLERK III JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 3405, March 18, 2014 - JULIETA B. NARAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 07–9–454–RTC, March 18, 2014 - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH20,CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL.; A.M. No. 05–2–108–RTC - REQUEST OF JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH20, CAGAYANDE ORO CITY, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 92–1935 & 26 OTHERS.

  • G.R. No. 193516, March 24, 2014 - VILMA MACEDONIO, Petitioner, v. CATALINA RAMO, YOLANDA S. MARQUEZ, SPOUSES ROEL AND OPHELIA PEDRO, SPOUSES JOEFFRY AND ELIZA BALANAG, AND BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201663, March 31, 2014 - EMMANUEL M. OLORES, Petitioner, v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE AND/OR TERESITA O. TURLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196894, March 03, 2014 - JESUS G. CRISOLOGO AND NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, Petitioners, v. JEWM AGRO–INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ–13–1823, March 19, 2014 - P/SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA, Complainant, v. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, LAOAG CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201732, March 26, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JESUS BURCE, Accused–Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199687, March 24, 2014 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, INC., Respondents.; G.R. No. 201537 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, PACIFIC CONCORDE CORPORATION, MIZPAH HOLDINGS, INC., FORUM HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND EAST ASIA OIL COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, v. EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179408, March 05, 2014 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ AND VERNON R. RAZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190053, March 24, 2014 - NAVOTAS SHIPYARD CORPORATION and JESUS VILLAFLOR, Petitioners, v. INNOCENCIO MONT ALLANA, ALFREDO BAUTISTA, TEODORO JUDLOMAN, GUILLERMO BONGAS, ROGELIO BONGAS, DIOSDADO BUSANTE, EMILIANO BADU and ROSENDO SUBING-SUBING, Respondents.