Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > February 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016

GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (petitioner) seeking the reversal of the decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 10, 2007, and its resolution3 dated February 18, 2008, in CA-G.R. SP No. 92543. The CA held that the respondent National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order (CDO) and the motion for reconsideration that followed.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Antecedents

On April 23, 2003, the petitioner filed a complaint before the NTC against respondents Central CATV, Inc. (Skycable), Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. (Home Cable), and Pilipino Cable Corporation (PCC)4 The petitioner alleged that the respondents had entered into several transactions that created prohibited monopolies and combinations of trade in commercial mass media.5 These transactions allegedly violated the Constitution, Executive Order No. 205 dated June 30, 1987,6 and its implementing rules and regulations.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

According to the petitioner, Lopez, Inc. and its affiliate, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and its officers, own the majority stocks of Sky Vision Corporation (Sky Vision). Sky Vision wholly owns Skycable, which operates cable TV in Metro Manila.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sky Vision and Telemondial Holdings, Inc. (THI) established PCC, which operates cable TV in the provinces. Sky Vision and THI entered into several transactions, resulting in Sky Vision's ownership of PCC.9 Consequently, Sky Vision holds indirect equity interests in the cable companies owned by Skycable and PCC.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On the other hand, Home Cable is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilink Communications Corporation (Unilink). Home Cable is authorized to operate cable TV in Metro Manila, which authority was expanded to Cavite, Cebu, Tarlac, and Batangas.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On July 18, 2001, Lopez, Inc. and its affiliates, Benpres Holdings Corporation and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (Benpres Group), executed a Master Consolidation Agreement (MCA) with PLDT and Mediaquest Holdings, Inc. (PLDT Group) to consolidate their respective ownerships, rights, and interests in Sky Vision and Unilink under a holding company, Beyond Cable Holdings, Inc.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in its complaint:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) declaring unlawful, and therefore null and void: (a) the mergers, consolidation, and common control of the respondents Skycable and Home Cable under Beyond Cable; (b) the mergers and consolidation of the cable companies under respondents PCC; (c) the acquisition of the assets, permits and controlling shares of stock of the cable companies by the respondents Sky Cable, Home Cable and PCC; and (d) the "functional convergence" of the Bayantel and the Skycable/PCC cable companies, for being contrary to law; and consequently, ordering the respondents to cease and desist permanently from implementing such mergers, consolidation, common control and functional convergence; and

(2) Ordering respondents and their component cable companies to maintain the quality of complainant GMA's signal, free from signal distortion and/or degradation, in their respective systems under pain of cancellation or revocation of their licenses or permits to operate should they continue to fail to do so;13 (Emphasis supplied)
On September 22, 2003, the petitioner filed with the NTC a motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order based on Section 20(g) of the Public Service Law. The petitioner asked the NTC to order the respondents to cease and desist from continuing the implementation of their operational merger and from implementing any further merger or consolidation of respondents' ownership, property, privileges, and right or any part thereof without the approval of the NTC.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On November 11, 2003, the petitioner filed a Manifestation (Re: Motion for Issuance of Cease and Desist Order), citing news articles allegedly confirming that further steps had been undertaken toward the consolidation.15 The petitioner also filed several motions for the urgent resolution of its motion for the issuance of a cease,and desist order.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The NTC's Ruling

The NTC denied the petitioner's motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order.17 The NTC ruled that the resolution of this motion would necessarily resolve the main case without the parties' presentation of evidence.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The NTC also denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the NTC.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The CA's Ruling

The CA dismissed the petition and found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NTC.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA ruled that the NTC has the discretionary power to issue a cease and desist order and, therefore, cannot be compelled to do so.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA further held that the petitioner's complaint and motion both included a prayer for the issuance of a cease and desist order. The resolution of this prayer necessitates the parties' presentation of evidence.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA did not rule on the constitutional and legal issues of the respondents' alleged mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, and corporate combinations. According to the CA, the NTC is the proper body that can act on the petitioner's factual allegations of market control and manipulation because the NTC has the presumed understanding of the market and commercial conditions of the broadcasting industry.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration,24 prompting the petitioner to file the present petition.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Petitioner's Position

The petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NTC when it denied the motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order.

According to the petitioner, the NTC abandoned its duty to issue a cease and desist order despite the petitioner's overwhelming and unrefuted evidence that Skycable, PCC, and Home Cable had already consolidated their operations under the MCA without the prior approval of the NTC and the Congress.25cralawred

The petitioner concludes that the NTC should have issued the cease and desist order to prevent the implementation of the alleged consolidation. The order would stop the continuing violation of the Constitution, the laws,26 Home Cable's certificate of authority, and established jurisprudence.27 The cease and desist order would also prevent the main case from becoming moot and academic.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Private Respondents' Position

Skycable and PCC

Skycable and PCC argued as follows:

First, the petitioner delved into the merits of the case instead of establishing the alleged grave of abuse of discretion of the NTC. The petitioner is asking the Court not only to make factual findings but to pre­empt the decision of the NTC without the benefit of a trial.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Second, no merger has taken place under the MCA because Beyond Cable has not actually taken over the operations of Sky Cable, PCC, and Home Cable.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Third, the petitioner has not shown any right that may have been violated. Section 20(g) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 or the Public Service Act expressly allows the negotiation or completion of merger and consolidation prior to the NTC's approval.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Fourth, Skycable did not violate its congressional franchise since Skycable did not relinquish its franchise and had maintained its separate and distinct legal personality.32chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Fifth, competition still exists in the cable industry in the areas covered by the Skycable and PCC operations.33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Home Cable

Home Cable echoed the arguments of PCC and Sky Cable.34chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Home Cable also argued that the petition is dismissible as it lacks the following mandatory procedural requirements: (a) signature page bearing the signature of the petitioner's duly authorized counsel; (b) verification signed by the petitioner's duly authorized representative; (c) certificate of non-forum shopping; and (d) the petitioner's written authorization in favor of the person signing the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.35chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Court's Ruling

The main issue in the present petition involves the NTC's denial of the motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order. The present case does not involve the petitioner's main complaint before the NTC.

Preliminarily, we deny the procedural arguments of Home Cable. We note that the petitioner had attached in its petition the signature page of its counsel,36 the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by Dick B. Perez,37 and the Secretary's Certificate authorizing Dick B. Perez to file the petition.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As to the main issue in the present case, we rule that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion for its use of the wrong considerations in denying the petitioner's motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order on the ground that its resolution would resolve the main case without trial. We nevertheless join the CA's conclusion of denial based on the nature of the petitioner's motion as a provisional remedy.

Section 3, Part VI of the NTC Rules of Procedure and Practices grants the NTC the power to issue provisional reliefs upon the filing of a complaint or at any subsequent stage. For this reason, the NTC has the authority to determine the propriety of the issuance of a cease and desist order, which is a provisional relief.39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Provisional reliefs or remedies are writs and processes that are available during the pendency of the action.40 A litigant may avail of provisional remedies to preserve and protect certain rights and interests pending the issuance of the final judgment in the case.41 These remedies are provisional because they are temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action; they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent on the result of the main action.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The ancillary nature of provisional remedies means that they are adjunct to the main suit.43 Consequently, it is not uncommon that the issues in the main action are closely intertwined, if not identical, to the allegations and counter-allegations of the opposing parties in support of their contrary positions concerning the propriety or impropriety of the provisional relief.44chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The distinguishing factor between the resolution of the provisional remedy and the main case lies in the temporary character of the ruling on the provisional relief, thus, the term "provisional."45The resolution of the provisional remedy, however, should be confined to the necessary issues attendant to its resolution without delving into the merits of the main case.46chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In other words, although a resolution of a motion for the issuance of a provisional relief necessarily involves issues intertwined with the main action, this reality is not a legal obstacle to the authorized agency's resolution of a prayer for a provisional relief on a temporary basis pending the resolution of the main case.

In fact, Section 3, Part VI of the NTC Rules of Procedure and Practices provides that the NTC may grant the provisional relief, on its own initiative or upon a party's motion, based on the pleading and the attached affidavits and supporting documents, without prejudice to a final decision after completion of the hearing.

In these lights, we reverse the CA's findings and rule that the NTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order based only on the ground that it would necessarily resolve the main action.

Be that as it may, we cannot grant the petitioner's prayer asking the Court to issue the cease and desist order. The petitioner failed to comply with the requirements for its issuance.

In Garcia v. Mojica,47 the Court ruled that a cease and desist order is similar in nature to a status quo order rather than a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction since a status quo order does not direct the doing or undoing of acts, unlike in the case of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief.48chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

According to Garcia, a status quo order, as the very term connotes, is merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable, and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy.49 This order is resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case made the conservation of the status quo desirable or essential, but either the affected party did not pray for such relief or the allegations in the party's pleading did not sufficiently make out a case for a temporary restraining order.50chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

There were cases, however, when the Court treated a status quo order as a writ of preliminary injunction. In Prado, et al. v. Veridiano II, et al.,51 the Court ruled that the status quo order in that case was in fact a writ of preliminary injunction, which enjoined the defendants from continuing not only the public bidding in that case but also subsequent bidding until the trial court had resolved the issues.52 The Court applied the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in determining the propriety for the issuance of a status quo order.53chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the present case, the petitioner prayed that the NTC order the respondents to cease and desist from continuing the implementation of their operational merger and from implementing any further merger or consolidation of respondents' ownership, property, privileges, and rights or any part thereof without the approval of the NTC.54chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The above allegations confirm that the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a cease and desist order is actually a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Thus, the petitioner's entitlement to the issuance of a cease and desist order depends on its compliance with the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the petitioner must show that (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.55chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The petitioner failed to comply with the above requirements.

The petitioner failed to prove the first requirement, specifically, that it has a clear and unmistakable right to be protected.

An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse or a right that is merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.56chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. When the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, it does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is improper.57chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Resolving the propriety of the issuance of a cease and desist order based on the petitioner's factual allegations and legal basis, we find that the petitioner failed to clearly establish its right to be protected under Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act. The petitioner alleged that the respondents have consolidated their operations without the requisite approval from the NTC.
Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act provides as follows:

Acts requiring the approval of the Commission. - Subject to established limitations and exceptions and saving provisions to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for any public service or for the owner, lessee or operator thereof, without the approval and authorization of the Commission previously had:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

x x x x

(g)
To sell, alienate, mortgage, encumber or lease its property, franchises, certificates, privileges, or rights or any part thereof; or merge or consolidate its property, franchises privileges or rights, or any part thereof, with those of any other public service. The approval herein required shall be given, after notice to the public and hearing the persons interested at a public hearing, if it be shown that there are just and reasonable grounds for making the mortgaged or encumbrance, for liabilities of more than one year maturity, or the sale, alienation, lease, merger, or consolidation to be approved, and that the same are not detrimental to the public interest, and in case of a sale, the date on which the same is to be consummated shall be fixed in the order of approval: Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the transaction from being negotiated or completed before its approval or to prevent the sale, alienation, or lease by any public service of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the above provision expressly permits the negotiation or completion of transactions involving merger or consolidation of property, franchises, privileges or rights even prior to the required NTC approval.

Applying Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act to the present case, the respondents' negotiation and even completion of transactions constituting the alleged consolidation of property, franchises, privileges, or rights - by themselves - are permitted and do not violate the provision. What the provision prohibits is the implementation or consummation of the transaction without the NTC's approval.

The petitioner submitted newspaper articles as proof of the alleged implementation of the consolidation. The petitioner's reliance on these newspaper articles is misplaced.

The Manila Bulletin article merely reported the Debt Restructuring Agreement signed by the creditors of Sky Vision, Sky cable, and Home Cable.58 The report even described the consolidation as merely a proposed consolidation, to wit: "x x x With the signing of the MOA, the creditors of the three entities are granting their consents to the proposed consolidation of ownership of the PLDT group and Benpres Group in these entities."59chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Philippine Daily Inquirer articles60 showed that the completion of the consolidation was still expected, negating the consummation or implementation of the transaction.

At any rate, we emphasize that Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act does not preclude the negotiation and completion of the transactions for merger or consolidation prior to the NTC approval.

Since Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act - the petitioner's basis for the issuance of the cease and desist order - allows the negotiation and completion of transactions of mergers and consolidation, the complained acts of the respondents (based solely on newspaper reports) cannot be a source of the petitioner's entitlement to a cease and desist order. To be precise, the evidence before us does not show that a merger or consolidation has taken place beyond the negotiation or completion stage and should be barred for lack of NTC approval. There is not even a showing that a request for approval has been made, which request requires notice to the public and public hearings before it can be approved. Under these evidentiary facts, the motion for a cease and desist order is clearly still premature.

Since the petitioner did not clearly establish a right sought to be protected, we need not discuss the other requirements for the issuance of an injunctive writ.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 10, 2007, and its resolution dated February 18, 2008. However, we DENY the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a cease and desist order.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., on leave.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 30-49.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison; concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso, id. at 87-97.

3Id. at 99-100.

4Id. at 88.

5Id. at 501.

6 Entitled, Regulating the Operation of Cable Antenna Television (CATV) Systems in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes.

7Rollo, pp. 335-337.

8Id. at 331.

9Id. at 332-333.

10Id. at 333.

11Id. at 333-334.

12Id. at 334-335.

13Id. at 88-89.

14Id. at 576.

15Id. at 589-590.

16Id. at 597-623.

17 NTC Order dated November 8, 2004, id. at 624-625.

18Ibid.

19 NTC Order dated October 13, 2005, id. at 635.

20 CA Decision dated October 10, 2007, supra note 2.

21Id. at 92-93.

22Id. at 93.

23Id. at 54, 65, 68, and 96.

24 CA Resolution dated February 18, 2008, supra note 3.

25Rollo, pp. 54, 65, and 68.

26 The petitioner cites the following laws that the petitioner allegedly violated: Article 16 Section 11(1) of the Constitution; Section 20(g) of the Public Service Law; Section 4 of Act No. 3247 entitled An Act to Prohibit Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade; Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code; Section 10 of RA 7969; and Home Cable's Certificate of Authority which specifically requires prior congressional approval before a merger with any corporation.

27Rollo, pp. 55-62.

28Id. at 50-51, 54, 64-65, and 69.

29Id. at 1582, 1589-1591.

30Id. at 1592-1593.

31Id. at 1595-1596 and 1601-1602.

32Id. at 1596-1597.

33Id. at 1597-1600.

34Id. at 1624-1631.

35Id. at 1622-1624.

36Id. at 79-80.

37Id. at 81-82.

38Id. at 83-84.

39 In Associated Communications and Wireless Services, LTD., et al. v. Dumlao, et al. [440 Phil. 787, 804-806 (2002)], the Court recognized the power of the NTC to issue a cease and desist order upon compliance with the due process requirements.

40 V. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines: Provisional Remedies, p. 1 (1985).

41Ibid.

42Calderon v. Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 330, 340.

43Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 473, 479 (1998).

44Hutchison Ports Phil. Ltd. v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, et al., 393 Phil. 843, 859 (2000).

45Buyco v. Baraquia, 623 Phil. 596, 600-601 (2009).

46Hutchison Ports Phil. Ltd. v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, et al., supra note 44, at 859.

47 372 Phil. 892-893 (1999).

48Id. at 900.

49Ibid., citing F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, p. 651 (1997)

50Ibid.

51 G.R. No. 98118, December 6, 1991, 204 SCRA 654, 670.

52Id. at 670-671.

53Ibid.

54Rollo, p. 579.

55Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas Province, G.R. No. 183367, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 253, 261.

56Heirs of Melencio Yu, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 84, 95-96.

57The Incorporators of Mindanao Institute Inc., et al. v. UCCP, et al., G.R. No. 171765, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 637, 649.

58Rollo, p. 594.

59Ibid.

60Id. at 596 and 608.



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





February-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 212878, February 01, 2016 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (GERMANY), ORLANDO D. ALIDIO AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. WILFREDO L. CABATAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016 - VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 - IRIS MORALES, Petitioners, v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181186, February 03, 2016 - SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND ONGSIAKO LAW OFFICES, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMA CHIONLO-SIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 56 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, AND THE TESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED SUSANO RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P, February 10, 2016 - SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN, Complainants, v. LORENZO O. CASTAŅEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondents

  • G.R. No. 205814, February 15, 2016 - SPOUSES ALFREDO TEAŅO* AND VERONICA TEAŅO, Petitioners, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO, AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194548, February 10, 2016 - JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY CELERINA ROJALES-SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO DIME, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIA MANIBAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR ROXAS Y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208343, February 03, 2016 - SPOUSES CEFERINO C. LAUS AND MONINA P. LAUS, AND SPOUSES ANTONIO O. KOH AND ELISA T. KOH, Petitioners, v. OPTIMUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE B. SAREŅOGON, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016 - SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199371, February 03, 2016 - PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTAL GAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. NENA C. ANG, ALISON C. SY, NELSON C. ANG, RENATO C. ANG, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208451, February 03, 2016 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., Petitioner, v. EZARD D. LLUZ, NORMAN CORRAL, ERWIN FUGABAN, VALDIMAR BALISI, EMILIO FABON, JOHN MARK APLICADOR, MICHAEL CURIOSO, JUNLIN ESPARES, GAVINO FARINAS, AND WARD TRADING AND SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204970, February 01, 2016 - SPOUSES CLAUDIO AND CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO SEJAS AND JUVY PAGLINAWAN, REPRESENTED BY JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196651, February 03, 2016 - UWE MATHAEUS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERIC AND GENEVIEVE MEDEQUISO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207355, February 03, 2016 - JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND JOHN I.C. TURALBA, ACTING DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plintiff and Appellee, v. ROMEL SAPITULA Y PACULAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016 - GUILBEMER FRANCO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, February 03, 2016 - JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCON-HERNANDEZ, AND REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants, v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016 - ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEŅA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO LAGBO A.K.A RICARDO LABONG Y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201073, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. Petitioner, v. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208021, February 03, 2016 - OSCAR S. VILLARTA, Petitioner, v. GAUDIOSO TALAVERA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193748, February 03, 2016 - MERVIC REALTY, INC. AND VICCY REALTY, INC., Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR P. PADIT, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016 - ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180642, February 03, 2016 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (NEECO I), Petitioner, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194134, February 01, 2016 - JOSE ROMULO L. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC., JESUSA CONCEPCION AND GERARDO B. MONZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016 - CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, v. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210542, February 24, 2016 - ROSALINA CARODAN, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016 - REBECCA FULLIDO, Petitioner, v. GINO GRILLI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, v. C.C. UNSON COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3300 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.12-4011-P), February 10, 2016 - JOSEPHINE E. LAM, Complainant, v. NILA M. GARCIA, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIATON, NEGROS ORIENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3423 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-9-89-MTCC], February 16, 2016 - RE: CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION IRREGULARITY (IMPERSONATION) OF MS. ELENA T. VALDEROSO, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • G.R. No. 210233, February 15, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RODOLFO SY AND BELEN SY, LOLITA SY, AND SPOUSES TEODORICO AND LEAH ADARNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016 - ALBERT C. AUSTRIA, Petitioner, v. CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC., AND/OR LARVIK SHIPPING A/S, AND EMILY MYLA A. CRISOSTOMO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GJM PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016 - NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201927, February 17, 2016 - VICENTE D. CABANTING AND LALAINE V. CABANTING, Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184332, February 17, 2016 - ANNA TENG, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND TING PING LAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016 - HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD AND JULIANA V. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. JUANA MAURICIO-NATIVIDAD, AND SPOUSES JEAN NATIVIDAD CRUZ AND JERRY CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182629, February 24, 2016 - MERCEDES N. ABELLA, MA. THERESA A. BALLESTEROS AND MARIANITO N. ABELLA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA C. SAN JUAN namely: GLICERIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, BENIGNA SAN JUAN VASQUEZ, EVARISTO SAN JUAN, NIEVES SAN JUAN LUSTRE AND MATILDE SAN JUAN QUILONIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207389, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERICO DE LA CRUZ Y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216566, February 17, 2016 - MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175760, February 17, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SOGOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199537, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANDREA TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179287, February 01, 2016 - PCI JIMMY M. FORTALEZA AND SPO2 FREDDIE A. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 182090 - ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Petitioner, v. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, HON. MANUEL B. GAITE, P/INSP. CLARENCE DONGAIL, P/INSP. JONATHAN LORILLA,1 PO3 ALLEN WINSTON HULLEZA AND PO2 BERNARDO CIMATU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016 - MARICEL S. NONAY, Petitioner, v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN LINES AND CYNTHIA MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195026, February 22, 2016 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MARIA LUISA R. SOLIVEN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174462, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC), PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (3rd DIVISION), REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199683, February 10, 2016 - ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA. AUREA S. ELEPANO, Petitioners, v. LA SALLE GREENHILLS, INC., BRO. BERNARD S. OCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183486, February 24, 2016 - THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION AND CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194960, February 03, 2016 - PRO BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. TG UNIVERSAL BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203678, February 17, 2016 - CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., BY ITSELF AND COMPRISING THE UNIT OWNERS OF CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; NEW PPI CORPORATION; ASIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ITS SECURITY GUARDS; ENGR. NELSON B. MORALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE MAKATI CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; SUPT. RICARDO C. PERDIGON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY FIRE MARSHAL OF THE MAKATI CITY FIRE STATION; F/C SUPT. SANTIAGO E. LAGUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION-NCR, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS ACTING WITH OR UNDER THEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTY DIMAANO Y TIPDAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 218867, February 17, 2016 - SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190534, February 10, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, AND ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO., Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE GODOFREDO REPISO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE LUZVIMINDA REPISO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016 - ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208406, February 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y GRAJO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT, NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, AND HARLAN BACALTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REMAN SARIEGO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF TEODULO EBESA, NAMELY: PORFERIA L. EBESA, EFREN EBESA, DANTE EBESA AND CYNTHIA EBESA, AND ATTY. FORTUNATO VELOSO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192233, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3393 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4055-P], February 23, 2016 - SEGUNDINA P. NOCES-DE LEON AND LEONOR P. ALAVE, Petitioners, v. TERENCIO G. FLORENDO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 21, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED JULY 13, 2015 OF ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., Complainant, v. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3381-P], February 23, 2016 - ATTY. JOHN V. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. ELENA S. ALCASID, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185603, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE LUGNASIN AND DEVINCIO GUERRERO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183529, February 24, 2016 - OFELIA C. CAUNAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207816, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 171041, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX REALTY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016 - QUEZON CITY PTCA FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY JESLI A. LAPUS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016 - RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016 - VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Petitioners, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 220503 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 - BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209180, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II AND OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209253 - OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208948, February 24, 2016 - JOSE B. LURIZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173921, February 24, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 173952 - ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AVELINO L. ZAPANTA, AND CESAR B. LAMBERTE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3419 [Formerly OCAIPI No. 11-3648-P], February 23, 2016 - AUGUSTO V. SANTOS, Complainant, v. SHERIFF IV ANTONIO V. LEAŅO, JR., SHERIFF III BENJIE E. LACSINA, SHERIFF III ALVIN S. PINEDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184288, February 16, 2016 - ERIC N. ESTRELLADO AND JOSSIE M. BORJA, Petitioners, v. KARINA CONSTANTINO DAVID, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HIPOLITO R. GABORNI AND ROBERTO S. SE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175210, February 01, 2016 - MARIO JOSE E. SERENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (APMP), Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), COMPOSED OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NEDA SECRETARIAT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIES OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, FINANCE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AGRARIAN REFORM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION, AND BRENDA R. MENDOZA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE, INDUSTRY & UTILITIES STAFF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 - CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8667, February 03, 2016 - INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 14-222-CA-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: COMPLAINT OF ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO AGAINST JUSTICES MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, AND CARMELITA SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 193176, February 24, 2016 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RENATO D. TAYAG, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, GENEROSO TANSECO, MANUEL MORALES, RUBEN B. ANCHETA, GERONIMO Z. VELASCO, TROADIO T. QUIAZON, JR., FERNANDO MARAMAG, EDGARDO TORDESILLAS, ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., GERARDO SICAT, PANFILO O. DOMINGO, POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MANUEL B. SYQUIO, RAFAEL M. ATAYDE, HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., GEORGE T. SCHOLEY,1 TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., CARLOS L. INDUCTIVO, AND TEODORO VALENCIA, Respondents.