Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > February 2016 Decisions > 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. 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.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

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.

D E C I S I O N

JARDELEZA, J.:

In this case, we reiterate the prohibition on the transfer of lands under Presidential Decree No. 271 (PD 27) except transfer to the Government or by hereditary succession.

The Facts

Francisca C. San Juan (Francisca), was a tenant to a parcel of land consisting of six thousand (6,000) square meters owned by petitioners, and located at Balatas, Naga City, Camarines Sur (Balatas property). The portion was covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 843 (159301) issued on October 18, 1973.2

On January 28, 1981, Dr. Manuel Abella (Dr. Abella) and Francisca entered into an Agreement3 whereby the Balatas property will be exchanged with a 6,000-square meter agricultural lot situated at San Rafael, Cararayan, Naga City (Cararayan property). The parties agreed that in addition to the Cararayan property, Francisca shall receive from Dr. Abella the amount of P5,250.00 as disturbance compensation and a 120-square meter home lot situated at Balatas, Naga City.4

Dr. Abella complied with all the stipulations in the Agreement. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) thru Salvador Pejo, CESO II, Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) Regional Director5 and later DAR Regional Director Pablo S. Sayson also approved the Agreement.6

Subsequently, the Cararayan property was declared in the name of Francisca, under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 01-006-0169.7 On the other hand, the home lot at Balatas, Naga City, was later sold for P7,200.00 to Felimon Delfino, Jr. (Delfino), on February 26, 1988.8 However, CLT No. 843 (159301) was not cancelled.

Sometime in 1983, Benigna San Juan Vasquez (Benigna), daughter of Francisca, sought permission from, and was allowed by Mercedes N. Abella (Mrs. Abella), wife of Dr. Abella, to construct a small house on the Balatas property. Thus, on different occasions, Benigna and her children constructed their residential houses on the property.9 Later, when Mrs. Abella requested Benigna and her children to vacate the property, they refused, claiming ownership. This prompted Mrs. Abella to file an action for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga City.10

On November 26, 2004, the MTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Dr. Abella in the unlawful detainer case.11 The MTC issued a writ of execution12 and writ of demolition13 against Benigna and her sons.

On March 15, 2005, Benigna, for herself and in behalf of the other heirs of Francisca namely: Gliceria San Juan-Capistrano, Evaristo C. San Juan, Benigna San Juan Vasquez, Eduvejes San Juan-Martines, Nieves San Juan-Lustre, Maria San Juan-Banavides and Matilde San Juan-Quilonio (respondents), filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Naga City (RTC) for quieting of title and declaration of ownership and possession of real property with prayer for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and damages against Mrs. Abella, Theresa A. Ballesteros and Marianito N. Abella (petitioners).14 The Complaint prayed for a decision declaring respondents as absolute and lawful owners of the Balatas property and holding petitioners jointly and severally liable for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and appearance fee, litigation expenses and costs of suit.15 The RTC subsequently granted the application for a temporary restraining order.16

Petitioners alleged that Dr. Abella and Francisca executed the Agreement for the exchange of lots because the Balatas property was reclassified as a high density commercial, residential and urban area and hence no longer suitable for agriculture.17 Since the Balatas property was exchanged with the Cararayan property on January 28, 1981, Francisca ceased to be its owner long before she died on November 19, 1996. Thus, respondents could not have inherited the Balatas property.18

Respondents countered that the reclassification by the City Government of Naga did not convert the use of the land from agricultural to residential or commercial. The authority to convert the land use of a property is vested by law in the DAR.19 They further argued that the Agreement is null and void as it contravened the prohibition on transfer under PD 27. Thus, the approval by the DAR was of no moment.20

RTC Ruling

The RTC rendered a Decision on April 12, 200521 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. It ruled that with the execution of the Agreement between Dr. Abella and Francisca, the latter's legal or equitable title to, or interest on the Balatas property, ceased to exist. Under the exchange, Francisca gave up her interest in the Balatas property in favor of an interest in the Cararayan property. Respondents as heirs of Francisca, in turn, acquired this interest on the Cararayan property.22

The RTC further ruled that the Agreement did not affect the right or interest of Francisca as a tenant. The right was eventually enjoyed by one of her daughters, respondent Maria San Juan-Banavides, who is the present possessor and cultivator of the Cararayan property. The RTC held that although there was no showing that the title to the Balatas property was cancelled or encumbered, most probably due to oversight, the execution of the Agreement, duly approved by the DAR, operates to cancel the certificate of land transfer.23

The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that under PD 27, title to the Balatas property could not have been acquired by the petitioners since its transfer is limited only to the government or the grantee's heirs by way of succession. Thus, the Agreement is an invalid instrument which casts a cloud on respondents' title.24

CA Decision

On October 16, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and ruled that the Agreement was void, for being violative of (1) PD 27 which provides that title to the land acquired pursuant to the Decree of Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable, except by hereditar}/ succession or to the Government, in accordance with its provisions, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and regulations;25 and (2) Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 1979 issued by the MAR, which declares as null and void the transfer by the beneficiaries under PD 27 of the ownership, rights and/or possession of their farms/home lots to other persons.26 The CA also cited Toralba v. Mercado,27 where this Court ruled that the rights and interests covered by certificates of land transfer are beyond the commerce of man.28

The CA further ruled that the DAR approval cannot clothe the void Agreement with validity.29 In addition, the CA noted that the classification of the Balatas property from agricultural to high density commercial, residential and urban area was done after the Agreement was executed, contrary to petitioners' claim.30 The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated April 12, 2005 of the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City, in Civil Case No. RTC'2005-0033, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered, declaring plaintiffs-appellants the owners of the subject property covered by CLT No. 843 and quieting their title thereto.

SO ORDERED.31 (Emphasis in the original.)

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 14, 2008.32

The Petition

Petitioners assail the CA Decision and Resolution on the following grounds:

First, the Agreement, being a mere relocation agreement, did not violate nor contravene the true spirit of PD 27 and other agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations.33

Second, the DAR/MAR are agencies tasked to implement PD 27 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations relative to the disputed land, thus their approval of the Agreement must be accorded great weight by the CA.34]

Third, Toralba v. Mercado is not applicable because Francisca did not surrender the Balatas property to her former landowner, Dr. Abella, as contemplated under PD 27. Instead, she received in return the Cararayan property.35

Fourth, PD 27 does not automatically vest ownership of a piece of land to a. tenant-farmer beneficiary, contrary to the findings of the CA. Pending compliance with certain conditions set forth by PD 27, a qualified farmer cannot claim the right of absolute ownership over the land because he is considered as a mere prospective owner. Francisca defaulted in the payment of the annual amortizations for more than two years, thus, her status as deemed owner of the landholding covered by CLT No. 843 (159301) had ceased to exist. This holds true even if the cancellation of the CLT was not annotated on the certificate of land transfer and the CLT was not cancelled from the registry book of the Registry of Deeds.36

Fifth, petitioners maintain that the respondents are estopped from questioning the Agreement. Benigna knew of the Agreement and yet, she neither complained nor moved to have it cancelled. When Benigna sought permission from Mrs. Abella that she be allowed to stay in the property, she recognized Mrs. Abella and the children as its owners. Benigna even benefited from the benevolence of the petitioners when upon her request, she and her family were allowed to construct their houses on the property without paying any rentals.37

Sixth, the decision of the CA would unjustly enrich respondents at the expense of the petitioners. Francisca, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had already received, and enjoyed the following properties: (a) 0.600 hectare or 6,000-square meter Cararayan property; (b) disturbance compensation of P5,250.00; and (c) the 120-square meter Balatas home lot, all of which were given by Dr. Abella in exchange for the Balatas property.

And yet, by virtue of the CA decision, the respondents would still be entitled to recover the Balatas property.38

Our Ruling

I. The Agreement is void for con/ravening PD 27.

The resolution of this Petition hinges on the determination of whether the Agreement between Dr. Abella and Francisca is void for violating PD 27.

We affirm the CA ruling.

PD 27 provides for only two exceptions to the prohibition on transfer, namely, (1) transfer by hereditary succession and (2) transfer to the Government.39

Torres v. Ventura40 explained the provision, thus:

xxx

The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession, to his successors.

Yet, it is a fact that despite the prohibition, many farmer-beneficiaries like petitioner herein were tempted to make use of their land to acquire much needed money. Hence, the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform issued the following Memorandum Circular:

"Despite the above prohibition, however, there are reports that many farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 have transferred the ownership, rights, and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders are violative of PD 27 and therefore, null and void."41 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.)

This interpretation is reiterated in Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio v. Dizon,42 where we ruled:

Thus, PD 27 is clear that after full payment and title to the land is acquired, the land shall not be transferred except to the heirs of the beneficiary or the Government. If the amortizations for the land have not yet been paid, then there can be no transfer to anybody since the lot is still owned by the Government. The prohibition against transfers to persons other than the heirs of other qualified beneficiaries stems from the policy of the Government to develop generations of farmers to attain its avowed goal to have an adequate and sustained agricultural production. With certitude, such objective will not see the light of day if lands covered by agrarian reform can easily be converted for non-agricultural purposes.

xxx

Anent the contravention of the prohibition under PD 27, we ruled in Siacor v. Giganktna and more recently in [Calixvug-Carmona] v. Court of Appeals, that sales or transfers of lands made in violation of PD 27 and EO 228 in favor of persons other than the Government by other legal means or to the farmer's successor by hereditary succession are null and void. The prohibition even extends to the surrender of the land to the former landowner. The sales or transfers are void ab initio, being contrary to law and public policy under Art. 5 of the Civil Code that "acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibiting laws shall be void x x x." In this regard, the DAR is duty-bound to take appropriate measures to annul the illegal transfers and recover the land unlawfully conveyed to non-qualified persons for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. In the case at bar, the alleged transfers made by some if not all of respondents Gonzalo Dizon, et al. (G.R. No. 148777) of lands covered by PD 27 to non-qualified persons are illegal and null and void.43 (Citations omitted.)

In the Agreement, Dr. Abella and Francisca stipulated that the Cararayan property will be placed under Operation Land Transfer and that a new CLT shall be issued in the name of Francisca.44 The parties also agreed that after the execution of the Agreement, Francisca shall vacate the Balatas property and deliver its possession to Dr. Abella.45 Further, the Deed of Donation of Land Covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 dated July 1, 1981 provided that "for and in consideration of the [landowner-donor's] generosity and in exchange of the [tenant-tiller donee's] [farm lot] at Balatas, City of Naga, the [landowner-donor] do hereby transfer and convey to the [tenant-tiller-donee], by way of [donation] the parcel of land above-described."46

The intended exchange of properties by the parties as expressed in the Agreement and in the Deed of Donation entailed transfer of all the rights and interests of Francisca over the Balatas property to Dr. Abella. It is the kind of transfer contemplated by and prohibited by law. Thus, petitioners' argument that the Agreement was merely a relocation agreement, or one for the exchange or swapping of properties between Dr. Abella and Francisca, and not a transfer or conveyance under PD 27, has no merit. A relocation, exchange or swap of a property is a transfer of property. They cannot excuse themselves from the prohibition by a mere play on words.

We likewise agree with the CA that the DAR's approval did not validate the Agreement. Under PD 27 and the pronouncements of this Court, transfer of lands under PD 27 other than to successors by hereditary succession and the Government is void.47 A void or inexistent contract is one which has no force and effect from the beginning, as if it has never been entered into, and which cannot be validated either by time or ratification.48 No form of validation can make the void Agreement legal.

II. The prohibition under PD 27
applies even if the farmer-beneficiary
has not yet acquired absolute title.


Our ruling in Torres is clear that the prohibition applies even if the farmer-beneficiary has not yet acquired absolute title to the land, and the protection begins upon the promulgation of the law, thus:

[T]itle refers not only to that issued upon compliance by the tenant-farmer of the said conditions but also includes those rights and interests that the tenant-farmer immediately acquired upon the promulgation of the law. To rule otherwise would make a tenant-farmer falling in the category of those who have not yet been issued a formal title to the land they till — easy prey to those who would like to tempt them with cash in exchange for inchoate title over the same. Following this, absolute title over lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 would end up in the name of persons who were not the actual tillers when the law was promulgated.49

Further, as we ruled in Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio, the prohibition extends to the rights and interests of the farmer in the land even while he is still paying the amortizations on it.50

Petitioners merely alleged in their petition that since Francisca defaulted in the payment of the annual amortizations for more than two years, she has given a ground for the forfeiture of her CLT.

We disagree. Even assuming that the respondents defaulted in paying the amortization payments, default or non-payment is not a ground for cancellation of the CLT under the law. Instead, PD 27 provides that "(i)n case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers' cooperative in which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with the cooperative having a right of recourse against him." In any event, petitioners failed to show the cancellation of the CLT prior to the Agreement which would have removed the deemed owner status of Francisca over the Balatas property.

III. The respondents are not estopped from questioning the Agreement.

Petitioners urge us to deny any equitable relief to the respondents on the ground that they did not complain or have the Agreement cancelled and even benefited from the benevolence of petitioners. Under the theory of the petitioners, estoppel would bar the respondents from recovering the Balatas property.51

We are not convinced. Estoppel cannot be predicated on a void contract or on acts which are prohibited by law or are against public policy.52

In Torres, we refused to apply the principle of pari delicto which would in effect have deprived the leasehold tenant of his right to recover the landholding which was illegally disposed of. We ruled that "(t)o hold otherwise will defeat the spirit and intent of [PD 27] and the tillers will never be emancipated from the bondage of the soil."53 In Santos v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, et al.,54 we explained:

xxx Here appellee desires to nullify a transaction which was done in violation of the law. Ordinarily the principle of pari delicto would apply to her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried out the sale with the presumed knowledge of its illegality (8 Manresa 4th ed., pp. 717-718), but because the subject of the transaction is a piece of public land, public policy requires that she, as heir, be not prevented from re-acquiring it because it was given by law to her family for her home and cultivation. This is the policy on which our homestead law is predicated (Pascua vs. Talens, supra). This right cannot be waived. "It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve" (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Pantaleon de las Ama, et al., 74 Phil., 3). We are, therefore, constrained to hold that appellee can maintain the present action it being in furtherance of this fundamental aim of our homestead law."55 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, respondents were not estopped from questioning the validity of the Agreement as it contravened the prohibition under PD 27 on the transfer of land. The tenant-farmer cannot barter away the benefit and protection granted in its favor by law as it would defeat the policy behind PD 27.

IV. The nullity of the Agreement
requires the return of the parties to the
status quo ante to avoid unjust
enrichment.


In Flores v. Undo, Jr.,56 we laid down the elements of unjust enrichment as follows:

There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.

The main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of another without just cause or consideration.57

The consequence of our declaration that the Agreement is void is that the respondents, as heirs of Francisca, have the right to the Balatas property. This would unjustly enrich respondents at the expense of petitioners, predecessors-in-interest of Dr. Abella. To remedy this unjust result, respondents should return to the petitioners the consideration given by Dr. Abel la in exchange for the Balatas property: a) the Cararayan property; b) P5,250.00 disturbance compensation; and c) the 120-square meter home lot in Balatas, Naga City. We note however, that the 120-square meter home lot in Balatas, Naga City has already been sold and transferred to Delfino who was not impleaded in this case. Thus, without prejudice to whatever right petitioners have against Delfino, respondents should pay petitioners the fair market value of the Balatas home lot at the time it was transferred to respondents. Such fair market value shall be subject to determination by the trial court.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the CA dated October 16, 2007 and Resolution dated April 14, 2008 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondents should return to the petitioners the 6,000-square meter parcel of land located in Cararayan, Naga City, Camarines Sur, and the amount of P5,250.00 with legal interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment until fully paid. This case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Naga City for the determination of the fair market value of the Balatas home lot at the time of donation.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


1 Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor.

2Rollo, pp. 114-115.

3 Id. at 93-94.

4 Id.

5Rollo, p. 161.

6 Order dated June 18, 1991, id. at 163-165.

7Rollo, p. 97.

8 Deed of Absolute Sale, id at 96.

9Rollo, p. 100.

10 Id at 20.

11 Id. at 66, 126.

12 Id. at 122.

13 Id. at 126-127.

14 Id. at 76-79.

15 Id. at 78.

16 Id. at 66.

17 Id. at 17, 138-151.

18 Answer to the Complaint id. at 86-92. Memorandum for Plaintiffs, rollo, p. 108.

20 Id at 108-110

21 Id. at 64-67.

22 Id. at 66-67.

23 Id. at 67.

24 Id. at 182-197.cralawred

25 Id. at 58.

26 Id

27 G.R. No. 146480, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 433.

28Rollo, pp. 57-58.

29 Id. at 59.

30 Id.

31Rollo, p. 59-A.

32 Id. at 31, 61-62.

33 Id. at 32-34.

34 Id. at 34-36.

35 Id. at 36-38.

36 Id. at 38-41.

37 Id. at 41-43.

38 Id. at 43-45.

39 PD 27 provides:

xxx

Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations; xxx (Emphasis supplied.)

40 G.R. No. 86044, July 2. 1990, 187 SCRA 96.

41 Id. at 104-105.

42 G.R. No. 148777, October 18, 2007, 536 SCRA 565.

43 Id. at-600-605.

44Rollo, p. 93.

45 Wat 94.

46 Id. at 160.

47Torres v. Ventura, supra note 40; Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vela, de Panlilio v. Dizon, supra note 42.

48Francisco v. Harem, G.R. No. 139982, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 317, 323.

49 Supra note 40 at 105.

50 Supra note 42 at 604.

51Rollo, pp. 41-43.

52De los Santos v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-29192, February 22, 1971, 37 SCRA 555, 561 citing 17 Am. Jur. 605 and Baltazar v. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co., Inc., G.R. Nos. 16236-38, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 522.

53Supra note 40 at 106.

54 94 Phil. 405 (1954).

55 Id. at 411.

56 G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 201 1, 648 SCRA 772.

57 Id. at 782-783 citing Republic v. Cowl of Appeals, G.R. No. 160379, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 57 citing Benguet Corporation v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Mines Adjudication Board, G.R. No. 163 101, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 196; Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Really and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 138088, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 404, and P.C. Javier & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129552, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 36.



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. CASTAÑEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondents

  • G.R. No. 205814, February 15, 2016 - SPOUSES ALFREDO TEAÑO* AND VERONICA TEAÑO, 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. SAREÑOGON, 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 PEÑA, 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. LEAÑO, 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.