Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > July 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016 - ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016 - ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016

ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by Rosalinda S. Khitri (Rosalinda) and Fernando S. Khitri (Fernando) (collectively, the petitioners) assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered on June 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33961, which affirmed the Decision3 dated December 9, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piņas City, Branch 253, in Criminal Case No. 00-1023, convicting the petitioners of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Information indicting the petitioners reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

That on or about the 25 January, 1991 and sometime thereafter, in the City of Las Pi[ņ]as, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioners], conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, received in trust from the said complainants the amount of P400,000.00 to be used in the construction of a factory building to be built on the one[-]half portion of the [petitioners'] lot located at Monte Vista Park Subd., Sto. Niņo, Cainta, Rizal but [the petitioners] once in possession of the said amount of money and far from complying with their obligation, with abuse of confidence and with intent to defraud said complainants[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to their own personal use and benefits said amount of P400,000.00 and despite repeated demands made by the complainants[,] [the petitioners] failed and refused and still fails [sic] and refuses [sic] to return the said amount of P400,000.00 to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants in the aforementioned amount of P400,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4 (Italics ours)
Antecedents

Rosalinda is Fernando's mother. In their joint Counter-Affidavit,5 they admitted that they received the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) from Spouses Hiroshi (Hiroshi) and Belen (Belen) Fukami (collectively, the private complainants). However, the petitioners claimed that the money they received was the private complainants' contribution in their joint venture to construct and operate a garments factory. The petitioners further alleged that they had substantially complied with their obligation by constructing a two-door studio-type apartment in their lot in Cainta, Rizal, half of which was to be devoted for the operation of the garments factory.

On March 28, 2001, the petitioners were arraigned and pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Since their primary defense was in the nature of an affirmative allegation, the RTC reversed the order of trial.6chanrobleslaw

In her testimony,7 Rosalinda stated that she manufactures and exports ladies' lingerie and wear. Hiroshi, on the other hand, is an exporter of locally-manufactured women's wear to Japan. They were introduced to each other in 1986 by Hiroshi's agent, who used to source lingerie items from Rosalinda. In 1989, Hiroshi proposed a venture for them to jointly manufacture and export women's wear to United States of America and other countries. The venture required the construction of a factory, with Hiroshi contributing P400,000.00 therefor. Initially, Hiroshi wanted the factory to be constructed in Cubao, Quezon City beside Rosalinda's warehouse. However, Rosalinda offered her lot in Monte Vista Park Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal and Hiroshi acceded. The parties' agreement was merely verbal. The construction started in 1991. Half of the lot was reserved for the factory, with the remaining half as Rosalinda's residence. Rosalinda presented a supposed plan for the factory entitled "Construction of Two-Unit Studio-type Apartments," prepared for "Rosalinda P. Subido."

On cross-examination, Rosalinda clarified that the parties verbally agreed that one-half of the building would be used as factory while the other half would be her residence. However, there was no approved plan for a two-storey factory but only for two units of studio-type apartment. Hiroshi signified his acceptance of the factory building as constructed when he had caused the delivery and installation of five sewing machines in the apartment units albeit no government permit was obtained to operate the factory. Two weeks after, Hiroshi directed the machines to be pulled out for needed repairs.8chanrobleslaw

In his testimony,9 Fernando stated that he is also engaged in garments manufacturing since 1979. He is the sole proprietor of Allure Garments and owns an interest in Venus Fashion Apparel Corporation. Rosalinda, on the other hand, solely owns Nandy's Enterprises, another business entity involved in garments manufacturing. Hiroshi first purchased garments from him in 1988. Later, Hiroshi proposed a joint venture to manufacture garments and agreed to contribute money for a factory to be constructed in their lot in Cubao. Hiroshi eventually agreed to have the factory be built instead in their lot in Cainta, Rizal.

In her testimony,10 Belen confirmed that she and her husband Hiroshi used to source some women's wear and lingerie items, which they export to Japan, from the petitioners in their Cubao factory from 1988 to 1992. Sometime in 1990, when the petitioners were running low on capital, they approached the private complainants to form a corporation to manufacture and export women's clothes and lingerie. Initially, the private complainants hesitated because the project entailed a huge amount for the construction of a two-storey factory. The private complainants at first suggested to have the factory be built in the petitioners' lot in Cubao. However, the Cubao area is congested. Further, after visiting the petitioners' lot in Cainta, and having been shown a sketch of the two-storey factory to be constructed, they agreed to build thereat. The factory was intended to occupy one-half of the lot, while the other half thereof would be reserved for the petitioners' residence. The private complainants gave their P400,000.00 contribution to the petitioners and this amount was used to open a Boston Bank joint account in Belen and Rosalinda's names. The private complainants were eventually shocked to discover instead a two-door studio-type apartment, the plan for which was never shown to them. In their disappointment, they demanded the return of their money, but the petitioners avoided their calls and even changed their phone numbers. Through counsel, the private complainants wrote a demand letter for the petitioners to return their money. In response, the petitioners offered one apartment unit, with the cost of the lot where it stands to be paid for separately. The private complainants outrightly rejected the offer.

Hiroshi testified that he had been coming back and forth from Japan to the Philippines for 30 years purchasing and exporting locally manufactured women's clothes. The petitioners were referred to him by a Japanese friend, and he soon began buying merchandise from them in 1988. The petitioners subsequently broached the idea of a joint venture to manufacture women's clothes, with the private complainants contributing to the cost of constructing a two-storey factory building. Since the petitioners' shop in Cubao is too small, they showed him a rough sketch of a two-storey factory on a white board, and brought him to see their lot in Cainta where the factory would be built. The petitioners explained to him that one-half of the lot would be used for the two-storey factory. Later, he asked Belen to check the state of the factory because the petitioners had been rejecting his phone calls. Belen saw a two-door studio-type apartment, instead of a two-storey factory, and took pictures of the same. Hiroshi was never shown the plan for a two-door studio-type apartments, which Rosalinda presented in court. The private complainants tried to contact the petitioners but they could no longer be reached. They felt deceived because their agreement was not complied with.11chanrobleslaw

On cross-examination, Hiroshi admitted that the negotiations for the joint venture were done in his Elizabeth Mansions office in Quezon City. He recalled having seen the petitioners in Las Piņas City only once or twice. There was no written contract anent the joint venture because he trusted the petitioners.12chanrobleslaw

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC, in its Decision13 dated December 9, 2009, convicted the petitioners, the fallo of which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds [the petitioners], GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the [RPC]. Consequently, [the petitioners] are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correcional maximum as MINIMUM to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal as MAXIMUM.

Moreover, this Court hereby orders [the petitioners] to reimburse private complainants the sum of x x x FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php400,000.00), plus interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, from January 21, 1991, until fully paid, as actual damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php100,000.00), as litigation expenses and attorney[']s fees.

SO ORDERED.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Unfazed by the above, the petitioners appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision15 dated June 27, 2013, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision. The CA agreed with the RTC that it had jurisdiction over the crime charged. All the elements of the crime of estafa are present, and that the petitioners conspired in committing the crime. The evidence of the prosecution showed that the parties agreed to form a joint venture to manufacture women's wear, with the petitioners contributing the use of one half of their lot in Cainta to build a two-storey garments factory, while the private complainants would contribute P400,000.00 for the construction thereof. On January 25, 1991, the private complainants gave the amount of P400,000.00, with which Belen and Rosalinda opened a joint account in Boston Bank, San Juan City. On different dates, four checks, each bearing the amount of P100,000.00, were issued by Belen to Rosalinda. The petitioners' messenger picked up the checks from the private complainants' residence in Las Piņas City and thereafter, the amounts indicated therein were withdrawn from Boston Bank joint account. After the entire amount of P400,000.00 had been withdrawn, the petitioners could no longer be contacted by phone. This prompted Belen to visit the construction site. She discovered that what was constructed was not a two-storey factory building but a residential duplex apartment. Belen took pictures of the apartment and showed them to Hiroshi, who then decided to withdraw from the joint venture and demanded the return of their money. The private complainants consulted a lawyer, who sent demand letters, but they received no reply from the petitioners.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its Resolution16 dated November 21, 2013.

Hence, this petition raising the following errors:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I.
THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN MAINTAINING THAT THE RTC OF LAS PIŅAS CITY HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
II.
THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS INSTEAD OF FINDING THAT THEIR LIABILITY, IF ANY, IS ONLY CIVIL IN NATURE.
III.
THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS.17
The Issues

Essentially, the issues for resolution are the following: (1) whether the evidence submitted is sufficient to establish guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the evidence submitted establishes conspiracy between the petitioners.18chanrobleslaw

In this petition, the petitioners reiterate their contention that the crime for which they were indicted was committed in Quezon City, San Juan City and Cainta, Rizal, and not in Las Piņas City. Moreover, no conspiracy between the petitioners was established. They point out that Belen herself admitted that the amount of P400,000.00 was deposited in a joint account, which Belen and Rosalinda opened in a bank in San Juan City. Moreover, there was no criminal intent to swindle the private complainants. It was Hiroshi himself who approached the petitioners to propose a joint venture. In fact, as agreed, a structure was erected on the lot of the petitioners, which, although not exactly what the private complainants had in mind, is suitable for the operation of a garments factory. Hiroshi even delivered and installed sewing machines in the building. After two weeks, he pulled out the sewing machines for the purpose of having them repaired. The petitioners also point out that they never stopped communicating with the private complainants. Besides, 10 years had elapsed from the time the factory was constructed before the private complainants decided to file a criminal complaint.

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the RTC of Las Piņas City had jurisdiction over the case. The delivery of the checks and acceptance thereof by the petitioners through their authorized representatives connote not merely the transfer of money but also marked the creation of a fiduciary relation between the parties. Hence, in legal contemplation, the petitioners received the amount of P400,000.00 in the private complainants' residence in Las Piņas City. The OSG further insists that all the elements of the crime and the fact of conspiracy are present.19chanrobleslaw

Ruling of the Court

The instant petition is meritorious.

The RTC of Las Piņas City had jurisdiction over the case.

The Court agrees that the RTC of Las Piņas City had territorial jurisdiction over the case. Although the bank account for the joint venture was set up in San Juan City, in which the P400,000.00 capital contribution of the private complainants was deposited and eventually withdrawn, Belen issued four checks from her residence in Las Piņas City. These checks were picked up by the messenger sent by the petitioners.

The Court has ruled in the case of Tan v. People20 that "[t]he delivery by the private complainant of the check and its acceptance by [the accused] signified not merely the transfer to the accused of the money belonging to private complainant, [but] it also marked the creation of a fiduciary relation between the parties."21chanrobleslaw

Not all the elements of the crime of estafa are present.

However, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC, which convicted the petitioners of estafa as the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged.

Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC,22 the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (1) that the money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is demand by the offended party to the offender.23chanrobleslaw

In the case at bar, the presence of the first and last elements is undisputed. The petitioners received money in trust or for administration to build a factory in Cainta, and that the private complainants, through counsel, demanded the return of their P400,000.00 via letters dated December 13, 1999 and January 25, 2000, which were received on December 28, 1999, and January 5, 2000, respectively.24 However, the elements of misappropriation and prejudice were not sufficiently established.

The essence of estafa committed with abuse of confidence is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a pmpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.25cralawredchanrobleslaw

Here, Rosalinda received P400,000.000 for the purpose of constructing a garments factory inside the Monte Vista Park Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal. True to their agreement, she caused the erection of a two-door studio-type apartment, one of which would serve as the garments factory. The private complainants however posit that the structure was not in compliance with their agreed plan. Nonetheless, the purpose of the money had been complied with by the petitioners, albeit modified. The Court believes that the ends sought to be achieved by the money have not been rendered illusory by the modification. In fact, after the construction, the private complainants sent five sewing machines for use in the garments factory, but these were subsequently pulled out after two weeks for repairs.

"Not to be overlooked is that this felony falls under the category of mala in se offenses that require the attendance of criminal intent. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for it to be a felony. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea."26chanrobleslaw

The element of intent - on which the Court shall focus - is described as the state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act.27 It refers to the purpose of the mind and the resolve with which a person proceeds.28 It does not refer to mere will, for the latter pertains to the act, while intent concerns the result of the act.29 While motive is the "moving power" that impels one to action for a definite result, intent is the "purpose" of using a particular means to produce the result.30 On the other hand, the term "felonious" means, inter alia, malicious, villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose.31 With these elements taken together, the requirement of intent in intentional felony must refer to malicious intent, which is a vicious and malevolent state of mind accompanying a forbidden act. Stated otherwise, intentional felony requires the existence of dolus malus - that the act or omission be done "willfully," "maliciously," "with deliberate evil intent," and "with malice aforethought."32 The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.33 As is required of the other elements of a felony, the existence of malicious intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.34chanrobleslaw

In the instant petition, the records do not show that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of malicious intent when the petitioners used the money they received to construct two-door studio-type apartments, one of which would serve as the garments factory. To reiterate, the purpose of the money was achieved. Furthermore, the factual precedents of the case do not sufficiently warrant conviction for the crime of estafa, much less deserve deprivation of liberty. At best, the petitioners could be held liable for damages for violating the tenor of their agreement.

Ultimately, the amount of P400,000.00 given to the petitioners could hardly be considered as the damage sustained by the private complainants. Damage, as an element of estafa, may consist in: (1) the offended party being deprived of his money or property as a result of the defraudation; (2) disturbance in property right; or (3) temporary prejudice.35 In this case, the amount was voluntarily given pursuant to a joint venture agreement for the construction of a garments factory, and with which the petitioners complied. Absent the element of misappropriation, the private complainants could not have been deprived of their money through defraudation. Moreover, the allegation of lost profits, which could have arisen from the aborted joint venture, is conjectural in nature and could barely be contemplated as prejudice suffered.

Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused while the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty required for conviction.36chanrobleslaw

Consequently, the Court is constrained to uphold the presumption of innocence in the petitioners' favor and acquit them.

Anent the allegation of conspiracy, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same in view of the fact that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of all the elements of the crime charged.

Reimbursement of the amount given to the petitioners, plus interests, are due.

While the petitioners cannot be made criminally liable on the grounds of absence of some of the elements of estafa, and of reasonable doubt, it is undisputed that they received the amount of P400,000.00 from the private complainants. Lest unjust enrichment results, reimbursement of the amount is in order. An additional annual interest of six percent (6%) shall be imposed from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.37chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 27, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 33961, affirming the Decision rendered on December 9, 2009 by the Regional Trial Court of Las Pifias City, Branch 253, in Criminal Case No. 00-1023, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Rosalinda S. Khitri and Fernando S. Khitri are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa. However, they are DIRECTED to REIMBURSE the private complainants, Spouses Hiroshi and Belen Fukami, of the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00), subject to an annual interest of six percent (6%) from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Mendoza,*JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October 27, 2014 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.

1Rollo, pp. 3-14.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias concurring; id. at 20-32.

3 Rendered by Presiding Judge Salvador V. Timbang, Jr.; id. at 77-84.

4 Id. at 21-22.

5 Id. at 48-52.

6 Id. at 22.

7 Id. at 78.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 79.

10 Id. at 79-80.

11 Id. at 81-82.

12 Id. at 81.

13 Id. at 77-84.

14 Id. at 84.

15 Id. at 20-32.

16 Id. at 35-36.

17 Id. at 6.

18 Id. at 5-6.

19 Id. at 90-104.

20 542 Phil. 188 (2007).

21 Id. at 198, citing Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two 736 (2001).

22 Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property; x x x x
23Jandusay v. People, 711 Phil. 305, 310-311 (2013).

24Rollo, pp. 29-30.

25cralawred Pamintuan v. People, 635 Phil. 514, 522 (2010).

26Manahan, Jr. v. CA, 325 Phil. 484, 499 (1996).

27 Black's Law Dictionary 670 (8th abr. ed. 2005); see People v. Regato, et al., 212 Phil. 268 (1984).

28Guevarra v. Hon. Almodovar, 251 Phil. 427, 432 (1989), citing 46 CJS Intent, p. 1103.

29 Albert, The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) 23 (1946).

30People v. Ballesteros, 349 Phil. 366, 374 (1998).

31 Black's Law Dictionary 520 (8th abr. ed. 2005).

32 Albert, The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) 23-25 (1946).

33United States v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504, 507 (1911).

34See United States v. Barnes, 8 Phil. 59 (1907).

35Brokmann v. People, 681 Phil. 84, 87 (2012).

36Aricheta v. People, 560 Phil. 170, 184 (2007).

37Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013).



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





July-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 210878, July 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONALYN ABENES Y PASCUA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202015, July 13, 2016 - ANTONIO VALEROSO AND ALLAN LEGATONA, Petitioners, v. SKYCABLE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204620, July 11, 2016 - ROWENA A. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. INTEGRATED PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. AND KATHERYN TANTIANSU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204750, July 11, 2016 - SUSAN D. CAPILI, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205753, July 04, 2016 - ROSA PAMARAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, ROSEMARY P. BERNABE, Petitioners, v. BANK OF COMMERCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200042, July 07, 2016 - FELIZARDO T. GUNTALILIB, Petitioner, v. AURELIO Y. DELA CRUZ AND SALOME V. DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016 - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondents.; G.R. No. 220953 - BENIGNO B. AGUAS, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205951, July 04, 2016 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213660, July 05, 2016 - DR. WENIFREDO T. OŅATE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3213 [Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-91-RTC], July 12, 2016 - ACCREDITED LOCAL PUBLISHERS: THE WEEKLY ILOCANDIA INQUIRER, THE NORLUZONIAN COURIER, THE AMIANAN TRIBUNE, THE WEEKLY CITY BULLETIN, THE NORTHERN STAR, THE WEEKLY BANAT, THE NORTH LUZON HEADLINE, THE REGIONAL DIARYO, AND HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL ILOCANDIA, Complainants, v. SAMUEL L. DEL ROSARIO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BAUANG, LA UNION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193584, July 12, 2016 - HAMBRE J. MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. GRACE BELGADO-SAQUETON, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212206, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABBY CONCEPCION Y NIMENDA AND TOTO MORALES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213847, July 12, 2016 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213568, July 05, 2016 - ALICIA P. LOGARTA, Petitioner, v. CATALINO M. MANGAHIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209264, July 05, 2016 - DAMASO T. AMBRAY AND CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA A. TSOUROUS, CARMENCITA AMBRAY-LAUREL, HEDY AMBRAY-AZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAY-YATCO, NANCY AMBRAY-ESCUDERO, MARISTELA AMBRAY-ILAGAN, ELIZABETH AMBRAY-SORIANO, MA. LUISA FE AMBRAY-ARCILLA, AND CRISTINA AMBRAY-LABIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208353, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE SIATON Y BATE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212337, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BELTRAN FUENTES, JR. Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220978, July 05, 2016 - CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN J. BABIANO AND EMMA B. CONCEPCION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203179, July 04, 2016 - TECHNO DEVELOPMENT & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VIKING METAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205728, July 05, 2016 - THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204693, July 13, 2016 - GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES, Petitioner, v. GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES FACULTY LABOR UNION AND GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES NON-TEACHING AND MAINTENANCE LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213279, July 11, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., BLUE OCEAN SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., AND/OR WILLIAM S. MALALUAN, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM C. ALIVIO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1869, July 27, 2016 - MARIE CHRISTINE D. BANCIL, Complainant, v. HONORABLE RONALDO B. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF SAN JUAN CITY, BRANCH 58, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220449, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RUSGIE GARRUCHO Y SERRANO, Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 10631, July 27, 2016 - ERNESTO B. BALBURIAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. AMOR MIA J. FRANCISCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208264, July 27, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. RICO C. MANALASTAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206649, July 20, 2016 - FOREST HELLS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY RAINIER L. MADRID, IN A DERIVATIVE CAPACITY AS SHAREHOLDER AND CLUB MEMBER, Petitioner, v. FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., AND FIL-ESTATE GOLF DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016 - AILEEN ANGELA S. ALFORNON, Petitioner, v. RODULFO DELOS SANTOS AND EDSEL A. GALEOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206690, July 11, 2016 - BARRIO FIESTA RESTAURANT, LIBERTY ILAGAN, SUNSHINE ONGPAUCO-IKEDA AND MARICO CRISTOBAL, Petitioners, v. HELEN C. BERONIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189878, July 11, 2016 - WILSON FENIX, REZ CORTEZ AND ANGELITO SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181375, July 13, 2016 - PHIL-NIPPON KYOEI, CORP., Petitioner, v. ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN CHRISTY MAE T. GUDELOSAO AND ROSE ELDEN T. GUDELOSAO, CARMEN TANCONTIAN, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN CAMELA B. TANCONTIAN, BEVERLY B. TANCONTIAN, AND ACE B. TANCONTIAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016 - FLORENCIO MORALES, JR., Petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, ATTY. AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ATTY. MIGUEL NOEL T. OCAMPO, ATTY. JOYCE MARTINEZ-BARUT, ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, AND ATTY. EDIZER J. RESURRECION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204873, July 27, 2016 - ESTHER PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204899, July 27, 2016 - HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN, NAMELY, KALIPA B. GUIAMBANGAN, SAYA GUIAMBANGAN DARUS, NENENG P. GUIAMBANGAN, AND EDGAR P. GUIAMBANGAN, Petitioners, v. MUNICIPALITY OF KALAMANSIG, SULTAN KUDARAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR ROLANDO P. GARCIA, MEMBERS OF ITS SANGGUNIANG BAYAN, AND ITS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205010, July 18, 2016 - PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTALGAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. ELENA LAO, IMELDA LAO, POMPIDOU GOLANGCO, JEREMY WILSON GOLANGCO, CARMEN CASTILLO, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF BAGUIO GAS CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016 - TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. AND BENJAMIN P. MANALASTAS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF BMT TRUCKING SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200352, July 20, 2016 - MARY JUNE CELIZ, Petitioner, v. CORD CHEMICALS, INC., LEONOR G. SANZ, AND MARIAN ONTANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUSTICO YGOT Y REPUELA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016 - LAND BANK PHILIPPINES, OF THE Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF MANUEL BOLAŅOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189312, July 28, 2016 - FE B. SAGUINSIN, Petitioner, v. AGAPITO LIBAN, CESARIO LIBAN, EDDIE TANGUILAN, PACENCIA MACANANG, ISIDRO NATIVIDAD, TIMMY SIBBALUCA AND ISIDRO SIBBALUCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201436, July 11, 2016 - SPOUSES MAMERTO AND ADELIA* TIMADO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JOSE, INC., TEDDY MONASTERIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ITS PRESIDENT/MANAGER, AND ATTY. AVELINO SALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198925, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES ARCHIBAL LATOJA AND CHARITO LATOJA, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE ELVIE LIM, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ATTY. JESUS APELADO, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ALVARO CAPITO, AS SHERIFF, BRANCH 2, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, AND TERESITA CABE, REPRESENTED BY ADELINA ZAMORA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195641, July 11, 2016 - TARCISIO S. CALILUNG, Petitioner, v. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RP TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., RENATO L. PUNZALAN AND JOSE MANALO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212346, July 07, 2016 - RICHARD V. FUNK, Petitioner, v. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., FEDERICO O. ESCALER, JOSE M. ZARAGOZA, DOMINGO L. MAPA, ERNESTO C. PEREZ AND ARISTON ESTRADA, SR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195147, July 11, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G. R. No. 188283, July 20, 2016 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ARNULFO AND EVELYN FUENTEBELLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219627, July 04, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187400, July 13, 2016 - FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES DANILO AND GENEROSA VITUG- LIGON, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ISAAC AND CONCEPCION RONULO Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11078, July 19, 2016 - VERLITA V. MERCULLO AND RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211028, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN ARCILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191442, July 27, 2016 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO LISTA, IFUGAO, REPRESENTED BY CHARLES L. CATTILING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR AND ESTRELLA S. ALIGUYON, IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FORMER SIXTH DIVISION AND SN ABOITIZ POWER-MAGAT, INC.., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206927, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARIUS RENIEDO Y CAUILAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016 - LUZ S. ALMEDA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 205963-64, July 07, 2016 - AMANDO A. INOCENTES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. ROLAND B. JURADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON, SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AS COMPLAINANT; AND HON. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), IN ITS CAPACITY AS COUNSEL FOR THE PEOPLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205839, July 07, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205840 - MA. LORENA FLORES AND ALEXANDER CRUZ, Petitioners, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206888, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARITESS CAYAS Y CALITIS @ "TETET", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204222, July 04, 2016 - NEPTUNE METAL SCRAP RECYCLING, INC., Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191492, July 04, 2016 - PATRICIA SIBAYAN REPRESENTED BY TEODICIO SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO COSTALES, SUSANA ISIDRO, RODOLFO ISIDRO, ANNO ISIDRO AND ROBERTO CERANE., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3907-RTJ], July 26, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.; A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3736-RTJ] - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. JOSE ROBERTO F. PO, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016 - ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, July 26, 2016 - 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 G. ROSARIO.

  • G.R. No. 200537, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO QUITOLAY BALMONTE, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183934, July 20, 2016 - ERNESTO GALANG AND MA. OLGA JASMIN CHAN, Petitioners, v. BOIE TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. AND/OR KAZUHIKO NOMURA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183645, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF GAMALIEL ALBANO, REPRESENTED BY ALEXANDER ALBANO AND ALL OTHER PERSON LIVING WITH THEM IN THE SUBJECT PREMISES, Petitioners, v. SPS. MENA C. RAVANES AND ROBERTO RA VANES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212426, July 26, 2016 - RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, WIGBERTO E. TAŅADA, FRANCISCO "DODONG" NEMENZO, JR., SR. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, PACIFICO A. AGABIN, ESTEBAN "STEVE" SALONGA, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., EVALYN G. URSUA, EDRE U. OLALIA, DR. CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, DR. ROLAND SIMBULAN, AND TEDDY CASIŅO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, AND ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 212444 - BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES NERI J. COLMENARES, AND CARLOS ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES LUZ ILAGAN AND EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDO HICAP, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TERRY RIDON, MAKABAYANG KOALISYON NG MAMAMAYAN (MAKABAYAN), REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO OCAMPO, AND LIZA MAZA, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, RAFAEL MARIANO, SALVADOR FRANCE, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, AND CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY PIO LORENZO BATINO, AMBASSADOR LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE, AMBASSADOR J. EDUARDO MALAYA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDERSECRETARY FRANCISCO BARAAN III, AND DND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS RAYMUND JOSE QUILOP AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE NEGOTIATING PANEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES ON EDCA, Respondents.; KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER LABOG, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT FERDINAND GAITE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOSELITO USTAREZ, NENITA GONZAGA, VIOLETA ESPIRITU, VIRGINIA FLORES, AND ARMANDO TEODORO, JR., Petitioners-In-Intervention,; RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., Petitioner-In-Intervention.

  • G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDO BACERO Y CASABON, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016 - BENJIE B. GEORG REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN C. BELARMINO, JR., Petitioner, v. HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215764, July 13, 2016 - RICHARD K. TOM, Petitioner, v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10944, July 12, 2016 - NORMA M. GUTIERREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEANOR A. MARAVILLA-ONA. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND HON. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 - PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MINNIE TUMULAK Y CUENCA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206906, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FLORDILINA RAMOS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217999, July 26, 2016 - TERESITA P. DE GUZMAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS FORMER GENERAL MANAGER; BERNADETTE B. VELASQUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS FINANCE MANAGER; ATTY. RODOLFO T. TABANGIN, ATTY. ANTONIO A. ESPIRITU, ATTY. MOISES P. CATING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BAGNIO WATER DISTRICT (BWD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND SONIA A. DAOAS AND ENGR. FELINO D. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CENTRAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI MENDOZA, AND NILDA B. PLARAS, DIRECTOR IV, COMMISSION SECRETARY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213598, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCELITA1 ARENAS Y BONZO @ MERLY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDILBERTO PUSING Y TAMOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3471 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-197-RTC), July 26, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHN REVEL B. PEDRIŅA, CLERK III, BRANCH 200, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIŅAS CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199151-56, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, LT. GEN. LEOPOLDO S. ACOT, B/GEN. ILDEFONSO N. DULINAYAN, LT. COL. SANTIAGO B. RAMIREZ, LT. COL. CESAR M. CARINO, MAJ. PROCESO T. SABADO, MAJ. PACQUITO L. CUENCA, 1LT. MARCELINO M. MORALES, M/SGT. ATULFO D. TAMPOLINO, REMEDIOS "REMY" DIAZ, JOSE GADIN, JR., GLENN ORQUIOLA, HERMINIGILDA LLAVE, GLORIA BAYONA AND RAMON BAYONA JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190158, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS AND RURAL BANK OF AGOO, LA UNION, Petitioners, v. LA TONDEŅA INCORPORADA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208837, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA RIVERA Y DUMO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210801, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN CENIDO Y PICONES AND REMEDIOS CONTRERAS Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO ARELLANO, AND SENIOR DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE M. VILLANUEVA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 150, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), ARTURO F. LUY, GERTRUDES K. LUY, ANNABELLE LUY-REARIO, AND BENHUR K. LUY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLORIA CAIZ Y TALVO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016 - ANNA MARIE L. GUMABON, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016 - MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210606, July 27, 2016 - GRACE PARK* INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND WOODLINK REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION, SECURITY BANKING CORPORATION, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION TRUST DIVISION, EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, EDRIC C. ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016 - SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO, KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199180, July 27, 2016 - THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON AND ARMI SIOSON, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181335, July 27, 2016 - MARIO SALUTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016 - JUTTA KRURSEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218665, July 20, 2016 - JULIUS BAUTTSTA, ARSENIO LARANANG, REYNALDO BALDEMOR, MANAYAN, NORMA FLORES, CONSUELO ESTIGOY, CARMELITA VALMONTE, SIMEON MARTIN, MAGDALENA GADIAN, JOSE GINNO DELA MERCED, JOVEN SILAN, JR., JULIO DIAZ, GIDEON ACOSTA, AND WENCESLA BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. LT. COL. BENITO DONIEGO, JR., LT. COL. ALFREDO PATARATA, AND MAJOR GENERAL GREGORIO PIO CATAPANG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9492, July 11, 2016 - PLUTARCO E. VAZQUEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. DAVID LIM QUECO KHO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6387 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3001], July 19, 2016 - GABINO V. TOLENTINO AND FLORDELIZA C. TOLENTINO, Complainants, v. ATTY. HENRY B. SO AND ATTY. FERDINAND L. ANCHETA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016 - DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, A.K.A. "DOREEN GRACE MEDINA KOIKE," Petitioner, v. MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016 - JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners, v. LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213601, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANKIE GERERO, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, CHRISTOPHER GERERO, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, ACCUSED, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 217381, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE R. SALVADOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 7072, July 27, 2016 - VIRGILIO D. MAGAWAY AND CESARIO M. MAGAWAY, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIANO A. AVECILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016 - LEODEGARIO A. LABAO, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUDOVICO L, MARTELINO, JR., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 212989 - SHARON GRACE MARTINEZ-MARTELINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VICE MAYOR JOSE O. ALBA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 194763-64, July 20, 2016 - WILFRED GACUS YAMSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, REY CAŅETE CHAVEZ, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ARNOLD DOMINGO NAVALES, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ROSINDO JAPAY ALMONTE, DIVISION MANAGER C, ALFONSO EDEN LAID, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, AND WILLIAM V. GUILLEN, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, (ALL OF) DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, BAJADA, DAVAO CITY, Petitioners, v. DANILO C. CASTRO AND GEORGE F. INVENTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016 - INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY, MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209276 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND THE FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR, ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA HI, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209301 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAŅOS FOUNDATION, INC.,. Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209430 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAŅOS, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOROY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND PROMULGATED: EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, July 26, 2016 - RE: LETTER OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; A.M. NO. 12-9-5-SC - RE: COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ANGELITA A, GACUTAN; A.M. NO. 13-02-07-SC - RE: REQUEST OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR- FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE AND AS COMELEC COMMISSIONER BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HER JUDICIAL SERVICE AND INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION/ADJUSTMENT OF HER LONGEVITY PAY., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202050, July 25, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY AND PNOC DOCKYARD & ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210991, July 12, 2016 - DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (FORMERLY DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES) DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LORENZO C. FORMOSO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON AND HON. HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016 - IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent.