Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > March 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016

ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,*Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

The petitioners appeal the adverse judgment promulgated on July 31, 2002,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring them as project employees hired for a fixed period.

Antecedents

Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients,2 hired the following individuals on various dates and under the following terms, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Name
Position
Duration of Contract
Alumamay Jamias
Manual Editor
August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19963
Marietha V. Delos Santos
Manual Editor
August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19964
Lilian R. Guamil
Manual Editor
August 16, 1995 to August 16, 19965
Rina C. Duque
Manual Editor
August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19966
Marilen Agabayani
Manual Editor
August 23, 1995 to August 23, 19967
Alvin V. Patnon
Production Personnel
September 1, 1995 to September 1, 19968
Analyn I. Beter
Type Reader
September 18, 1995 to September 18, 19969
Jerry O. Soldevilla
Production Personnel
September 18, 1995 to September 18, 199610
Ma. Concepcion A. Dela Cruz
Production Personnel
September 18, 1995 to September 18, 199611
Jennifer Cruz
Data Encoder
November 20, 1995 to November 20, 199612
Jennifer Matuguinas
Data Encoder
November 20, 1995 to November 20, 199613
After their respective contracts expired, the aforenamed individuals filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as project employees in order to prevent them from becoming regular employees.14

Decision of the Labor Arbiter

On September 8, 1998, Labor Arbiter (LA) Vicente Layawen rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.15 He found and held that the petitioners had knowingly signed their respective contracts in which the durations of their engagements were clearly stated; and that their fixed term contracts, being exceptions to Article 280 of the Labor Code, precluded their claiming regularization.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of LA Layawen,16 opining that Article 280 of the Labor Code did not prohibit employment contracts with fixed periods provided the contracts had been voluntarily entered into by the parties, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[I]t is distinctly provided that complainants were hired for a definite period of one year incidental upon the needs of the respondent by reason of the seasonal increase in the volume of its business. Consequently, following the rulings in Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 106654, December 16, 1994, the decisive determinant in term of employment should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship, a day certain being understood to be "that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known when." Further, Article 280 of the Labor Code does not prescribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided, the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities. There is thus nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of the employee's duties. x x x17ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Judgment of the CA

As earlier mentioned, the CA upheld the NLRC. It observed that the desirability and necessity of the functions being discharged by the petitioners did not make them regular employees; that Innodata and the employees could still validly enter into their contracts of employment for a fixed period provided they had agreed upon the same at the time of the employees' engagement;18 that Innodata's operations were contingent on job orders or undertakings for its foreign clients; and that the availability of contracts from foreign clients, and the duration of the employments could not be treated as permanent, but coterminous with the projects.19

The petitioners moved for reconsideration,20 but the CA denied their motion on August 8, 2003.21

Hence, this appeal by only three of the original complainants, namely petitioners Alumamay Jamias, Jennifer Matuguinas and Jennifer Cruz.

Issues

The petitioners anchor their appeal on the following:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AS IT CANNOT REVERSE OR ALTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AT RESPONDENTS IS REGULAR NOT FIXED OR CONTRACTUAL IN AT LEAST TWO (2) CASES AGAINST INNODATA PHILS., INC.

II

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DID NOT STICK TO PRECENDENT AS IT HAS ALREADY RULED IN AN EARLIER CASE THAT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AT INNODATA PHILS., INC. IS REGULAR AND NOT CONTRACTUAL

III

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN LAW AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS' EMPLOYMENT IS FOR A FIXED PERIOD CO-TERMINOUS WITH A PROJECT WHEN THERE IS NO PROJECT TO SPEAK OF

IV

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS PALPABLY ERRED IN LAW IN RULING THAT THE STIPULATION IN CONTRACT IS GOVERNING AND NOT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AS DEFINED BY LAW.22ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The petitioners maintain that the nature of employment in Innodata had been settled in Villanueva v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division)23 and Servidad v. National Labor Relations Commission,24 whereby the Court accorded regular status to the employees because the work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of data encoding, processing and conversion.25 They insist that the CA consequently committed serious error in not applying the pronouncement in said rulings, thereby ignoring the principle of stare decisis in declaring their employment as governed by the contract of employment; that the CA also erroneously found that the engagement of the petitioners was coterminous with the project that was nonexistent; that Innodata engaged in "semantic interplay of words" by introducing the concept of "fixed term employment" or "project employment" that were not founded in law;26 and that Article 280 of the Labor Code guarantees the right of workers to security of tenure, which rendered the contracts between the petitioners and Innodata meaningless.27cralawred

In refutation, Innodata insists that the contracts dealt with in Villanueva and Servidad were different from those entered into by the petitioners herein,28 in that the former contained stipulations that violated the provisions of the Labor Code on probationary employment and security of tenure,29 while the latter contained terms known and explained to the petitioners who then willingly signed the same;30 that as a mere service provider, it did not create jobs because its operations depended on the availability of job orders or undertakings from its client;31 that Article 280 of the Labor Code allowed "term employment" as an exception to security of tenure; and that the decisive determinant was the day certain agreed upon by the parties, not the activities that the employees were called upon to perform.32

Were the petitioners regular or project employees of Innodata?

Ruling of the Court

We deny the petition for review on certiorari.

I

Stare decisis does not apply where the facts are essentially different


Contrary to the petitioners' insistence, the doctrine of stare decisis, by which the pronouncements in Villanueva and Servidad would control the resolution of this case, had no application herein.

The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents.33 When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same; but when the facts are essentially different, stare decisis does not apply because a perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is introduced.34

Servidad and Villanueva involved contracts that contained stipulations not found in the contracts entered by the petitioners. The cogent observations in this regard by the CA are worth reiterating:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A cursory examination of the facts would reveal that while all the cases abovementioned involved employment contracts with a fixed term, the employment contract subject of contention in the Servidad and Villanueva cases provided for double probation, meaning, that the employees concerned, by virtue of a clause incorporated in their contracts, were made to remain as probationary employees even if they continue to work beyond the six month probation period set by law. Indeed, such stipulation militates against Constitutional policy of guaranteeing the tenurial security of the workingman. To Our mind, the provision alluded to is what prodded the Supreme Court to disregard and nullify altogether the terms of the written entente. Nonetheless, it does not appear to be the intendment of the High Tribunal to sweepingly invalidate or declare as unlawful all employment contracts with a fixed period. To phrase it differently, the said agreements providing for a one year term would have been declared valid and, consequently, the separation from work of the employees concerned would have been sustained had their contracts not included any unlawful and circumventive condition.

It ought to be underscored that unlike in the Servidad and Villanueva cases, the written contracts governing the relations of the respondent company and the petitioners herein do not embody such illicit stipulation.35ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We also disagree with the petitioners' manifestation36 that the Court struck down in Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-Lopez37 a contract of employment that was similarly worded as their contracts with Innodata. What the Court invalidated in Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-Lopez was the purported fixed-term contract that provided for two periods - a fixed term of one year under paragraph 1 of the contract, and a three-month period under paragraph 7.4 of the contract - that in reality placed the employees under probation. In contrast, the petitioners' contracts did not contain similar stipulations, but stipulations to the effect that their engagement was for the fixed period of 12 months, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The EMPLOYER shall employ the EMPLOYEE and the EMPLOYEE shall serve the EMPLOYER in the EMPLOYER'S business as a MANUAL EDITOR on a fixed term only and for a fixed and definite period of twelve months, commencing on August 7, 1995 and terminating on August 7, 1996, x x x.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In other words, the terms of the petitioners' contracts did not subject them to a probationary period similar to that indicated in the contracts struck down in Innodata, Villanueva and Servidad.

II

A fixed period in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to circumvent Article 280 of the Labor Code


The petitioners argue that Innodata circumvented the security of tenure protected under Article 280 of the Labor Code by providing a fixed term; and that they were regular employees because the work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of Innodata.

The arguments of the petitioners lack merit and substance.

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actuallv exists.
The provision contemplates three kinds of employees, namely: (a) regular employees; (b) project employees; and (c) casuals who are neither regular nor project employees. The nature of employment of a worker is determined by the factors provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code, regardless of any stipulation in the contract to the contrary.39 Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,40 we explained that the clause referring to written contracts should be construed to refer to agreements entered into for the purpose of circumventing the security of tenure. Obviously, Article 280 does not preclude an agreement providing for a fixed term of employment knowingly and voluntarily executed by the parties.41

A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must strictly conform with the requirements and conditions provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code. The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a project or regular employee is whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the time of his engagement.42 There must be a determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged.43 Otherwise put, the fixed period of employment must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter.44

The contracts of the petitioners indicated the one-year duration of their engagement as well as their respective project assignments (i.e., Jamias being assigned to the CD-ROM project; Cruz and Matuguinas to the TSET project).45 There is no indication that the petitioners were made to sign the contracts against their will. Neither did they refute Innodata's assertion that it did not employ force, intimidate or fraudulently manipulate the petitioners into signing their contracts, and that the terms thereof had been explained and made known to them.46 Hence, the petitioners knowingly agreed to the terms of and voluntarily signed their respective contracts.

That Innodata drafted the contracts with its business interest as the overriding consideration did not necessarily warrant the holding that the contracts were prejudicial against the petitioners.47 The fixing by Innodata of the period specified in the contracts of employment did not also indicate its ill-motive to circumvent the petitioners' security of tenure. Indeed, the petitioners could not presume that the fixing of the one-year term was intended to evade or avoid the protection to tenure under Article 280 of the Labor Code in the absence of other evidence establishing such intention. This presumption must ordinarily be based on some aspect of the agreement other than the mere specification of the fixed term of the employment agreement, or on evidence aliunde of the intent to evade.48

Lastly, the petitioners posit that they should be accorded regular status because their work as editors and proofreaders were usually necessary to Innodata's business of data processing.

We reject this position. For one, it would be unusual for a company like Innodata to undertake a project that had no relationship to its usual business.49 Also, the necessity and desirability of the work performed by the employees are not the determinants in term employment, but rather the "day certain" voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.50 As the CA cogently observed in this respect:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
There is proof to establish that Innodata's operations indeed rests upon job orders or undertakings coming from its foreign clients. Apparently, its employees are assigned to projects - one batch may be given a fixed period of one year, others, a slightly shorter duration, depending on the estimated time of completion of the particular job or undertaking farmed out by the client to the company.51ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In fine, the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a fixed term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract. Their complaint for illegal dismissal was plainly lacking in merit.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRM the decision promulgated on July 31, 2002; and ORDER the petitioners to pay the costs of suit

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


* Although the petition for review on certiorari was filed in the names of all the original parties in the Court of Appeals, namely: Alvin V. Patnon, Marietha V. Delos Santos, Mary Rose V. Macabuhay, Alumamay O. .lamias, Marilen Agbayani, Rina O. Duque, Lilian R. Guamil, Jerry F. Soldevilla, Ma. Concepcion A. Dela Cruz, Analyn I. Beter, Michael L. Aguirre, Jennifer C. Matuguinas and Jennifer F. Cruz, the Court captions this decision only with the names of the three who brought this appeal, namely: Alumamay O. Jarnias, Jennifer C. Maluguinas and Jennifer F. Cruz.

1Rollo, pp. 38-46; penned by CA Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam (retired/deceased), concurring.

2 Id. at 179-180.

3 Id. at 217.

4 CA rollo, pp. 41-42.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 42-43.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12Rollo, p. 218.

13 Id. at 219.

14 CA rollo, p. 48.

15 Id. at 40-47.

16 Id. at 25-38.

17 Id. at 35-36.

18Rollo, pp. 43-44.

19 Id. at 45.

20 CA rollo, pp. 528-547.

21Rollo, pp. 48-49.

22 Id. at 14.

23 G.R. No. 127448, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 326.

24 G.R. No. 128682, March 18, 1999, 305 SCRA 49.cralawred

25Rollo, p. 18.

26 Id. at 27-28.cralawred

27 Id. at 30-31.

28 Id. at 186-188.

29 Id. at 192-193.

30 Id. at 195.

31 Id. at 197-198.

32 Id. at 190-200.

33Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 285, 293-294; citing Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132, 145.

34Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc./Hortencia Starke v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 150478, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 300, 309.

35Rollo, pp. 42-43.

36 Id. at 555-562.

37 G.R. No. 162839, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 253.

38Rollo, p. 217.

39Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117043, January 14, 1998, 284 SCRA 105, 127.cralawred

40 G.R. No. 48494, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 702.

41 Id., at 716.

42Violeta v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119523, October 10, 1997, 280 SCRA 520, 528.

43 Id.

44 Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Dev't Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97747 March 31, 1993, 220 SCRA 695, 699.

45Rollo, pp. 217-219.

46 Id. at 195.

47Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, note 39, at 128.

48Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ople, G.R. No. 61594, September 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 90.

49ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994, 234 SCRA 678, 684.

50Brent School, Inc. v, Zamora, supra, note 40, at 710.

51 Supra note 1, at 45.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

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

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

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





March-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208071, March 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO PEREZ Y ALAVADO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016 - BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, AS CHAIRMAN OF BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016 - TABUK MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners, v. MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016 - SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016 - SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BPI/MS INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioners, v. YOLANDA LAINGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184251, March 09, 2016 - ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTAŅEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTAŅEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTAŅEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTAŅEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016 - FE P. ZALDIVAR, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER ZALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016 - MILAGROSA JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016 - INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B. ARRIOLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEŅA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016 - MILAGROS DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND TERESITA PUNZALAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016 - IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)

  • A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3121], March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND CARIDAD ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY. REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218072, March 08, 2016 - METROPOLITAN NAGA WATER DISTRICT, VIRGINIA I. NERO, JEREMIAS P. ABAN JR., AND EMMA A. CUYO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016 - BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR METALS INC. (SRMI), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9684, March 16, 2016 - MARY ROSE A. BOTO, Complainant, v. SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR VINCENT L. VILLENA, CITY PROSECUTOR ARCHIMEDES V. MANABAT AND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR PATRICK NOEL P. DE DIOS., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193134, March 02, 2016 - RAFAEL NADYAHAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191079, March 02, 2016 - JOEL CARDENAS, HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. ALCANTARA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, JR., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SIMPLICIA P. AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR AND ATTY. NORMAN R. BUENO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016 - RAMON PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON, EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON, LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES, LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO, Complainants, v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016 - WIGBERTO "TOBY" R. TAŅADA, JR., Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S. TAŅADA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9831, March 09, 2016 - CHAN SHUN KUEN, Complainant, v. COMMISSIONERS LOURDES B. COLOMA-JAVIER, GREGORIO O. BILOG III, RAUL TAGLE AQUINO AND ATTY. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217121, March 16, 2016 - SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016 - NELSON TEŅIDO Y SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016 - SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v. TEODORA F. CAMPO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016 - ERNIE IDANAN, NANLY DEL BARRIO AND MARLON PLOPENIO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 170746-47, March 07, 2016 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES PETROLEUM, CO., INC., CALTEX SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX OCEANIC LIMITED, CALTEX INVESTMENT AND TRADING LIMITED, CALTEX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTRAPORT (FAR EAST) COMPANY, CALTEX TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CALTEX SERVICES CORPORATION, AMERICAN OVERSEAS PETROLEUM LIMITED, P.T. CALTEX PACIFIC INDONESIA, CALTEX PETROLEUM INC., CALTEX ASIA, LIMITED, CALIFORNIA TEXAS OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (DELAWARE), CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (NEW YORK), CALTEX OIL PRODUCT COMPANY, CALTEX (OVERSEAS) LIMITED, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORP., Petitioners, v. MA. FLOR A. SINGZON AGUIRRE, ERNEST SINGZON, CESAR SINGZON AND ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS- INTERVENORS IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 91-59592,91-59658, AND 92-61026 PENDING BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 39, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE JOSE CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C. ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND BALBINO JOSE CAMPA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185757, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL. AND LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJAO AND ANASTACIA Z. BAJAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS, AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO, Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 - SISON OLAŅO, SERGIO T. ONG, MARILYN O. GO, AND JAP FUK HAI, Petitioners, v. LIM ENG CO, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 212593-94, March 15, 2016 - JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.; G.R.Nos. 213163-78 - JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213540-41 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213542-43 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 215880-94 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213475-76 - JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016 - DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3905-P), March 01, 2016 - AIREEN A. MAHUSAY, Complainant, v. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174747, March 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA, DOMINGO REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE, AND BIENVENIDO FELINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 - TRAVEL & TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND VIRGINIA MUŅOZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NILDA B. TAMPUS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204965, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES ROMULO H. ESPIRITU AND EVELYN ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND ANNALIZA G. SAZON, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 - THE CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 201871 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES), Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016 - ROGER ALLEN BIGLER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 202647-50, March 09, 2016 - CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, THE HONORABLE RAMON M. BATO, JR., AND THE HONORABLE EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA AND LUIS MANUEL GATMAITAN, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 205921-24 - CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LUIS MANUEL L. GATMAITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016 - CITA C. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. FIDEL D. AQUINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218399, March 02, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO COMBOY Y CRONICO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214430, March 09, 2016 - FELICITO M. MEJORADO, Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 - NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016 - TUNG HUI CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, Petitioners, v. SHIH CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2793 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2406-P), March 08, 2016 - SIMPLECIO A. MARSADA, Complainant, v. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214752, March 09, 2016 - EQUITABLE SAVINGS BANK, (NOW KNOWN AS THE MERGED ENTITY "BDO UNIBANK, INC.") Petitioner, v. ROSALINDA C. PALCES, Respondent.

  • DECISION - PEREZ, J. - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • SERENO, C.J.: - CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • CARPIO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • BRION, J. - DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • CAGUIOA, J.: SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • DEL CASTILLO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • JARDELEZA, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • VELASCO, JR., J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • LEONEN, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.