Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > September 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 206808-09, September 07, 2016 - LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S. CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G. VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, REYNALDO M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B. TUTOL, Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 206808-09, September 07, 2016 - LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S. CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G. VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, REYNALDO M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B. TUTOL, Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 206808-09, September 07, 2016

LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S. CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G. VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, REYNALDO M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B. TUTOL, Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

Challenged in the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated August 28, 2012 and January 15, 2013, respectively, in two (2) consolidated cases docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 100482 and 100662. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the: (1) December 7, 2006 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 92 in SP. Proc. No. Q-06-59047, which granted petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; and (2) the June 6, 2007 Resolution4 of the RTC which denied respondents' Motion for Reconsideration. The questioned CA Resolution denied herein petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On February 2, 2004, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted Executive Order (E.O.) No. 2795 for the purpose of reviewing and rationalizing the then existing financing policies for the Philippine water supply and sewerage sector to allow for the efficient flow of resources thereto. Under the said E.O., all concerned government agencies and instrumentalities of the water supply and sewerage sector, which includes, among others, the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), were directed to pursue and implement reform objectives and policies. The said E.O. particularly provided for the rationalization of LWUA's organizational structure and operations.

On October 4, 2004, President Arroyo issued E.O. No. 366 directing all departments of the executive branch and their component units/bureaus including government-owned and controlled corporations, boards, task forces, councils, commissions and all other agencies attached thereto or under the administrative supervision of a Department, to conduct a strategic review of the operations and organization of the Executive Branch and to prepare a rationalization plan which includes the phasing of activities and availment of incentives by affected employees.

On April 13, 2005, President Arroyo issued E.O. No. 421,6 specifying LWUA's core functions and providing for shifts in its policy direction, functions, programs, activities and strategies. Cognizant of the effect of the rationalization of the functions of LWUA, the E.O. gave affected LWUA personnel the option to either remain or retire, or be separated from government service.

Pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 421, then LWUA Administrator Lorenzo Zamora came up with Office Order No. 077-05 creating Task Force 421 and its Action Team. The said Task Force was charged, among others, with the duty of preparing the LWUA's staffing pattern and the corresponding plantilla positions therein as directed by E.O. No. 421. The Action Team, on the other hand, was given the responsibility of reporting to the Task Force and assisting it in the execution of its duties and responsibilities. Among the appointed members of the Action Team was herein petitioner Melanio Cuchapin II, who was then the Chairperson of petitioner LWUA Employees' Association for Progress (LEAP). Subsequently, Task Force 421 was able to come up with a staffing pattern, consisting of 467 plantilla positions which it submitted to the LWUA Board of Trustees for approval.

On April 18, 2006, the LWUA Board of Trustees issued Board Resolution No. 69 which approved the staffing pattern proposed by Task Force 421. Thereafter, the approved staffing pattern was submitted to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for review and approval.

In its letter dated September 27, 2006, the DBM approved 447 plantilla positions out of the 467 proposed positions. Twenty (20) positions were excluded from the plantilla because they were classified as coterminous with the members of the LWUA Board of Trustees and are not considered critical in the agency's operations.

On October 18, 2006, LWUA issued Office Order No. 168-06 requiring the immediate implementation of the following: (a) posting of the DBM-approved staffing pattern; (b) finalization by the Staffing Committee of the staffing guidelines to be submitted to the Management and the Board of Trustees for approval; and (c) finalization by the Task Analysis Committee of the job descriptions under the rationalized LWUA structure. The said Office Order also provided that the guidelines for the implementation of the approved staffing pattern shall include a general provision declaring that all employees may apply for a maximum of five positions in the rationalized structure where they may qualify.

On October 19, 2006, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction with the RTC of Quezon City. Alleging that LWUA and DBM acted with grave abuse of discretion in adopting and implementing the reorganization plan of LWUA, petitioners prayed that LWUA and DBM be restrained from implementing the following: (1) DBM-approved staffing pattern; (2) Resolution No. 69 of the LWUA Board of Trustees, and (3) E.O. Nos. 279, 366 and 421, on the ground that petitioners will suffer injustice and sustain irreparable injury as 233 LWUA employees face immediate and outright dismissal from service.

Respondents filed their respective Oppositions to the petitioners' prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction.

After hearing, the RTC issued its assailed Order7 granting petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued, restraining the respondents from enforcing and effecting the assailed questioned DBM-Approved Staffing Pattern dated 27 September 2006, LWUA Board Resolution No. 69, series of 2006, and Executive Order Nos. 279, 366 and 421, including the issuance of any orders, resolutions and/or decisions relating to the same, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos for any damage that may be sustained by the respondents by reason of the injunction if the Court will finally decide that the petitioners are not entitled thereto.

SO ORDERED.8

LWUA and DBM filed separate Motions for Reconsideration, but these were denied in the RTC's questioned Resolution9 dated June 6, 2007.

LWUA and DBM then filed separate special civil actions for certiorari with the CA questioning the subject RTC Order and Resolution. These petitions were subsequently consolidated.

On August 28, 2012, the CA promulgated its presently disputed Decision, with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order dated 07 December 2006 and the Resolution dated 06 June 2007 issued by Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City in SP Proc. No. Q-06-59047 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the said court pursuant to its Order dated 07 December 2006 is LIFTED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.10

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated January 15, 2013.

Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:

6.1 THE HONORABLE FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DATED 15 JANUARY 2013, DENYING THE INSTANT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION PROMULGATED ON 28 AUGUST 2012, AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.

6.2 THE RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE [INJUNCTIVE] WRIT.

6.3 THERE IS NO APPEAL, OR ANY PLAIN AND SPEEDY REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW OTHER THA[N] THE INSTANT PETITION.11

At the outset, the Court notes that in its Decision12 dated December 27, 2012, the RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition which was filed by petitioners on the ground of lack of justiciable controversy and resort to a wrong remedy.

On this basis, the Court deems it proper to address the procedural matters raised by respondents as it finds the instant petition dismissible for reasons to be discussed hereunder.

First, is the propriety of the remedy availed of by petitioners. Petitioners come to this Court questioning the Decision and Resolution of the CA via a special civil action for certiorari contending that there is "a very urgent need to resolve the issues presented herein and considering that public respondents are hell-bent on proceeding with [the] removal and deprivation of economic benefits, causing great injury to petitioners and LWUA employees, and having no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law x x x."13

It is settled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.14

This Court has repeatedly held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper only when there is neither appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.15

On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that the proper remedy to question a judgment, final order or resolution of the CA, as in the present case, is a petition for review on certiorari regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved.16 The petition must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from; or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.17

This Court has ruled that because an appeal was available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari would not be entertained. We emphasized in that case that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.18 Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion.19

By filing the present special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioners, therefore, clearly availed themselves of the wrong remedy. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to this Court or to the CA by a wrong or an inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. On this score alone, the instant petition is dismissible.

The second issue raised by respondents that the dismissal of petitioners' principal action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the RTC results in the automatic dissolution of the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction issued by the same court.

The Court agrees with respondents.

A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.20 It is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of action in itself. The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.21 Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case.22

It is well settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.23 It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.24 It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.25cralawred

Indubitably, in the present case, the writ of preliminary injunction was granted by the RTC based on its finding that there was a need to protect petitioners' rights to security of tenure during the pendency of the principal action. After trial, however, the lower court found, among others, that, in questioning the constitutionality of E.O. Nos. 279, 366 and 421 as well as Resolution No. 69 of the LWUA Board of Trustees, petitioners failed to establish the existence of an actual case or controversy which is ripe for judicial determination. Thus, the RTC dismissed the principal action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The principal action having been heard and found dismissible as it was in fact dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC is deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal from the main case notwithstanding.26 In this regard, this Court's ruling in the case of Unionbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals27 is instructive, to wit:

x x x "a dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits, the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.28

Finally, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that even assuming that petitioners have a valid cause of action, in that their security of tenure may be violated as a result of their transfer or termination from service, the law, particularly Republic Act No. 665629 (RA 6656), provides them with ample remedies to address their alleged predicament, prior to filing an action in court. Sections 7 and 8 of RA 6656 provide, thus:

Section 7. A list of the personnel appointed to the authorized positions in the approved staffing pattern shall be made known to all the officers and employees of the department or agency. Any of such officers and employees aggrieved by the appointments made may file an appeal with the appointing authority who shall make a decision within thirty (30) days from the filling thereof.

Section 8. An officer or employee who is still not satisfied with the decision of the appointing authority may further appeal within ten (10) days from the receipt thereof to the Civil Service Commission which shall render a decision thereon within thirty (30) days and whose decision shall be final and executory.30

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her.31 Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought.32 The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action.33 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.34 Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.35

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.36

Thus, petitioners should have first brought their case to the appointing authority, which in this case, is the LWUA Board of Trustees, and, thereafter, to the Civil Service Commission, which has primary jurisdiction over the case. On the basis of the abovequoted provisions, it is clear that petitioners failed to exhaust the administrative remedies given them by law before resorting to the filing of a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated August 28, 2012 and January 15, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 100482 and 100662 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Leonen,**** JJ., concur.
Reyes, J., On wellness leave.

Endnotes:


* Spelled as "Gerardo" in other parts of the rollo and records.

** Spelled as "Rustico" in other parts of the rollo and records.

**** Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 1, 2014.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Yba�ez, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; Annex "B" to "B-1" to Petition, rollo, pp. 37-64.

2 Annex "A" to Petition, id. at 34-36.

3 Annex "C" to Petition, id. at 65-67.

4 Annex "D" to Petition, id. at 68-70.

5 Entitled, Instituting Reforms in the Financing Policies for the Water Supply and Sewerage Sector and Water Service Providers and Providing for the Rationalization of the Local Water Utilities Administration's Organizational Structure and Operations in Support Thereof.

6 Entitled Implementing the Refocusing of Functions and Organizational Structure of the Local Water Utilities Administration under E.O. No. 279 and Providing Options and Benefits for Employees Who May Be Affected Thereon.

7 Annex "C" to Petition, rollo, pp. 65-67.

8Id. at 67. (Emphasis in the original)

9 Annex "D" to Petition, id. at 68-70.

10Rollo, p. 63. (Emphasis in the original)

11Id. at 16.

12Id. at 105-121.

13Id. at 9.

14Tan v. Spouses Antazo, 659 Phil. 400, 403-404 (2011).

15Leonardo L. Villalon v. Renato E. Lirio, G.R. No. 183869, August 3, 2015.

16Indoyon, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 706 Phil. 200, 208 (2013); Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, et al., 655 Phil. 25, 44-45 (2011)

17Indoyon, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16.

18Leonardo L. Villalon v. Renato E. Lirio, supra note 15.

19Id.

20Buyco v. Baraquia, 623 Phil. 596, 600 (2009).

21Id. at 601.

22Id. at 600-601.

23Id. at 601.

24Id.

25cralawred United Alloy Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut Planters Bank, et al., G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015.

26Buyco v. Baraquia, supra note 20, at 601; Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, et al., 686 Phil. 236, 246-247 (2012).

27 370 Phil. 837 (1999).

28Id. at 845-846. (Citations omitted)

29An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization.

30Emphasis supplied.

31Maglalang v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 723 Phil. 546, 556 (2013).

32Id.

33Id.

34Id. at 556-557.

35Id. at 557.

36Addition Hills Mandaluyong Civic & Social Organization, Inc. v. Megaworld Properties & Holdings, Inc., et al., 686 Phil. 76, 82 (2012).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 211608, September 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MENARDO BOMBASI Y VERGARA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 195975, September 05, 2016 - TAINA MANIGQUE-STONE, Petitioner, v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC., AND SPOUSES TROADIO B. TECSON AND ASUNCION ORTALIZ-TECSON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212171, September 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCURY DELA CRUZ ALIAS "DEDAY," Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 10565, September 07, 2016 - PROSECUTOR RHODNA A. BACATAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. MERARI D. DADULA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016 - THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204423, September 14, 2016 - PHILIPPINE SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL-CAGAYAN VALLEY CAMPUS, Petitioner, v. PIRRA CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, Respondent.

  • I.P.I. No. 16-244-CA-J, September 06, 2016 - Re: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF CATALINA Z. ALILING AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MA. LUISA C. QUIJANO-PADILLA, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. CV NO. 103042

  • G.R. No. 203576, September 14, 2016 - NAGA CENTRUM, INC., REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY YUBUCO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RAMON J. ORZALES AND NENITA F. ORZALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192754, September 07, 2016 - LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. AND WORLD MARINE PANAMA S.A., Petitioners, v. EDUARDO C. OBRERO AND MERCEDITA P. OBRERO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181387, September 05, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. UE MONTHLY ASSOCIATES, UEAMI WORKERS UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206808-09, September 07, 2016 - LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S. CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G. VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, REYNALDO M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B. TUTOL, Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210798, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEVERLY VILLANUEVA Y MANALILI @ BEBANG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R.No. 186199, September 07, 2016 - EDGARDO A. QUILO AND ADNALOY VILLAHERMOSA, Petitioners, v. TEODULA BAJAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187942, September 07, 2016 - THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF TUGUEGARAO, Petitioner, v. FLORENTINA PRUDENCIO, NOW DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: EXEQUIEL, LORENZO, PRIMITIVO, MARCELINO, JULIANA, ALFREDO AND ROSARIO, ALL SURNAMED DOMINGO; AVELINA PRUDENCIO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND VICTORIANO DIMAYA; ERNESTO PENALBER AND RODRIGO TALANG; SPOUSES ISIDRO CEPEDA AND SALVACION DIVINI, NOW DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: MARCIAL, PEDRO AND LINA, ALL SURNAMED CEPEDA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10574 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3047), September 20, 2016 - PATRICK R. FABIE, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192132, September 14, 2016 - HEIRS OF ZOSIMO Q. MARAVILLA, NAMELY, ZOSIMO W. MARAVILLA, JR., YVETTE MARAVILLA AND RICHARD MARAVILLA, REPRESENTED BY ZOSIMO W. MARAVILLA, JR., Petitioners, v. PRIVALDO TUPAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206629, September 14, 2016 - NARCISO T. MATIS, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210940, September 06, 2016 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201320, September 14, 2016 - WILSON T. LIM, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO) AND P/S INSP. EUSTIQUIO FUENTES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219815, September 14, 2016 - J.O.S. MANAGING BUILDERS, INC. AND EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, Petitioners, v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WESTMONT BANK), EMMANUEL T. MANGOSING AND DAVID GOH CHAI ENG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220732, September 06, 2016 - ELMER G. SINDAC @ "TAMER," Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 190015 & 190019, September 14, 2016 - GERALDINE MICHELLE B. FALLARME AND ANDREA MARTINEZ-GACOS, Petitioners, v. SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., CHONA M. HERNANDEZ, VALERIANO ALEJANDRO III, SISTER CONCEPTION GABATINO, D.C., AND SISTER JOSEFINA QUIACHON, D.C., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214238, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESMAEL ZACARIA Y WAGAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191170, September 14, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. FIDEL O. CHUA AND FILIDEN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219855, September 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO LINTAG Y LAUREOLA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 199397, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARWIN GITO Y CORLIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194561, September 14, 2016 - DRUGSTORES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND NORTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY AFFAIRS; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182604, September 27, 2016 - DR. ROLANDO B. MANGUNE, DR. RENE A. ARCE AND EMMA E. TA�AFRANCA, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT FOR AND IN BEHALF OF DR. VIRGINIA M. AGUILAS, ROLANDO R. ANATALIO, DR. LEA M. DE LEON-ASI, CATALINO N. ATANACIO, JR., JULIANA M. BATALLER, MA. LUISA B. CA�EZA, LILIAN C. CANILAO, RANIEL S. CAPADA, FLORENDO A. DAYUS, JENNIFER D. PAGULAYAN, BIENVENIDO C. DE VILLA, JOSE A. DELOS REYES, CYNTHIA A. DIAZ, ANNA LEAH D. DIPATUAN, MADELAINE M. ESTOCAPIO, DR. MARIA SONIA YEE-FESTIN, MARIO E. FLORENDO, RUEL E. FORTUNADO, NATIVIDAD A. GAMIAO, IRMA Q. ANDAL, CHARITO C. LAZAM, AGNES R. LOVINDINO, EVELYN M. MABAG, RECHILDA B. MACAFE, ZENAIDA M. MADIANGKIT, ANGELICA T. MALAZARTE, DOMINGO P. MANAY, DR. EDGAR ORVEN M. MORTEL, SATURNINO E. QUIBAN, MARITES J. RAMOS, DR. MELINDA S.L. A. RAZALAN, BAITONGGAL L. SAUDAGAL, DR. JOHN ALBERT V. TABLIZO, JULIETA T. TERANIA, ANNIE B. TRINIDAD, JUDY T. AVNER, DR. ROMEO F. UY, AVELONA A. VEA, MINVILUZ G. VERA CRUZ, PE�AFLOR M. VILLAFLOR, JR., AND DR. LEOPOLDO P. SISON, JR., ALL OF TAGUIG-PATEROS DISTRICT HOSPITAL, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HONORABLE SECRETARY FRANCISCO DUQUE III, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HONORABLE SIGFRIDO R. TINGA, AND THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PATEROS, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HONORABLE ROSENDO CAPCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210200, September 13, 2016 - JULIET B. DANO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MARIE KAREN JOY B. DIGAL, Respondents.; MARIA EMILY D. DAGAANG, Petitioner-Intervenor.

  • A.C. No. 11095 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3140], September 20, 2016 - EUFEMIA A. CAMINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188952, September 21, 2016 - PE�AFRANCIA SHIPPING CORPORATION AND SANTA CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. 168 SHIPPING LINES, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016 - ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187922, September 21, 2016 - MARPHIL EXPORT CORPORATION AND IRENEO LIM, Petitioners, v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188646, September 21, 2016 - GEORGE C. CORDERO, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF NURSING, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10150, September 21, 2016 - GINA E. ENDAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. PALAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185765, September 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184237, September 21, 2016 - HENRY H. TENG, Petitioner, v. LAWRENCE C. TING, EDMUND TING AND ANTHONY TING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222740, September 28, 2016 - ST. LUKE'S COLLEGE OF MEDICINE-WILLIAM H. QUASHA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, DR. BRIGIDO L. CARANDANG, AND DR. ALEJANDRO P. ORTIGAS Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MANUEL AND ESMERALDA PEREZ AND SPOUSES ERIC AND JURISITA QUINTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211680, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BELBAN SIC-OPEN Y DIMAS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 193837, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO M. PANGAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 224804, September 21, 2016 - EFREN R. LEYNES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215072, September 07, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE IRENEO AND CARIDAD ENTAPA, NAMELY: ROSARIO ENTAPA-ORPEZA, JULIANNE E. HAMM,1 CERINA G. ENTAPA, WINSTON G. ENTAPA (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, NINFA LAMISTOZA-ENTAPA, FRANKLIN G. ENTAPA, MARINA E. SCHACHT, AND ELVIRA G. ENTAPA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201354, September 21, 2016 - PABLO M. PADILLA, JR. AND MARIA LUISA P. PADILLA, Petitioners, v. LEOPOLDO MALICSI, LITO CASINO, AND AGRIFINO GUANES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TEODORO G. BERNARDINO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABAYON Y APONTE, Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016 - BIENVENIDA FLOR SUAREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEONORA. MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2621 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2939-P], September 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS, CAGAYAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208979, September 21, 2016 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. ROGELIO F. MANALO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016 - LILY FLORES-SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V. FLORES, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR. Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7348, September 27, 2016 - ROUEL YAP PARAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208067, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE R. LIBRIAS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 211553, September 13, 2016 - LEANDRO B. VERCELES, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208089, September 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., STEALTH MARITIME CORPORATION AND CARLOS SALINAS, Petitioners, v. CASIANO F. SALADAS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217356, September 07, 2016 - DOROTEO C. GAERLAN, (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON, RAYMOND G. GAERLAN, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222424, September 21, 2016 - FONTANA DEVELOPMENT CORP., DENNIS PAK AS GENERAL MANAGER, PASTOR ISAAC AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, CHRIS CHENG* AS DEPUTY GROUP FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, JESUS CHUA, REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL FELICIANO, ALMA EREDIANO, LEILANI VALIENTE, MAN CHOI AS GROUP FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, AND JAIME VILLAREAL AS CHIEF ENGINEER, Petitioners, v. SASCHA VUKASINOVIC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221864, September 14, 2016 - CELERNA CALAYAG, AMELIA ORFIANO, MARILYN HIBE, ERNESTO CLARIN, NARCISO UNGSOD, BONIFACIO TORIDA, BOB ILLUT, EVELYN BAJET, ELORDE ILUSTRISIMO, ENRICO DETIQUEZ, JAIME CASTRO, JOSEFINA DAMALERIO, CARIDAD LERUM, NOVA FAJARDO, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ALBERTO FAUSTO, ESTELLA GELLI, KATHERINE DELA CRUZ, HEIDEE LAUREL, NISSAN LAUREL, VICENTE CHUA, ARMELA MARTIN, MELINDA BATIANCILA, GEMMA REBAYA, PRECIOUS ILUSTRISIMO, SOSAN LISBO, MARLON TRABALLO, NIMFA DANNUG, MARILYN LABORTE, SONIA MANZANILLA, LOURDES PARBA, ADELINA ALIPIN, JONATHAN BASA, MARIA LIZA CABARQUIL, RICHARD FAJICULAY, RICARDO HILARIO AND JONATHAN TESSLER, Petitioners, v. SULPICIO LINES, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA CARRIER CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "SPAN ASIA CARRIER") [FORMERLY: SULPICIO LINES, INC.], Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221047, September 14, 2016 - MICHAEL A. ONSTOTT, Petitioner, v. UPPER TAGPOS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11323, September 14, 2016 - NICOLAS ROBERT MARTIN EGGER, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. DURAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221241, September 14, 2016 - MARIO N. FELICILDA, Petitioner, v. MANCHESTEVE H. UY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016 - DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ, ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F. COT�-OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212157, September 28, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO RUSCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016 - RIZALITO Y. DAVID, Petitioner, v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207147, September 14, 2016 - EMELITA BASILIO GAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213699, September 28, 2016 - THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. ROGER JAMES BRILLANTES, PO3 PETER PAUL PABLICO, AND PO1 NOEL FABIA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 215008 - THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR2 DANTE G. YANG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223852, September 14, 2016 - EDNA ROQUE ALEGUELA, FELIPE GONZALES, DOLORES COCHESA, LUISA CAGALINGAN, REYNALDO JUNSAY, BONIFACIA RODRIQUEZ, CONEY CERDENA, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, Petitioners, v. EASTERN PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND J&M PROPERTIES AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205721, September 14, 2016 - HARTE-HANKS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225141, September 26, 2016 - ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. HON. GREGORIO L. VEGA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY, AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205200, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LEONARDO CRUZ Y ROCO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205871, September 28, 2016 - RUEL TUANO Y HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11121, September 13, 2016 - DELIA LIM, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO MEJICA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191537, September 14, 2016 - PAULINO M. ALECHA, FELIX B. UNABIA, RICARDO A. TOLINO AND MARIO A. CATANES, Petitioners, v. JOSE L. ATIENZA JR., THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), MICHAEL L. ROMERO AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 168 FERRUM PACIFIC MINING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213418, September 21, 2016 - ALFREDO S.RAMOS, CONCHITA S. RAMOS, BENJAMIN B. RAMOS, NELSON T. RAMOS AND ROBINSON T. RAMOS, Petitioners, v. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220605, September 21, 2016 - COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC.,* Petitioner, v. BACOLOD SALES FORCE UNION-CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ALU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190187, September 28, 2016 - THE PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner, v. UNOCAL PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198350, September 14, 2016 - ATTY. MARCOS D. RISONAR, JR., Petitioner, v. COR JESU COLLEGE AND/OR EDGARDO S. ESCURIL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172507, September 14, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPS. MARGARITO ASOQUE AND TARCINIA ASOQUE, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016 - ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE A. DI�O, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016 - PILAR CA�EDA BRAGA, PETER TIU LAVINA, ANTONIO H. VERGARA, BENJIE T. BADAL, DIOSDADO ANGELO A. MAHIPUS, AND SAMAL CITY RESORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (SCROA), Petitioners, v. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), PRE-QUALIFICATION, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (PBAC) AND PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016 - JESTER MABUNOT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175651, September 14, 2016 - PILMICO-MAURI FOODS CORP., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016 - EDMUND BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN,* Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218009, September 21, 2016 - MARVIN G. FELIPE AND REYNANTE L. VELASCO, Petitioners, v. DANILO DIVINA TAMAYO KONSTRACT, INC. (DDTKI) AND/OR DANILO DIVINA TAMAYO, PRESIDENT/OWNER, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8560, September 06, 2016 - CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA, Respondent.