Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > August 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner, v. LEONORA O. MIARAL, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner, v. LEONORA O. MIARAL, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017

PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner, v. LEONORA O. MIARAL, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case



This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul the 24 September 2014 Decision2 and the 24 March 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SPNo. 134555, which annulled and set aside the 27 August 20134 and 7 January 20145 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104.

The RTC Orders denied the Motion to Withdraw Information6 for Estafa filed by Quezon City Prosecutor Donald T. Lee in Criminal Case Q-12-174206, entitled People of the Philippines v. Leonora O. Miaral, et al.

The Facts

On 6 March 1996, Leonora O. Miaral (respondent) agreed to engage in the garment exportation business with her sister, Priscilla Z. Orbe (petitioner). They executed a partnership agreement7 where they agreed to contribute Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00) each to Toppy Co., Inc. and Miaral Enterprises, and to equally divide the profits they may earn. The partnership agreement reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Agreement

Agreement is executed [on the] 6th day of March 1996 by:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Mrs. Nora O. Miaral
11-0 Legaspi Towers, R[o]xas Blvd., Mla.
as (Party [A])

and Mrs. Priscilla Orbe of No. ___, Villa
Verde Subd., Novaliches, Quezon City
as (Party B).
Both parties agreed on the ff:

Both parties A & B shall invest P250,000.00 each in cash & or goods into a buying & selling of stock lots of garments to be exported to the United States particularly in Los Angeles, California. Authorized purchaser may be Party A or B;

That the exportation of garments shall be done by Toppy Co., Inc. using Toppy's available quota;

That the importation of garments shall be done by Miaral Enterprises in U.S.A.

That whatever income in sales both retail & wholesale shall be divided into equal share after deducting all expenses in export & import including taxes & sea/air freight expenses in connection with the buying and selling of stocks & garments.

That this Contract is renewable yearly as both parties may wish.

Conforme:

(Sgd.)                 (Sgd.)
Party A              Party B

Signed in the presence of

________________________        ________________________
Petitioner initially invested the amount of One Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos (P183,999.00).8 She subsequently tendered the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for the payment of salaries of the workers at the factory.9

On one trip to the United States of America in April of 1996, respondent told petitioner that petitioner could join respondent, her daughter Anne Kristine, and her granddaughter Ara in the trip to the United States. Respondent convinced petitioner to pay for the plane tickets of respondent, Anne Kristine and Ara amounting to Two Thousand Seventy One Dollars (US$2,071.00) with a promise to pay petitioner once they arrive in the United States.10

Upon arrival, respondent issued three (3) checks drawn in a bank in the United States as payment. However, one of the checks was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.11 Petitioner likewise discovered that there was no exportation of garments to the United States or any other transactions in the United States that took place.

Petitioner demanded from respondent and Anne Kristine the total payment of Two Hundred Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos (P203,999.00) and One Thousand Dollars (US$1,000.00). Despite demands, respondent and Anne Kristine failed to return the money.12

On 7 February 2011, petitioner filed a complaint13 for estafa against respondent and Anne Kristine before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City.

In their counter-affidavit,14 respondent and Anne Kristine denied petitioner's allegations and claimed, among others, that the partnership agreement they entered into rules out a successful prosecution for estafa. They also claimed that the action had already prescribed since the complaint was filed 15 years after the agreement. They contended that it was petitioner who owed them the amount of Two Hundred Seven Thousand Eighty-Seven Pesos and Sixty-Five Centavos (P207,087.65) because she issued several checks in the name of respondent and Anne Kristine. Lastly, they alleged that Anne Kristine could not be held liable because she was merely acting under her mother's direction.

In her reply-affidavit,15 petitioner claimed that the twenty-four (24) checks amounting to Two Hundred Seven Thousand Eighty-Seven Pesos and Sixty-Five Centavos (P207,087.65) were only borrowed from her as an accommodation party, and that it was respondent who ordered her to close her account with the Republic Planters Bank.

The OCP of Quezon City issued a Resolution dated 15 July 2011,16 the dispositive portion of which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that, upon approval of this Resolution, the attached Information for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code be filed against respondents Leonora O. Miaral and Anne Kristine O. Miaral.17
Respondent and Anne Kristine filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition18 dated 27 January 2012, on the ground that petitioner failed to establish the elements of the crime charged. Subsequently, they filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Lift/Recall Warrant of Arrest19 on 14 February 2012.

On 10 August 2012, the OCP of Quezon City issued a Resolution resolving the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent and Anne Kristine, assailing the 15 July 2011 Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Premises considered, the resolution dated July 15, 2011 is hereby set aside on the ground that the transaction between the parties is civil in nature. The attached Motion to Withdraw Information against movants in Crim. Case No. Q-12-174206 is to be filed in court for the purpose.20
Accordingly, the City Prosecutor filed with the RTC a Motion to Withdraw Information.21 On 27 August 2013, the RTC issued an Order22 denying the Motion to Withdraw Information, and directing the arraignment of respondent and Anne Kristine.

On 14 October 2013, respondent and Anne Kristine moved for the reconsideration of said Order.23 On 30 October 2013, petitioner filed her corresponding comment,24 contending that the alleged partnership entered into by the parties merely existed on paper. In fact, respondent and Anne Kristine deceived her into contributing substantial sums of money for a sham investment. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its Order dated 7 January 2014.25

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 25 March 2014, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari26 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Orders of the RTC dated 27 August 2013 and 7 January 2014. In its Decision27 dated 24 September 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, and reversed and set aside the assailed Orders of the RTC. It further directed the RTC to issue an order for the withdrawal of the Information for estafa against respondent and Anne Kristine.28

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration29 dated 18 October 2014 which was denied by the Court of Appeals on 24 March 2015.30

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioner presents the following issues in this petition:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing and setting aside the 27 August 2013 and 7 January 2014 Orders of the RTC, and in directing the issuance of an Order for the Withdrawal of the Information for estafa against respondent and Anne Kristine; and

3. Whether the action for estafa penalized under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code has been barred by prescription.
The Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The Court of Appeals erred in overturning the Orders of the RTC and in ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Motion to Withdraw Information.

Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. As the representative of the State, the public prosecutor determines in a preliminary investigation whether there is probable cause that the accused committed a crime.31 Probable cause is defined as "such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial."32

The general rule is that in the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is given a wide latitude of discretion to determine what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause.33 However, when the respondent establishes that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in determining whether there is probable cause, the courts may interfere. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to decide matters where full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch, or to substitute their own judgements for that of the Executive Branch, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.34 The abuse of discretion must be "so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."35

In this case, the OCP found that no probable cause existed against respondent and Anne Kristine for the commission of the crime of estafa. In its Resolution36 dated 10 August 2012, relying mainly on the case of United States v. Clarin,37 the OCP found that there was a partnership agreement between the parties, thus resolving that the failure of a partner to account for partnership funds may only give rise to a civil obligation, not a criminal case for estafa. The OCP held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
After a careful and more circumspect evaluation of the evidence on record in relation to the issues in the Motion for Reconsideration, provisions of law involved and pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, we find the existence of a partnership agreement between complainant and her sister, respondent Leonora O. Miaral to have been duly established. The Agreement signed by them on March 6, 1996 clearly speaks for itself, among others a P250,000.00 investment each with equal profit sharing minus all expenses. It also defined in unequivocal terms the buy and sell business, exporting of garments to be undertaken by respondent Leonora Miaral's Toppy Co. Inc. and importation of garments by Miaral Enterprises in the United States.

Such being the case, Estafa either by means of deceit or misappropriation will not lie against respondents, because "partners are not liable for estafa of money or property received for the partnership when the business commenced and profits accrued." (U.S. vs. Clarin, 17 P[h]il. 85). It was further held in said case that "when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves, a contract is formed which is a partnership."

Furthermore, "failure of a partner to account for partnership funds may give rise to a civil obligation only not estafa." (People vs. Alegre, Jr., C.A. 48 O.G. 5341) x x x.38
We disagree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals when it sustained the OCP on the issue of whether there is probable cause to file an Information. The OCP was in the best position to determine whether or not there was probable cause that the crime of estafa was committed. However, the OCP erred gravely, amounting to grave abuse of discretion, when it applied United States v. Clarin39 as basis for dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause. United States v. Clarin has already been superseded by Liwanag v. Court of Appeals.40

In Clarin, four individuals entered into a contract of partnership for the business of buying and selling mangoes. When one of the partners demanded from the other three the return of his monetary contribution, this Court ruled that "the action that lies with the [capitalist] partner x x x for the recovery of his money is not a criminal action for estafa, but a civil one arising from the partnership contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its assets, if there should be any."41 Simply put, if a partner demands his money back, the duty to return the contribution does not devolve on the other partners; the duty now belongs to the partnership itself as a separate and distinct personality.

In 1997, a case with similar circumstances was decided differently. In Liwanag v. Court of Appeals,42 three individuals entered into a contract of partnership for the business of buying and selling cigarettes. They agreed that one would contribute money to buy the cigarettes while the other two would act as agents in selling. When the capitalist partner demanded from the industrial partners her monetary contribution because they stopped informing her of business updates, this time, this Court held the industrial partners liable for estafa.

In this case, the OCP erred gravely when it based its conclusion on the Clarin case. Liwanag applies to the partnership agreement executed between petitioner and respondent. Petitioner's initial contributions of P183,999.00 and P20,000.00 were all for specific purposes: for the buying and selling of garments and for the salaries of the factory workers, respectively. When respondent failed to account for these amounts or to return these amounts to petitioner upon demand, there is probable cause to hold that respondent misappropriated the amounts and had not used them for their intended purposes. The Information for estafa should thus proceed.

In Liwanag, this Court held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Thus, even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by and between the parties, we have ruled that when money or property [had] been received by a partner for a specific purpose (such as that obtaining in the instant case) and he later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa.43 (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, the RTC made its own independent assessment whether or not probable cause exists that the crime was committed by respondent and Anne Kristine. When the RTC is confronted with a Motion to Withdraw Information on the ground of lack of probable cause, its duty is to make an independent assessment of the totality of the evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits, counter-affidavits, evidence appended to the complaint, and records produced by the OCP on court order.44 "Independent assessment" does not mean mere approval or disapproval of the prosecution's stand; it also means that the RTC must itself be convinced that indeed there is or there is no sufficient evidence against the accused.45

Both the 27 August 2013 and 7 January 2014 Orders of the RTC were based on facts and allegations of both parties. The RTC held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
From the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court finds that there is probable cause that the crime charged was committed by the accused when they convinced the complainant to invest money in a business partnership which appears to be non-existent. It was not controverted that Leonora received the total amount of P183,999.00 from the complainant. Accused failed to present evidence to show the existence of a business partnership apart from relying on the Agreement dated March 6, 1996. Neither was there any evidence presented showing that complainant's money was used to purchase garments to be sold abroad. Basic is the rule that one who alleges must prove. In this case, the accused failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, their defense of partnership.46 (Emphasis supplied)
The question is not so much whether the RTC has the authority to grant or not to grant the OCP's Motion to Withdraw Information, because it has such authority, but whether, in the exercise of that authority, the RTC acted justly and fairly.47 This Court finds that it did.

The action for estafa penalized under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code has not yet been barred by prescription.

Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for estafa shall be determined by the amount allegedly swindled by the accused. The first paragraph of Article 315 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied)
The total amount allegedly swindled by respondent is P203,999.00 for the buying of garments and workers' salaries plus US$1,000.00 for the plane tickets which exceeds P22,000.00. Taking into consideration the whole amount with the additional one year for each additional P10,000.00, the penalty imposable on respondent shall be prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal, the total penalty not exceeding twenty (20) years.

Under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalties of prision mayor and reclusion temporal are included in the enumeration of afflictive penalties. Furthermore, Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code states that crimes punishable by afflictive penalties, such as the crime of estafa, prescribe in fifteen (15) years.

The said prescriptive period is computed under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

x x x x
In this case, the fifteen-year prescriptive period commenced in April 1996 when the petitioner discovered that one of the checks that respondent issued as payment was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. At around that time, petitioner likewise discovered that there was no buying, selling and exportation of garments or any other transactions that took place in the United States.

The fifteen-year period was interrupted on 7 February 2011 when petitioner filed a complaint for estafa against respondent and Anne Kristine before the OCP of Quezon City. In People v. Olarte,48 "the filing of the complaint, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should and does interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on its merits."

As of the filing of the complaint on 7 February 2011, the prescriptive period had run for fourteen (14) years and ten (10) months. Thus, the fifteen-year period has not yet prescribed.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the 24 September 2014 Decision and the 24 March 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134555. We REINSTATE the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 27 August 2013 and 7 January 2014, directing the arraignment of Leonora O. Miaral and Anne Kristine Miaral. The case against Leonora O. Miaral and Anne Kristine Miaral may still proceed because prescription has not set in.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 12-30.

2 Id. at 37-51. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.

3 Id. at 53-54.

4 Id. at 80-83. Penned by Presiding Judge Catherine P. Manodon.

5 Id. at 84-85.

6 Id. at 170.

7 Id. at 90-91.

8 Id. at 92.

9 Id. at 93.

10 Id. at 14.

11 Id. at 94.

12 Id. at 96.

13 Id. at 87-89.

14 Id. at 98-100.

15 Id. at 107-108.

16 Id. at 112-115.

17 Id. at 115.

18 Id. at 116-120.

19 Id. at 147-148.

20 Id. at 166-169.

21 Id. at 170.

22 Id. at 80-83.

23 Id. at 171-184.

24 Id. at 203-207.

25 Id. at 84-85.

26 Id. at 55-79.

27 Id. at 37-51.

28 Id. at 53-54.

29 Id. at 186-196.

30 Id. at 53-54.

31Sanrio Company Ltd. v. Lim, 569 Phil. 630, 639 (2008).

32Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynado, 641 Phil. 208, 222 (2010), citing Baviera v. Paglinawan, 544 Phil. 107, 120 (2007).

33Glaxosmithkline Philippines, Inc. v. Malik, 530 Phil. 662, 668-669 (2006), citing Punzalan v. Dela Peña, 478 Phil. 771, 781 (2004).

34Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, 707 Phil. 172, 183 (2013), citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tobias III, 680 Phil. 173, 186 (2012).

35 Id.

36Rollo, pp. 166-169.

37 17 Phil. 84 (1910).

38Rollo, p. 168.

39 Supra note 37.

40 346 Phil. 211 (1997).

41 Supra note 37, at 86.

42 Supra note 40.

43 346 Phil. 211, 217 (1997).

44Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 207, 217 (1997).

45Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, 527 Phil. 58, 65 (2006).

46Rollo, p. 82

47 Id. at 44-45.

48 125 Phil. 895, 902 (1967).



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





August-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 187160, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERLINDA A. SISON @ "MARGARITA S. AGUILAR," Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220002, August 02, 2017 - EUGENIO M. GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., GOLDEN SHIPPING COMPANY S.A., AND ELEAZAR DIAZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185597, August 02, 2017 - JOHN E.R. REYES AND MERWIN JOSEPH REYES, Petitioners, v. ORICO DOCTOLERO, ROMEO AVILA, GRANDEUR SECURITY AND SERVICES CORPORATION, AND MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188307, August 02, 2017 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., RAMON MAGBOO, JIMMY DEL MUNDO, CARLOS RAPAY, AND DR. JOSEFINA TIOPIANCO, PETITIONERS, VS. ARNEL M. GACUTAN, RAFAEL TEYLAN, EDMUND T. HERNANDEZ, DANILO ARANETA, MIGUEL DAVID, JOLIE R. PELAYO, BOBBY D. YUTADCO, DANIEL TENORIO, MICHAEL KHO, AND DANILO CAMBEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner, v. LEONORA O. MIARAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 144760-61, August 02, 2017 - EVELYN L. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167311-12 - EVELYN L. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167316-17 - VENANCIO R. NAVA, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN 4TH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167625-26 - PRIMO C. OBENZA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11149 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3709), August 15, 2017 - LAURENCE D. PUNLA AND MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELEONOR MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, August 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. RETIRED JUDGE PABLO R. CHAVEZ, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS, ATTY. TEOFILO A. DIMACULANGAN, JR., CLERK OF COURT VI, MR. ARMANDO ERMELITO M. MARQUEZ, COURT INTERPRETER III, MS. EDITHA E. BAGSIC, COURT INTERPRETER III, AND MR. DAVID CAGUIMBAL, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS, Respondents.; A.M. No. 12-7-130-RTC - RE: UNDATED ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PRESIDING JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT AND COURT STENOGRAPHER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS.

  • G.R. No. 186050, August 01, 2017 - ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, GEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AFP-ISU BASED IN BAGUIO CITY, PSS EUGENE MARTIN, AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186059 - SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA,SECRETARY GILBERTOTEODORO,SECRETARY RONALDOPUNO,SECRETARY NORBERTOGONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P/DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, AND POL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN, Petitioners, v. ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11504, August 01, 2017 - ARIEL G. PALACIOS, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFP-RSBS), Complainant, v. ATTY. BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221493, August 02, 2017 - STERLING PAPER PRODUCTS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. KMM-KATIPUNAN AND RAYMOND Z. ESPONGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222095, August 07, 2017 - IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH OF YUHARES JAN BARCELOTE TINITIGAN AND AVEE KYNNA NOELLE BARCELOTE TINITIGAN - JONNA KARLA BAGUIO BARCELOTE, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RICKY O. TINITIGAN, AND LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216161, August 09, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189942, August 09, 2017 - ADTEL, INC. AND/OR REYNALDO T. CASAS, Petitioners, v. MARIJOY A. VALDEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 228887, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINADOR UDTOHAN Y JOSE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215999, August 16, 2017 - SPS. FELIX A. CHUA AND CARMEN L. CHUA, JAMES B. HERRERA, EDUARDO L. ALMENDRAS, MILA NG ROXAS, EUGENE C. LEE, EDICER H. ALMENDRAS, BENEDICT C. LEE, LOURDES C. NG, LUCENA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., REPRESENTED BY FELIX A. CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), REVERE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO AND THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224302, August 08, 2017 - HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., and the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioners, v. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI, HON. MA. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S. SANDOVAL, HON. WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON. MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, and HON. VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, Respondents.; JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Intervenor.

  • A.C. No. 10562, August 01, 2017 - JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 226345, August 02, 2017 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. APL CO. PTE. LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211966, August 07, 2017 - JOSE AUDIE ABAGATNAN, JOSEPHINE A. PARCE, JIMMY ABAGATNAN, JOHN ABAGATNAN, JENALYN A. DE LEON, JOEY ABAGATNAN, JOJIE ABAGATNAN, AND JOY ABAGATNAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JONATHAN CLARITO AND ELSA CLARITO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206468, August 02, 2017 - JUDITH D. DARINES AND JOYCE D. DARINES, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO QUIÑONES AND ROLANDO QUITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185559, August 02, 2017 - JOSE G. TAN AND ORENCIO C. LUZURIAGA, Petitioners, v. ROMEO H. VALERIANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217993, August 09, 2017 - MANUEL R. BAKUNAWA III, Petitioner, v. NORA REYES BAKUNAWA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2649 [Formerly A.M. No. 09-5-219-RTC], August 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, AND ATTY. RIZALINA G. BALTAZAR­AQUINO, CLERK OF COURT IV, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS CAGAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOCELYN CARLIT Y GAWAT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017 - THE HEIRS OF PETER DONTON, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FELIPE G. CAPULONG, Petitioners, v. DUANE STIER AND EMILY MAGGAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222711, August 23, 2017 - LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JANET C. LEY, Petitioner, v. MARVIN MEDEL SEDANO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "LOLA TABA LOLO PATO PALENGKE AT PALUTO SA SEASIDE," Respondent.; MARVIN MEDEL SEDANO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "LOLA TABA LOLO PATO PALENGKE AT PALUTO SA SEASIDE," Respondent (THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF), VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent (THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT).

  • G.R. No. 222561, August 30, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN TICA Y EPANTO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187257, August 08, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) AS THE PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE, AND THE NATIONAL POWER BOARD, Petitioners, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION (NECU), AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (NEWU), Respondents.; G.R. No. 187776 - ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-3003-RTJ), August 30, 2017 - MS. FLORITA PALMA AND MS. FILIPINA MERCADO, Complainants, v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 14, DAVAO CITY (THEN OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR.4, DAVAO CITY), JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR. 2, AND CLERK OF COURT MA. FLORIDA C. OMELIO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BOTH OF THE ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 178379, August 22, 2017 - CRISPIN S. FRONDOZO,* DANILO M. PEREZ, JOSE A. ZAFRA, ARTURO B. VITO, CESAR S. CRUZ, NAZARIO C. DELA CRUZ, AND LUISITO R. DILOY, Petitioners, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141], August 23, 2017 - LITO V. BUENVIAJE, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6980, August 30, 2017 - CESAR O. STA. ANA, CRISTINA M. STA. ANA AND ESTHER STA. ANA-SILVERIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7253, August 29, 2017 - ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,* Respondent.; A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717] (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ) - ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, Complainant, v. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 5, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10253, August 22, 2017 - RAFAEL PADILLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. GLENN SAMSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198146, August 08, 2017 - POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225442, August 08, 2017 - SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK), JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JOHN ARVIN NAVARRO BUENAAGUA, RONEL BACCUTAN, MARK LEO DELOS REYES, AND CLARISSA JOYCE VILLEGAS, MINOR, FOR HERSELF AND AS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, JULIAN VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioners, v. QUEZON CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY OF MANILA, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSEPH ESTRADA, AND NAVOTAS CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOHN REY TIANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190004, August 08, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EUGENIO DALAUTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218911, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO SIAPNO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017 - FERNANDO U. JUAN, Petitioner, v. ROBERTO U. JUAN (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON JEFFREY C. JUAN) AND LAUNDROMATIC CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222821, August 09, 2017 - NORTH GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. ATTY. NARCISO MORALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 227878, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALDO SANTILLAN Y VILLANUEVA AND EUGENE BORROMEO Y NATIVIDAD, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 211222, August 07, 2017 - ALLAN S. CU, Petitioner, v. SMALL BUSINESS GUARANTEE AND FINANCE CORPORATION THROUGH MR. HECTOR M. OLMEDILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186329, August 02, 2017 - DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.; G.R. Nos. 186584-86, August 2, 2017 - ABUSAMA MANGUDADATU ALID, Petitioner, v. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN - 1st DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 198598, August 2, 2017 - ABUSAMA M. ALID, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223366, August 01, 2017 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OROVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 - SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, Petitioner, v. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219500, August 09, 2017 - MAMERTO DY, Petitioner, v. MARIA LOURDES ROSELL ALDEA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217965, August 08, 2017 - CONFEDERATION OF COCONUT FARMERS ORGANIZATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCFOP), Petitioner, v. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ACTING COMMISSIONER RICHARD ROGER AMURAO OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), CHAIRMAN CESAR L. VILLANUEVA OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOCCS (GCG), AND SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-17-1900 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-2585-MTJ], August 09, 2017 - ARNEL MENDOZA, Complainant, v. HON. MARCOS C. DIASEN, JR., ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 62, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217764, August 07, 2017 - ANTONIETA LUCIDO @ TONYAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3424 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3666-P], August 07, 2017 - GLORIA SERDONCILLO, Complainant, v. SHERIFF NESTOR M. LANZADERAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199710, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PO3 JULIETO BORJA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 228248, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO DE GUZMAN Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 228894, August 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN PAUL CERALDE Y RAMOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 8903, August 30, 2017 - EDIGARDO V. BONDOC, Complainant, v. ATTY. OLIMPIO R. DATU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201665, August 30, 2017 - EDISON (BATAAN) COGENERATION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. No. 201668, August 30, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. EDISON (BATAAN) COGENERATION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10245, August 16, 2017 - ELIBENA A. CABILES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEANDRO S. CEDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188144, August 30, 2017 - F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 188301 - PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP., Petitioners, v. F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201806, August 14, 2017 - NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION, MS. ROSALINDA CERDINA AND/OR CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Petitioners, v. SANTIAGO S. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210209, August 09, 2017 - CATHAY LAND, INC. AND CATHAY METAL CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. AYALA LAND, INC., AVIDA LAND CORPORATION AND LAGUNA TECHNOPARK, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188027, August 09, 2017 - SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPECIALTY CONTRACTS GENERAL AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE JAVELLANA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195457, August 16, 2017 - READ-RITE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. GINA G. FRANCISCO, MAXIMINO H. REYES, LUCIA E. MACHADO, IRENE G. ABANILLA, EDNA L. GUAVES, ARLENE FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE V. TRINIDAD, MARILYN E. AMPARO, SOLITA F. SANTOS, ELLEN T. CASTILLO, ROSALIE VALDEABELLA, MARITA E. RIVERA, JULITA M. MAGNO, MARCIA P. DELA TORRE, ELENA ANGCAHAN, ESTER H. REYES, CORAZON ARMADILLA, IRMA A. PEREGRINO, DELFIN D. DUBAN, AMANCIA PRADO, CECILIA D. NABUA, DANNY A. CABUCOY, ELIZABETH R. REVELLAME, ELVIRA R. MAGNO, GIERLYN R. MARASIGAN, JOHN JOSEPH R. MAGNO, LODELYN P. CASTILLO, JUSTINA TORTOSA, LENY M. ZARENO, LOIDA E. ESTOMATA, MA. BASILIA DE LA ROSA, MA. GRACIA DE GUZMAN, MA. NENITA G. CASTILLO, MERCEDARIO A. MARTINEZ, NORA M. PAVELON, PRECILLA D. MAGBITANG, RAQUEL CABUCOY, REGAL M. ALFARO, RIZA UMANDAP, ROSALITA R. MANLUNAS, ROSEMARIE C. LEYVA, ROSSANA M. YUMOL, SENETA SERENO, VILMA R. MANALO, YOLANDA Y. MANGAOANG, GLORIA BARSOLASCO AND NENA M. REYES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211004, August 23, 2017 - QUEEN ERRIKA L. SADDI, Petitioner, v. MARICRIS RENOMERON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223592, August 07, 2017 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TRANSMODAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221857, August 16, 2017 - JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 222020 - NOEL D. REYES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223731, August 30, 2017 - ROBELITO MALINIS TALAROC, Petitioner, v. ARPAPHIL SHIPPING CORPORATION, EPIDAURUS S.A., AND/OR NATIVIDAD PAPPAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224204, August 30, 2017 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RAMON AND ANNABELLE SABADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224225, August 14, 2017 - NORMA I. BARING, Petitioner, v. ELENA LOAN AND CREDIT COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211845, August 09, 2017 - PEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LAS BRISAS RESORT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. MARTINEZ LEYBA, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215454, August 09, 2017 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES CORAZON P. DE GUZMAN AND FORTUNATO DE GUZMAN, REPRESENTED BY JENIE JANE DE GUZMAN-CARPIO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF MARCELIANO BANDONG, REPRESENTED BY REGINA Z. BANDONG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAROK LUMUDAG Y RACMAN @ AKMAD, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210669, August 01, 2017 - HI-LON MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8574, August 16, 2017 - CARMELO IRINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CLAYTON B. GUMANGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196342, August 08, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NOEL GO CAOILI ALIAS "BOY TAGALOG", Respondent.; G.R. No. 196848, August 8, 2017 - NOEL GO CAOILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 230696, August 30, 2017 - WILLIAM R. WENCESLAO, VIVENCIO B. RODRIGO, JR., NOEL N. DAMIASAN, VIRGILIO B. CRISTOBAL, JEMYLITO M. APIAG, JOVENAL P. ATAG, ARNULFO S. DASCO, CARLITO E. INFANTE, ALFREDO T. VISAYA, JAMES M. REAL, RENATO A. GUINGUE, ZACARIAS G. TALABOC, JR., GEORGE N. TAGUIAM, RANDY D. ABRENCILLO, MELECIO B. QUINIMON, CESAR B. JARANILLA, RIZALDE R. BARILE, HERICO A. BUENAVENTE, JERSON A. TATOY, MICHAEL L. CASIANO, FELIX M. DINIAY, PEDRO DELA CRUZ, JR., JHOSEL BOY G. ABAYON, AUGUSTO L. OCENAR, MARIO M. FUNELAS, AND AVELINO T. QUIÑONES, Petitioners, v. MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DANTE ABANDO AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227734, August 09, 2017 - ROMEO ALBA, Petitioner, v. CONRADO G. ESPINOSA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208471, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SAGANA Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207396, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA SAUNAR, Accused-Appellant.

  • OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P, August 22, 2017 - JUDGE RAMON V. EFONDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-11-2889 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197297, August 02, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANILO GO AND AMORLINA GO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185420, August 29, 2017 - LANAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ENGR. RESNOL C. TORRES, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF LANAO DEL NORTE, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR HON. MOHAMAD KHALID Q. DIMAPORO AND ITS PROVINCIAL TREASURER, MILDRED J. HINGCO, PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR HON. EDITA S. BUENO, POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT (PSALM), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CEO HON. JOSE C. IBAZETA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HON. ANGELO T. REYES, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224631, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPERTO RUBILLAR, JR. Y GABERON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017 - JOSELITO PERALTA Y ZARENO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 - TRANSGLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC., GOODWOOD SHIPMANAGEMENT PTE., LTD. AND/OR MICHAEL ESTANIEL, Petitioners, v. VICENTE D. CHUA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180447, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO GERONIMO Y AGUSTINE, ALIAS "NANDING BAKULAW", Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 193625, August 30, 2017 - AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS - EN BANC AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191615, August 02, 2017 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO AND HEIRS OF ELIAS POLICARPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017 - CHRISTOPHER FIANZA A.K.A. "TOPEL," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017 - BELO MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE L. SANTOS AND VICTORIA G. BELO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION AND ROLANDO J. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RICHARD Y. HUANG & CARMEN G. HUANG, AND STEPHEN G. HUANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205483, August 23, 2017 - MARIO MAGAT, SR., MARIO S. MAGAT, JR. MARIO S. MAGAT, III, MA. MARGARITA M. ESTAVILLA, MA. MARJORIE S. MAGAT, ALL SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PARTY, JULIANA S. MAGAT, Petitioners, v. TANTRADE CORPORATION AND PABLO S. BORJA, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180745, August 30, 2017 - ALBERTA DE JOYA IGLESIAS, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GEORGE M. JEREOS, ROBERTO G. GEOTINA, JUAN T. TAN, KRISTINE MORALES, AND ALBERTO LINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205638, August 23, 2017 - DEE HWA LIONG FOUNDATION MEDICAL CENTER AND ANTHONY DEE, Petitioners, v. ASIAMED SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203943, August 30, 2017 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION/EDUARDO MANESE AND PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., Petitioners, v. CYNTHIA DE JESUS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202364, August 30, 2017 - ARTURO C. CALUBAD, Petitioner, v. RICARCEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND GREGORIA SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A. LARRAZABAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P. LARRAZABAL, JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN CITY AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208314, August 23, 2017 - ANTONIO B. MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD./CYPRUS, AND/OR EILEEN MORALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214771, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN "ROBIN" BONGBONGA Y NALOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196564, August 07, 2017 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. ALBERT M. VELASCO, Respondent.