Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > March 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 193828, March 27, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ELADIO SANTIAGO C/O SABAS SANTIAGO AND JERRY T. YAO, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 193828, March 27, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ELADIO SANTIAGO C/O SABAS SANTIAGO AND JERRY T. YAO, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 193828, March 27, 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ELADIO SANTIAGO C/O SABAS SANTIAGO AND JERRY T. YAO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated April 27, 2010 and September 15, 2010, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 89842. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal; filed by herein petitioner and affirmed the September 28, 2006 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque City, Branch 257, in Civil Case No. 02-0041 which fixed the just compensation for the properties of herein respondents that were actually expropriated by petitioner for the installation of MIAA's runway approach lights.

The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

On January 30, 2002, herein petitioner filed with the RTC of Para�aque City a Complaint4 for the expropriation of fragments of two parcels of land in Para�aque City for the purpose of installing runway approach lights spanning nine hundred (900) meters. The properties sought to be expropriated are: (1) a 180-square-meter portion of Lot 4174 located at Barangay San Dionisio which has an aggregate area of 2,151 square meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 189 registered in the name of a certain Eladio Santiago but is now owned by herein respondents who are his heirs (heirs of Santiago), and (2) a 540-square-meter portion of Lot No. 5012 located at Barangay La Huerta, with a total area of 68,778 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. D-005-01300 registered in the names Antonio, Patricio and Cecilia, all surnamed Bernabe, but was subsequently sold to and now owned by Titan Construction Corporation, represented by herein respondent Jerry Yao (Yao).

In its Complaint, petitioner contended that it was compelled to institute the action for expropriation because several meetings were held between the parties concerning the proposed acquisition of the needed areas but no agreement was reached because respondents wanted petitioner to buy their entire properties; however, the total areas of which are beyond what were needed for the project. Petitioner also alleged that under Ordinance No. 96-16 of Para�aque City, the zonal value of the subject lots is fixed at P3,000.00 per square meter.

In their Answer,5 respondents heirs of Santiago aver that: they are willing to sell provided the entire lot covered by OCT No. 189 be expropriated because the remaining portion shall be rendered useless after the completion of the project; the zonal valuation of the property by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) per Department Order No. 16-98, dated February 2, 1998, is not less than P30,000.00 per square meter, and petitioner should also be made to pay consequential damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

On his part, respondent Yao, in his Answer,6 asserted that the expropriation sought by petitioner is improper, invalid and inappropriate as there are still other probable and better properties which can serve the purpose alleged in the complaint; assuming the expropriation will push through, respondent should be made to pay not only the 540-square meter portion sought to be expropriated but also the Northwest and Southeast areas lying on both sides of the strip which would be rendered useless because of the risk caused by departing and landing aircrafts as well as the danger produced by the noise and air pressure generated by the aircrafts; the fair market value of the area to be expropriated, including the other affected areas, should not be less than P10,000.00 per square meter. Yao also interposed a counterclaim contending that since the expropriation sought will divide the entire property into separate areas, petitioner should be compelled to pay an amount of P35,000,000.00 for building a bridge over the Para�aque River to serve as the only means of going into and coming out of the Northwest area of the property; Yao also asked for the payment of moral and temperate damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the RTC issued an Order7, dated May 7, 2002, directing petitioner to deposit the amount of P2,160,000.00 with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Sucat Branch as payment for the provisional value of the property which is a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of possession in its favor.

After petitioner's compliance with the above Order, the RTC issued another Order,8 dated May 24, 2002, directing the court's Deputy Sheriff to place petitioner in possession of the subject properties.

In its Orders dated June 11, 20029 and June 14, 2002,10 the RTC allowed respondent Yao to withdraw the total amount of P1,620,000.00, which corresponds to its share in the deposit made by petitioner.

In the same manner, the RTC, in its Order11 dated August 29, 2002, allowed respondents heirs of Santiago to withdraw their share of P540,000.00 from the same deposit made by petitioner.

Meanwhile, in compliance with the Order12 of the RTC dated August 19, 2002, the parties submitted the names of the commissioners of their choice for the purpose of determining the just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated. In the same Order, the RTC designated the City Assessor of Para�aque as Chairman of the commissioners.

Thereafter, the commissioners submitted their respective appraisal reports indicating therein the amounts which were suggested as just compensation for the subject properties, to wit:

Royal Asia Appraisal Corporation (RAAC), chosen by herein petitioner - PhP2,500.00 per square meter for both properties;

Justiniano C. Montano IV, chosen by respondent Yao - PhP15,000.00 per square meter;

Vic. T. Salinas Realty and Consultancy Services, chosen by respondents heirs of Santiago - PhP12,500.00 per square meter; and

City Assessor of Para�aque - PhP5,900.00 per square meter for both properties.

However, the group of commissioners failed to reach a consensus as to the amount of just compensation for the subject properties. Thus, this issue was submitted for resolution to the RTC.

On September 28, 2006, the RTC issued its subject Order disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, for the payment of just compensation on the properties actually expropriated, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), is held liable to the heirs of Eladio Santiago the amount of P4,500.00 per square meter multiplied by the expropriated area of 180 square meters and to Jerry Yao the amount of P5,900.00 per square meter multiplied by the expropriated area of 540 square meters. Since the heirs of Eladio Santiago had already received the sum of P540,000.00 and Jerry Yao the sum of P1,287,360.00 from the Republic of the Philippines, represented by MIAA, the said amounts shall be deducted from the payments.

SO ORDERED.13
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 of the above Order, but the RTC denied it in its Order15 dated March 28, 2007.

Petitioner, then, filed an appeal with the CA. Subsequently, on April 27, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed Decision dismissing petitioner's appeal and affirming the September 28, 2006 Order of the RTC.

Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated September 15, 2010.

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari based on the following grounds:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I

The Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in affirming the findings of the expropriation court relative to the latter's determination of just compensation for the properties of respondents, thereby ignoring the standards provided under Section 5 of RA 8974 for the determination of just compensation

II

The Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in sustaining the ruling of the expropriation court that the recommendation of petitioner's appraiser, Royal Asia Appraisal Corporation, lacks sufficient basis to support its conclusion.16
The petition lacks merit.

At the outset, the Court deems it proper to dispose of the factual matters raised in the instant petition as they call for a recalibration or reevaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties.

Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again.17 A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law.18 This rule equally applies in expropriation cases.19

Moreover, the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are final and conclusive. They cannot be reviewed by this Court, save only in the following circumstances: (1) when the factual conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA went beyond the issues of the case in making its findings, which are further contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the conclusions do not cite the specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the CA's findings of fact, supposedly premised on the absence of evidence, are contradicted by the evidence on record.20 While petitioner contends that the CA "manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion," which is also a recognized exception, the Court finds that it (petitioner) failed to establish that the present case falls under the above-enumerated exceptions. Thus, absent competent proof that the RTC and the CA committed error in establishing the facts concerning the issue of just compensation and in drawing conclusions from them, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from such findings and conclusions.

Based on the above discussions alone, the Court finds that the instant petition is dismissible.

In the same manner, the Court finds that even the sole legal issue, which arises by reason of petitioner's averments in the instant petition, lacks merit for reasons similar to those discussed above.

In petitioner's first ground, the issue raised is whether or not the RTC and the CA took into consideration the standards provided under Republic Act No. 8974 (RA 8974), otherwise known as An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location For National Government Infrastructure Projects and For Other Purposes, in determining just compensation, particularly Section 5 thereof, which provides as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;

(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;

(c) The value declared by the owners;

(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;

(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of the improvements thereon;

(f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;

(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and

(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
Consistent with the above standards set by law, it has been this Court's consistent ruling that just compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily.21 As enumerated above, several factors must be considered, such as, but not limited to, acquisition cost, current market value of like properties, tax value of the condemned property, its size, shape, and location.22

In consonance with the above rule, it has also been repeatedly emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.23 Thus, this Court has held that the courts are not bound to consider the standards laid down under Section 5 of RA 8974 because the exact wording of the said provision is that "in order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the courts may consider" them.24 The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion.25 In the absence of a finding of arbitrariness, abuse or serious error, the exercise of such discretion may not be interfered with.26 In the present case, the Court finds no arbitrariness, abuse or serious error in the findings of the RTC. Considering that the determination of the amount of just compensation by the RTC was even affirmed by the CA, which had the opportunity to examine the facts anew, this Court sees no reason to disturb it.

In any case, even assuming, arguendo, that the instant case necessitates the review of the evidence presented vis-a-vis the standards set under the abovequoted Section 5 of RA 8974, this Court, nonetheless finds that the RTC and the CA did not ignore the standards set by law and did not commit error in arriving at their findings and conclusions as to the amount of just compensation due to respondents.

As to the classification and use for which the subject properties are suited, both the RTC and the CA found that they were primarily agricultural in nature as they were used as salt beds and fishponds. This finding is supported by the appraisal report of the commissioners of herein petitioner and respondents.27

Nonetheless, the parties' commissioners were all in agreement that the subject properties' immediate vicinity is booming with commercial activity, which shows the potential use or the use for which the property is best suited.28 In particular, RAAC's Appraisal Report noted that "beside the subject property is the Global Airport Business Park intended for warehousing and display, which cater[s to] local and foreign locators."29 Also, the commissioners listed some of the commercial establishments within the vicinity such as the Olivares Plaza, MIAA Complex, Para�aque Fresh Food Terminal, Airport Citimall, among others.30 Based on their assessment in their respective Appraisal Reports, respondents' commissioners averred that commercial and light industrial development represent the highest and best use of the disputed lots, while RAAC does not discount the possibility that these properties may be devoted to other uses other than agricultural. "Highest and best use" is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.31 This Court has held that among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of a property is its potential use.32 Also, it has been held that a property's potential use, or its adaptability for conversion in the future, may be considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, although it should never control the determination of just compensation.33 In fact, the Appraisal Reports of the parties' commissioners clearly indicate that at the time when the subject properties are being expropriated, the locality where they are found already abounds with commercial and industrial activities. Aside from that, the commissioners also noted that the subject properties are also near developed residential areas such as the Multinational Village.34 As this Court has held, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.35 Certainly, the potential use or uses of the subject properties would affect their fair market value.

Anent the other factors enumerated under Section 5 of RA 8974, the RTC correctly found that the parties' commissioners uniformly used the Market Data Approach.

With respect to petitioner, it quoted the report of its chosen commissioner, RAAC, which described the subject properties as interior lots, and explained as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x

x x x In this approach, the value of the land is based on sales and listings of comparable properties registered in the vicinity. The technique of this approach requires the establishing of comparable properties by reducing reasonable comparative sales and listings to a common denominator.

This is done by adjusting the differences between the subject property and those actual sales and listings regarded as comparables. The properties used as bases of comparison are situated within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Our comparison was premised on the factors of location, characteristics of the lot, time element, quality, and prospective use. We have searched the market for comparable properties and gathered the following:36
RAAC then made a list of comparable properties, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
LISTINGS:

1. Currently, an interior lot having an area of 30,000 sq. m., more or less, located at the back of Green Heights, Brgy. Sucat, Para�aque City, Metropolitan Manila, is being offered for sale x x x at an asking price of PhP5,500 per sq. m.

2. Still, a commercial lot having an area of 16,458 sq. m., more or less, located along Dr. A. Santos Avenue (Sucat Road) across SM, Brgy. San Dionisio, Para�aque City, Metropolitan Manila, is being offered for sale x x x at an asking price of PhP18,000 per sq. m.

3. Still, an interior lot having an area of 16,548 sq. m., more or less, located within Sun Victorias Compound, Para�aque City, Metropolitan Manila, is being offered for sale x x x at an asking price of PhP6,500 per sq. m.

4. Still, a commercial lot having an area of 1,828 sq. m., more or less, located about 100 meters away from NAIA Road, Para�aque City, Metropolitan Manila, is being offered for sale x x x at an asking price of PhP20,000.00 per sq. m.

5. Still, a commercial lot having an area of 1,500 sq. m., more or less, located along NAIA Road, Para�aque City, Metropolitan Manila, is being offered for sale x x x at an asking price of PhP20,000.00 per sq. m.37
It is evident from the above list that the lowest asking price for the comparable properties was P5,500.00 per square meter, which is an interior lot like the subject properties, while the most expensive lot, which is commercial in nature and is along a main road, commands an asking price of PhP20,000.00. However, without presenting any competent proof, RAAC proceeded to contradict its own evidence and alleged that it also "sought the opinion of real estate brokers, bank appraisers and other knowledgeable individuals who, in [its] opinion, may be conversant with land values in the area and gathered that properties with regular cut for commercial development along Dr. A. Santos and Ninoy Aquino Avenues with an average depth of 100 meters can command a price range from PhP20,000 to PhP25,000 per sq. m., while interior properties without access have a going price of PhP2,000 to PhP4,000 per sq. m." RAAC then concludes that the market value of the properties sought to be expropriated should be pegged at P2,500.00 per square meter. However, RAAC failed to present satisfactory proof to support its valuation of the subject properties. On the contrary, its own search of comparable properties yielded a different result, where, as mentioned earlier, the cheapest asking price for an interior lot was P5,500.00 per square meter. This is nowhere near RAAC's valuation of P2,500.00 per square meter, which as noted by the RTC is even lower than the P3,000.00 per-square-meter zonal value of the properties in 1996 which is six (6) years prior to the expropriation.38 Thus, the RTC did not commit error in refusing to accept RAAC's valuation.

In the same manner, the prices of P15,000.00 and P12,500.00 per square meter, as suggested by the commissioners of Yao and the heirs of Santiago, respectively, were correctly rejected by the RTC as they did not accurately reflect the fair equivalent of the value of the subject lots because these prices match those of already highly developed residential and commercial properties which are near or along main roads and established thoroughfares.

On the other hand, the Para�aque City Assessor's list of comparable properties located in the same or nearby barangays which were sold for the previous two (2) years shows that these lots fetched selling prices ranging from P4,000.00 to P6,700.00 per square meter.39 While these properties are residential lots, the Court, nonetheless, notes that two of the interior lots listed as comparable properties by RAAC were each valued at P5,500.00 and P6,500.00 per square meter. These valuations fall within the price range of the properties listed by the Para�aque City Assessor.

At this point, it bears to reiterate that just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.40 The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.41 The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey, thereby, the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be substantial, full and ample.42

In this regard, the Court finds it apropos to quote pertinent portions of the findings of the RTC which explain the bases for its valuation of the subject lots and the difference in the said valuation, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Being an agricultural land, this Court believes that the amount of just compensation or fair value for the expropriated property of the heirs of Eladio Santiago is in the amount of P4,500.00 per square meter[,] a little higher than the Zonal Valuation (Ordinance No. 96-16) of P3,000.00 per square meter. It is a reasonable amount for its market value assuming that there is an interested buyer. The Court believes that the heirs would not be able to sell it for a higher amount. And assuming [that] there is an interested buyer, the latter would most likely not offer an amount higher than P4,500.00 considering its difficult accessibility since it is surrounded by a river.

The property of the heirs of Eladio Santiago is not a residential property with a value of P6,000.00 to P10,000.00 just like the developed subdivisions such as Moonwalk Subdivision, Bricktown Subdivision and Multinational Village which are located in the neighboring area. Neither could it be considered a commercial land found in the neighboring area which could command a value higher than residential properties. Those properties are not similarly situated since the property of the heirs of Eladio Santiago is surrounded by a river.

The property of Jerry Yao as depicted in the pictures, vicinity maps and Tax Declarations, among others[,] is also an agricultural land. His property was used as a fish pond, understandably because of its proximity to the Don Galo River. As it is now, his property remains an agricultural land although there are residential and commercial properties located not very far away from his property. His property could not be compared to the residential properties nearby since his land is undeveloped. Although there are pictures showing some commercial properties such as the Olivarez Plaza, Airport Citimall, AMVEL Land and the Global Park nearby, those properties are developed commercial properties, Moreover, Olivarez Plaza and Airport Citimall are located alongside Sucat Road and AMVEL Land and Global Park are well-developed commercial properties with very close accessibility to Sucat Road.

Using the same ruling as basis for determining just compensation of the property of Jerry Yao, this Court believes that the amount he would be entitled as a fair value or just compensation for his expropriated property is P5,900 as correctly estimated by the Assessor's Office.

This Court did not arrive on the same valuation for the properties of the heirs of Eladio Santiago and Jerry Yao since both properties are not similarly situated. The property of the heirs of Eladio Santiago is surrounded by the Don Galo River, thus, accessibility is difficult while the property of Jerry Yao is comparatively more accessible since it is not surrounded by a river. In fact, Mr. Yao's property would have commanded a higher value had it been developed. x x x

x x x43
Inasmuch as the determination of just compensation in expropriattion cases is a judicial function, as earlier discussed, and there being no showing that the RTC did not act capriciously or arbitrarily in its valuation of the subject lots, and that such valuation is affirmed by the CA upon review, the Court sees no reason to disturb the lower courts' factual findings as to such valuation. The findings of the RTC and the CA were based on documentary evidence and the amounts fixed and agreed to by the trial court and respondent appellate court are not grossly exorbitant or otherwise unjustified.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated April 27, 2010 and September 15, 2010, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 89842, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., on wellness leave.

Endnotes:


1 Penned by Associate Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Elihu A. Yba�ez, Annex "A" to Petition, rollo pp. 64-70.

2 Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 71-72.

3 Penned by Judge Rolando G. How; Annex "T" to Petition, id. at 222-226.

4 Annex "D" to Petition, id. at 75-81.

5 Annex "F" to Petition, id. at 136-140.

6 Annex "E" to Petition, id. at 128-135.

7 Annex "G" to Petition, id. at 152.

8 Annex "H" to Petition, id. at 153-154.

9 Annex "I" to Petition, id. at 155.

10 Annex "J" to Petition, id. at 156.

11 Annex "L" to Petition, id. at 160.

12 Annex "K" to Petition, id. at 157-158.

13Id. at 226.

14 Annex "U" to Petition, id. at 227-231.

15 Annex "X" to Petition, id. at 240.

16Rollo, pp. 32-33.

17Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, G.R. No. 205681, July 1, 2015, 761 SCRA 260, 268.

18Id.

19Republic of the Philippines v. C.C. Unson Company, Inc., G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016; Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Spouses Pedro Bautista and Valentina Malabanan, 702 Phil. 284, 297 (2013); Republic v. Spouses Tan, et al., 676 Phil. 337, 351 (2011).

20Republic of the Philippines v. Tan, et al., supra; Philippine National Oil Company v. Maglasang, et al., 591 Phil. 534, 545 (2008).

21National Power Corporation v. Spouses Zabala and Baylon, 702 Phil. 491, 501 (2013).

22Id.

23Id. at 500; National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, et. al., 668 Phil. 301, 313 (2011); National Power Corporation v. Bagui, et al., 590 Phil. 424, 432 (2008).

24Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Spouses Pedro Bautista and Valentina Malabanan, supra note 19, at 298.

25Id.

26Id.

27 See Appraisal Reports of commissioners, records, vol. IV.

28Id.

29Id.

30Id.

31Republic v. Department of Transportation and Communications, et al., G.R. Nos. 181892, 209917, 209696 and 209731, September 8, 2015.

32Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation, 729 Phil. 402, 417 (2014).

33Land Bank of the Philippines v. Montinola-Escarilla and Co., Inc., 687 Phil. 245, 251 (2012); Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, 645 Phil. 337, 357 (2010).

34Supra note 27.

35National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, 480 Phil. 470, 480 (2004).

36Rollo, pp. 38-39.

37Id. at 39-40.

38 See Para�aque City Ordinance No. 96-16, records, vol. I, pp. 15-16.

39 See records, vol. IV, pp. 1-3.

40Republic v. C.C. Unson Company, Inc., supra note 19.

41Id.

42Id.

43Rollo, pp. 225-226.



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






March-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 204766, March 06, 2017 - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, Petitioner, v. GLORIA B. AQUINTEY, EDUARDO F. MENDOZA AND AGNES N. VILLANUEVA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11256, March 07, 2017 - FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225562, March 08, 2017 - WILLIAM C. LOUH, JR. AND IRENE L. LOUH, Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200349, March 06, 2017 - FE B. YABUT AND NORBERTO YABUT, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS REPRESENTED BY CATHERINE Y. CASTILLO, Petitioners, v. ROMEO ALCANTARA, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS REPRESENTED BY FLORA LLUCH ALCANTARA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197899, March 06, 2017 - JOAQUIN LU, Petitioner, v. TIRSO ENOPIA, ROBERTO ABANES, ALEJANDRE BAGAS, SALVADOR BERNAL, SAMUEL CAHAYAG, ALEJANDRO CAMPUGAN, RUPERTO CERNA, JR., REYNALDO CERNA, PETER CERVANTES, LEONARDO CONDESTABLE, ROLANDO ESLOPOR, ROLLY FERNANDEZ, EDDIE FLORES, ROLANDO FLORES, JUDITO FUDOLIN, LEO GRAPANI, FELIX HUBAHIB, JERRY JUAGPAO, MARCIANO LANUTAN, JOVENTINO MATOBATO, ALFREDO MONIVA, VICTORIANO ORTIZ, JR., RENALDO PIALAN, ALFREDO PRUCIA, PONCIANO REANDO, HERMENIO REMEGIO, DEMETRIO RUAYA, EDGARDO RUSIANA, NESTOR SALILI, VICENTE SASTRELLAS, ROMEO SUMAYANG, and DESIDERIO TABAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202088, March 08, 2017 - MANUEL L. BAUTISTA, SPOUSES ANGEL SAHAGUN AND CARMELITA BAUTISTA, AND ANIANO L. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. MARGARITO L. BAUTISTA, Respondent.

  • A.C. NO. 11385, March 14, 2017 - ORTIGAS PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY JANICE MONTERO, Complainant, v. ATTY. EUGENIO S. TUMULAK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215383, March 08, 2017 - HON. KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ST. PAUL COLLEGE OF MAKATI, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 16-10-05-SB, March 14, 2017 - RE: MEDICAL CONDITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIA CRISTINA J. CORNEJO, SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 223751, March 15, 2017 - SECOND DIVISION MIGUEL "LUCKY" GUILLERMO AND AV MANILA CREATIVE PRODUCTION CO., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE INFORMATION AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11346, March 08, 2017 - DR. BASILIO MALVAR, Complainant, v. ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211010, March 07, 2017 - VICTORIA SEGOVIA, RUEL LAGO, CLARIESSE JAMI CHAN, REPRESENTING THE CARLESS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; GABRIEL ANASTACIO, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER GRACE ANASTACIO, DENNIS ORLANDO SANGALANG, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER MAY ALILI SANGALANG, MARIA PAULINA CASTA�EDA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ATRICIA ANN CASTA�EDA, REPRESENTING THE CHILDREN OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CHILDREN OF THE FUTURE; AND RENATO PINEDA, JR., ARON KERR MENGUITO, MAY ALILI SANGALANG, AND GLYNDA BATHAN BATERINA, REPRESENTING CAR�OWNERS WHO WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE CARS IF GOOD PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WERE SAFE, CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND RELIABLE, Petitioners, v. THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, AND ITS COMMISSIONERS MARY ANN LUCILLE SERING, HEHERSON ALVAREZ AND NADAREV SANO; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE JOSEPH ABAYA; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) AND THE ROAD BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE ROGELIO SINGSON; DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE MANUEL ROXAS; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE RAMON PAJE; DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE FLORENCIO ABAD; METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, FRANCIS TOLENTINO; DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HONORABLE PROCESO ALCALA; AND JOHN DOES, REPRESENTING AS YET UNNAMED LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, JURIDICAL ENTITIES, AND NATURAL PERSONS WHO FAIL OR REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW OR COOPERATE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206037, March 13, 2017 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. LILIBETH S. CHAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197482, March 29, 2017 - FORIETRANS MANUFACTURING CORP., AGERICO CALAQUIAN AND ALVIN MONTERO, Petitioners, v. DAVIDOFF ET. CIE SA & JAPAN TOBACCO, INC . (REPRESENTED BY SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN LAW OFFICE THRU ATTY. RONALD MARK LLENO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218463, March 01, 2017 - HENRY R. GIRON, Petitioner, v. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., HON. SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF QUEZON CITY AND HON. KAGAWAD ARNALDO A. CANDO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206891, March 15, 2017 - ERNESTO BROWN, Petitioner, v. MARSWIN* MARKETING, INC., AND SANY** TAN, REPRESENTED BY BERNADETTE S. AZUCENA, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-17-3634 [Formerly A.M. No. 16-04-94-RTC], March 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ENRIQUE I. ALFONSO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212815, March 01, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRILE DONIO Y UNTALAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205578, March 01, 2017 - GEORGIA OSME�A-JALANDONI, Petitioner, v. CARMEN A. ENCOMIENDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213137, March 01, 2017 - FLORDALIZA LLANES GRANDE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NAUTICAL TRAINING COLLEGE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213390, March 15, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESSIE GABRIELY GAJARDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200369, March 01, 2017 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, THE HONORABLE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, THE HONORABLE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, MIGUEL L. CARASOCHO, GERARDO G. CARAAN, CATALINO P. CARAAN, PASCUAL N. CABRERA, FRANCISCO L. CABRERA, EMILIANA M. CABRERA, CESAR N. CABRERA, PONCIANO R. GARCIA, PEDRO R. GARCIA, MARCELINO R. GARCIA, AGUSTIN M. MARANAN, EUGENIO J. MARANAN, SILVERIO D. MARANAN, ARMANDO T. MARUDO, NENITA L. MARUDO, GUILLERMO C. NARVACAN, DAVID M. TERRENAL, DOROTEO C. TERRENAL, SARDO C. TERRENAL, CARMELITA M. DELA CRUZ, REMEGIO R. VILLAMAYOR, ANICETO C. DEJAN, MACARIO N. DEJAN, EULOGIA L. DIVINA, CELIA C. GARCIA, JOSEFA G. LARENA, MIGUEL M. LUMBRES, JUANITO E. NARVACAN, LUZVIMINDA PEREZ, SEBASTINO C. DELA CRUZ, DANILO P. GARCIA, HERMOGENES L. MARANAN, LEOPOLDO T. MARUDO, MIGUEL C. NATANAUAN, JOSE C. NATANAUAN, ARCADIO C. RIVERA, MAMERTO B. DEJAN, SEGUNDO C. DEJAN, GREGORIO N. ENRIQUEZ, SIMEON L. ALCANTARA, GAUDENCIO S. ALVEZ, AVELINO G. DE JESUS, GAUDENCIO P. DIMAPILIS, NEMESIO L. DIVINA, RODOLFO L. GARCIA, VALENTIN N. LE LEONA N. LLARENA, PONCIANO L. LLARENA, SERGIO N. LLARENA, PABLITO M. LUMBRES, VICTORIA L. MADAJAS, RODOLFO L. MARANAN, ANDRES S. MARANAN, MELECIA T. MARANAN APOLONIA VILLAMAYOR,JUANITO O. MERCADO, ARSENIO V. NATIVIDAD, CRISPIN M. NATIVIDAD, DANTE A. NATIVIDAD, ELADIO U. NATIVIDAD, FULGENCIO U. NATIVIDAD, GAUDENCIO M. NATIVIDAD, JUAN T. NATIVIDAD, PEDRO M. NATIVIDAD, JUAN P. CABRERA, BARTOLOME M. MICO, EDUARDO M. ONA, LUCAS G. ONA, JULIUS T. PODONAN, FELICISIMO T. RAMILO, FELIPE C. REDONDO, FELINO M. REDONDO, CLEMENTE R. SANGALANG, DOMINGA R. SUAREZ, ARMANDO V. VISPO, ALBERTO P. SALVADOR, FRANCISCO S. CARANDANG, AVELINO L. LLARENA, CELESTINO M. LLARENA, FRISCO N. LLARENA, GREGORIO N. LLARENA, CASIANO N. CABRERA, FLAVIANO N. CABRERA, SEDORO C. CABRERA, SLXTO M. CABRERA, VALERIANO L. CARINGAL, MARITA C. DEJAN, SOFRONIO V. CARAAN, CONRADO K. MERCADO, LEONIZA N. NARVACAN JUANITO E. NARVACAN, FELICIANO N. NARVACAN, FERNANDO C. MATANGUIHAN, LEONIDES A. MATANGUIHAN, NILO L. MATANGUIHAN, JUANITO A. NATIVIDAD, SERGIO M. NATANAUAN, BARTOLOME C. MATANGUIHAN, MARTIN M. NATANAUAN, FERNANDO G. MEDINA, LUCIA R. NATANAUAN, LOPE N. NATANAUAN, JUANA F. NATANAUAN, FRANCISCO G. NATANAUAN, BUENAVENTURA G. NATANAUAN, ANDRES M. NATANAUAN, CORNELIO L. NARVAEZ, LEONIZA T. ANNOYO, BRICCIO N. LUMBRES, CALIXTO R. LUMBRES, RODOLFO U. LLARENA, BENITA L. MADAJAS, MERCEDES L. MADAJAS, REMEDIOS A. MARUDO, FILOMENA D. MARANAN, ROLANDO N. MEDINA, RICARDO L. MARANAN, ANGEL A. UMANDAP, LUCIDO G. MED`INA, MENARDO G. MEDINA, MARIANO N. REGALADO, MARCIANO C. REDONDO, DAMASA D. REDONDO, LEONIDA R. RAMILO, SERGIO O. NATIVIDAD, RAFAEL T. MARANAN, DEMETRTO M. QUIJANO, LITA L. NARVAEZ, PETRONILO V. ARSENIO, CESARIO N. LLARENA, JUAN D. NARVAEZ, ANSELMO N. LLARENA, MACARIO N. DIJAN, FERNANDO M. ROBLES, LEONARDO N. TERRIBLE, LEONORA N. RIVERA, ELENA N. RIVERA, CATALINO P. CARAON, JUAN S. MARASIGAN, CELSO A. MERCADO, AND ERNESTO MANGUIAT, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 203330-31 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PETRONILO V. ARSENIO, CATALINO P. CARAAN, FRANCISCO S. CARANDANG, MACARIO N. DEJAN, ANSELMO L. LLARENA, ANSELMO T. LLARENA, CELESTINO M. LLARENA, CESARIO M. LLARENA, FRISCO N. LLARENA, GREGORIO N. LLARENA, CALIXTO R. LUMBRES, AGUSTIN N. MARANAN, EUGENIO T. MARANAN, JUAN L. MARASIGAN, ARMANDO T. MARUDO, MEDARDO G. MEDINA, CELSO A. MERCADO, FELICIANO N. NARVACAN, GUILLERMO C. NARVACAN, JUAN E. NARVACAN, JUANITO D. NARVAEZ, LITA L. NARVAEZ, DEMETRIO M. QUIJANO, LEONIDA R. RAMILO, ELENA M. RIVERA, FERNANDO M. ROBLES, DAVID M. TERRENAL, AND LEONARDO N. TERRIBLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224834, March 15, 2017 - JONATHAN Y. DEE, Petitioner, v. HARVEST ALL INVESTMENT LIMITED, VICTORY FUND LIMITED, BONDEAST PRIVATE LIMITED, AND ALBERT HONG HIN KAY, AS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS OF ALLIANCE SELECT FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND HEDY S.C. YAP-CHUA, AS DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF ALLIANCE SELECT FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 224871 - HARVEST ALL INVESTMENT LIMITED, VICTORY FUND LIMITED, BONDEAST PRIVATE LIMITED, ALBERT HONG HIN KAY, AS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS OF ALLIANCE SELECT FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND HEDY S.C. YAP-CHUA, AS A DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF ALLIANCE SELECT FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioners, v. ALLIANCE SELECT FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., GEORGE E. SYCIP, JONATHAN Y. DEE, RAYMUND K.H. SEE, MARY GRACE T. VERA-CRUZ, ANTONIO C. PACIS, ERWIN M. ELECHICON, AND BARBARA ANNE C. MIGALLOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179749, March 30, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE BARTE Y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209057, March 15, 2017 - RENATO S. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. JOSE MARIA V. ONGSIAKO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-MeTC), March 14, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; A.M. NO. 12-1-09-METC - RE: LETTER DATED 21 JULY 2011 OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO AND THREE (3) OTHER JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, FOR THE SUSPENSION OR DETAIL TO ANOTHER STATION OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, SAME COURT.; A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1836 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 11-11-115- METC) - RE: LETTER DATED MAY 2, 2011 OF HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY.; A.M. NO. MTJ-12-1815 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 11-2401-MTJ) - LEILANI A. TEJERO-LOPEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI NO. 11-2398-MTJ - JOSEFINA G. LABID, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN COURT, BRANCH CITY, TRIAL 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI NO. 11-2399-MTJ - AMOR V. ABAD, FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS, ROMER H. AVILES, EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL, NORMAN D.S. GARCIA, MAXIMA SAYO AND DENNIS ECHEGOYEN, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI NO. 11-2378-MTJ - EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR., JUDGE CATHERINE P. MANODON, MIGUEL C. INFANTE (CLERK OF COURT IV, OCC-METC), RACQUEL C. DIANO (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 45), EMMA ANNIE D. ARAFILES (ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT, OCC-METC), PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, JR. (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 44), LYDIA T. CASAS (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 46), ELEANOR N. BAYOG (LEGAL RESEARCHER,METC, BRANCH 45), LEILANIE A. TEJERO (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA MARIA V. FRANCISCO (CASHIER I, OCC� METC), SOLEDAD J. BASSIG (CLERK III, OCC-METC), MARISSA MASHHOOR RASTGOOY (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC-METC), MARIE LUZ M. OBIDA (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OCC-METC), VIRGINIA D. GALANG (RECORDS OFFICER I, OCC-METC), AUXENCIO JOSEPH CLEMENTE (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 48), EVELYN P. DEPALOBOS (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 44), MA. CECILIA GERTRUDES R. SALVADOR (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 48), JOSEPH B. PAMATMAT (CLERK III, OCC- METC), ZENAIDA N. GERONIMO (COURT STENOGRAPHER, OCC-METC), BENJIE V. ORE (PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), FORTUNATO E. DIEZMO (PROCESS SERVER, OCC- METC), NOMER B. VILLANUEVA (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC), ELSA D. GARNET (CLERK III, OCC� METC), FATIMA V. ROJAS (CLERK III, OCC-METC), CAYANAN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 45), MANOLO EDUARDO E. EBREO (SHERIFF ILL, METC, BRANCH 45), RONALYN T. ALMARVEZ (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), MA. VICTORIA C. OCAMPO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), ELIZABETH LIPURA (CLERK III METC, BRANCH 45), MARY ANN J. MANUEL E. GARCIA (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45), EDWINA A. JUROK (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-METC), ARMINA B. ALMONTE (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ELIZABETH G. VILLANUEVA (RECORDS OFFICER, METC, BRANCH 44), ERWIN RUSS B. RAGASA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 44), BIEN T. CAMBA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), MARLON M. SULIGAN (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), CHANDA B. TOLENTINO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), FERDINAND R. MOLINA (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 44), PETRONILO C. PRIMACIO, JR. (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45), EDWARD ERIC SANTOS (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), EMILIO P. DOMINE (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), ARNOLD P. OBIAL (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 44), RICARDO E. LAMPITOC (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 46), JEROME H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA LEA M. ESTACIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), LANIE F. AGUINALDO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), JASMINE L. LINDAIN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), RONALDO S. QUIJANO (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 44), DOMINGO H. HOCOSOL (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 48), EDWIN P. UBANA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 48), MARVIN 0. BALICUATRO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), MA. LUZ D. DIONISIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), MARIBEL A. MOLINA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 48), CRISTINA E. LAMPITOC (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), MELANIE DC. BEGASA (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), EVANGELINE M. CHING (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46), LAWRENCE D. PEREZ (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 46), EDMUNDO VERGARA (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 46), AMOR V. ABAD (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 47), ROMER H. AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), MAXIMA C. SA YO (PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 47), SEVILLA B. DEL CASTILLO (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 48), AIDA JOSEFINA IGNACIO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), BENIGNO A. MARZAN (CLERK ILL, METC, BRANCH 48), KARLA MAE R. PACUNAYEN (CLERK ILL, METC, BRANCH 48), IGNACIO M. GONZALES (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 48), EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC, DETAILED AT BRANCH 47), DENNIS M. ECHEGOYEN (SHERIFF III, OCC-METC), NORMAN GARCIA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 47), NOEL G. LABID (UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH 47), Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; OCA IPI NO. 12-2456-MTJ - JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. AND CLERK OF COURT MIGUEL C. INFANTE, Complainants, v. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.; A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821 - JUDGE EMILY L. SAN GASPAR-GITO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, MANILA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220785, March 01, 2017 - MA. LORENA TICONG, Petitioner, v. MANUEL A. MALIM, MINDA ABANGAN AND MAY MACAL, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 222887 - PATROCINIO S. TICONG AND WILMA T. LAO, Petitioners, v. MANUEL A. MALIM, MINDA ABANGAN AND MAY MACAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 221134, March 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO, Petitioner, v. RICHARD T. MARTEL AND ABEL A. GUI�ARES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216637, March 07, 2017 - AGAPITO J. CARDINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND ROSALINA G. JALOSJOS A.K.A. ROSALINA JALOSJOS JOHNSON, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, March 07, 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. 175726, March 22, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO MARCOS, SR., NAMELY: ANITA M. RUBIO, LOLITA M. PELINO, ANTONIO MARCOS, JR. AND RAMIRO D. MARCOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213943, March 22, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222980, March 20, 2017 - LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PARK N RIDE INC./VICEST (PHILS) INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B. JAVIER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192648, March 15, 2017 - DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC., Petitioner, v. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199141, March 08, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF JOSE TAPULADO, NAMELY, TOMASA, LORENZO, TERESITA, JOSE, JR., ELISA, ROMEO, LETECIA, ALL SURNAMED TAPULADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224900, March 15, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR M. BUGARIN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 193987, March 13, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHIL-AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192536, March 15, 2017 - DEMETRIO R. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THRU ITS AGENCY, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REVENUE REGION NO. 11-B, DAVAO CITY; AMERIGO D. VILLEGAS, REVENUE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, REVENUE REGION NO. 11-B; TEODORICA R. ARCEGA, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR REVENUE REGION NO. 11-B; JOSE C. BATAUSA, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR REVENUE REGION NO. 11-B; THEMISTOCLES R. MONTALBAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COLLECTION SERVICE OF BIR; REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY; AND MAXIMO LAGAHIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211937, March 21, 2017 - ROSEMARIE B. BINTUDAN, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225644, March 01, 2017 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN TUARDON Y ROSALIA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 193069, March 15, 2017 - NSC HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. TRUST INTERNATIONAL PAPER CORPORATION (TIPCO) AND ATTY. MONICO JACOB, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198209, March 22, 2017 - ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS, Petitioner, v. SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., (SODACO), ROLANDO SANCHEZ, LEONARDO DALWAMPO AND CARIDAD C. ALMENDRAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192353, March 15, 2017 - MERCEDITA C. COOMBS, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA C. CASTA�EDA, VIRGILIO VELOSO SANTOS, SPS. PANCHO & EDITH LEVISTE, BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194199, March 22, 2017 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., Petitioner, v. BODEGA GLASSWARE, REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER JOSEPH D. CABRAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 07, 2017 - RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO, HOLDING OF RELIGIOUS RITUALS AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING IN QUEZON CITY

  • G.R. No. 199810, March 15, 2017 - BEVERLY ANNE C. YAP, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225599, March 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MEJARO ROA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017 - ROMULO ABROGAR AND ERLINDA ABROGAR, Petitioners, v. COSMOS BOTTLING COMPANY AND INTERGAMES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214864, March 22, 2017 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), REPRESENTED BY OSCAR M.SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, BENJAMIN B. CECILIO, ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR OPERATIONS, AND SISALI B. ARAP, PORT MANAGER, Petitioner, v. NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. (NIASSI), REPRESENTED BY RAMON CALO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 226475, March 13, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CYRUS VILLANUEVA Y ISORENA ALIAS "TUTOY" AND ALVIN SAYSON Y ESPONCILLA ALIAS "ALVIN TALANGKA", Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017 - MARTIN VILLAMOR Y TAYSON, AND VICTOR BONAOBRA Y GIANAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210289, March 20, 2017 - TSM SHIPPING PHILS., INC. AND/OR DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET NORDEN A/S AND/OR CAPT. CASTILLO, Petitioners, v. LOUIE L. PATI�O, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211504, March 08, 2017 - FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. POWER FACTORS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017 - ROGEL ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182409, March 20, 2017 - FELIX PLAZO URBAN POOR SETTLERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. ALFREDO LIPAT, SR. AND ALFREDO LIPAT, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227155, March 28, 2017 - JOEL T. MATURAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALLAN PATI�O, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197762, March 07, 2017 - CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MA. ANTHONETTE VELASCO-ALLONES, AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ARTURO M. LACHICA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AND PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA, DEPUTY CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEYS MACAPANGCAT A. MAMA, SYLVESTRE A. MOSING, REGIONAL PUBLIC ATTORNEYS CYNTHIA M. VARGAS, FRISCO F. DOMALSIN, TOMAS B. PADILLA, RENATO T. CABRIDO, SALVADOR S. HIPOLITO, ELPIDIO C. BACUYAG, DIOSDADO S. SAVELLANO, RAMON N. GOMEZ, MARIE G-REE R. CALINAWAN, FLORENCIO M. DILOY, EDGARDO D. GONZALEZ, NUNILA P. GARCIA, FRANCIS A. CALATRAVA, DATUMANONG A. DUMAMBA, EDGAR Q. BALANSAG, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV MARVIN R. OSIAS, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV HOWARD B. AREZA, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV IMELDA C. ALFORTE-GANANCIAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224295, March 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARIEL S. MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MYRNA GAYOSO Y ARGUELLES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), Petitioners, v. PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185627, March 15, 2017 - SPOUSES BERNARDITO AND ARSENIA GAELA (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS NAMELY: BERNARDITO GAELA AND JOSELINE E. PAGUIRIGAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES TAN TIAN HEANG AND SALLY TAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198799, March 20, 2017 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. AMADO M. MENDOZA AND MARIA MARCOS VDA. DE MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213020, March 20, 2017 - PUERTO AZUL LAND, INC. AND TERNATE UTILITIES, INC., Petitioners, v. EXPORT INDUSTRY BANK, INC., (FORMERLY NAMED URBAN BANK, INC.), THROUGH ITS TRUST DEPARTMENT (FORMERLY NAMED URBAN TRUST DEPARTMENT); PACIFIC WIDE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK - TRUST AND INVESTMENT CENTER; HON. RACQUELEN ABARY-VASQUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND ATTY. MARIVIC S. TIBAYAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT AND EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192345, March 29, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ESTEBAN AND CRESENCIA CHU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193828, March 27, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ELADIO SANTIAGO C/O SABAS SANTIAGO AND JERRY T. YAO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 205855, March 29, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KING REX A. AMBATANG, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215742, March 22, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE BELMAR UMAPAS Y CRISOSTOMO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G. R. No. 184917, March 13, 2017 - JESSIE M. DOROTEO (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS SISTER, LUCIDA D. HERMIS, Petitioner, v. PHILIMARE INCORPORATED, BONIFACIO GOMEZ, AND/OR FIL CARGO SHIPPING CORP., Respondents.; G. R. No. 184932, March 13, 2017 - PHILIMARE INCORPORATED, BONIFACIO GOMEZ, AND/OR FIL CARGO SHIPPING CORP., Petitioners, v. JESSIE M. DOROTEO (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS SISTER, LUCIDA D. HERMIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211335, March 27, 2017 - MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILIPPINES), INC., THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE LTD. AND/OR ALFONSO RANJO DEL CASTILLO, Petitioners, v. TEODY D. ASUNCION, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 5333, March 13, 2017 - ROSA YAP PARAS, Complainant, v. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180654, March 06, 2017 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BATAAN, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF BATAAN, PASTOR B. VICHUACO (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATAAN) AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11043, March 08, 2017 - LIANG FUJI, Complainant, v. ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207146, March 15, 2017 - SPOUSES LARRY AND ROSARITA WILLIAMS, Petitioners, v. RAINERO A. ZERDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017 - NICOLAS VELASQUEZ AND VICTOR VELASQUEZ, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188400, March 08, 2017 - MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIRSO SIBBU, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017 - OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ROMEO AND REGINA CAPANZANA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225593, March 20, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PALA TOUKYO Y PADEP, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186088, March 22, 2017 - WILTON DY AND/OR PHILITES ELECTRONIC & LIGHTING PRODUCTS, Petitioner, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178591, March 29, 2017 - SM SYSTEMS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SPRINGSUN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ AND HEIRS OF NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224943, March 20, 2017 - JORGE B. NAVARRA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181984, March 20, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE, THE PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215820, March 20, 2017 - ERLINDA DINGLASAN DELOS SANTOS AND HER DAUGHTERS, NAMELY, VIRGINIA, AUREA, AND BINGBING, ALL SURNAMED DELOS SANTOS, Petitioners, v. ALBERTO ABEJON AND THE ESTATE OF TERESITA DINGLASAN ABEJON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193887, March 29, 2017 - SPOUSES DENNIS ORSOLINO AND MELODY ORSOLINO, Petitioners, v. VIOLETA FRANY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 226622, March 14, 2017 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Petitioner, v. BAI HAIDY D. MAMALINTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200285, March 20, 2017 - FELIX B. TIU, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JACINTO JANGAS AND PETRONILA MERTO� JANGAS, MARIA G. ORTIZ, MELENCIO ORTIZ, MERLA M. KITANE, PACITO KITANE, CANDELARIA RUSIANA, RODRIGO RUSIANA, JUANA T. JALANDONI, ADELAIDA P. RAGAY AND TEOFISTO RAGAY, SR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 225608, March 13, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBERTO ALEJANDRO Y RIGOR AND JOEL ANGELES Y DE JESUS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 193719, March 21, 2017 - SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Petitioner, v. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206103, March 29, 2017 - LYDIA LAVAREZ, MARGARITA LAVAREZ, WILFREDO LAVAREZ, GREGORIO LAVAREZ, LOURDES LAVAREZ-SALVACION, NORLIE LAVAREZ,* G.J. LAVAREZ, GIL LAVAREZ, AND GAY NATALIE LAVAREZ, PETITIONERS, GODOFREDO LAVAREZ, LETICIA LAVAREZ, LUIS LAVAREZ, REMEDIOS V. ZABALLERO, JOSEPHINE V. ZABALLERO FERNANDO V. ZABALLERO, VALENTA V. ZABALLERO, MILAGROS Z. VERGARA, VALETA Z. REYES, AMADO R. ZABALLERO, EMMANUEL R. ZABALLERO, AND FLORENTINO R. ZABALLERO, Petitioners, v. ANGELES S. GUEVARRA, AUGUSTO SEVILLA, JR., ASTERIA S. YRA, ANTONIO SEVILLA, ALBERTO SEVILLA, ADELINA S. ALVAREZ, ARISTEO SEVILLA AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188467, March 29, 2017 - RENATO MA. R. PERALTA, Petitioner, v. JOSE ROY RAVAL, Respondent.; G.R. No. 188764 - JOSE ROY B. RAVAL, Petitioner, v. RENATO MA. R. PERALTA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, March 07, 2017 - RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET.; A.M. No. RTJ-16-2446 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 14-3-53-RTC] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARYBELLE L. DEMOT�MARI�AS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 2017 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY (ALSO KNOWN AS PHILTRUST BANK), Petitioner, v. REDENTOR R. GABINETE, SHANGRILA REALTY CORPORATION AND ELISA T. TAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205745, March 08, 2017 - CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, AND BREGIDO MALACAT, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205657, March 29, 2017 - INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JEROME AND QUINNIE BRIONES, AND JOHN DOE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191545, March 29, 2017 - HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., REPRESENTED BY TERESITA D. SALAS, Petitioners, v. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL, SERAFIN CASTILLO, DOMINGO M. MANTUANO, MANOLITO D. BINAY, MARIA M. CABUNGCAL, REMON C. RAMOS, NENITA R. BINAY, DOMINGO L. MANTUANO, NENITA L. GUERRA, ROSALINA B. MANTUANO, DOMINADOR C. CASTILLO, LEALINEM. CABUNGCAL, ALBERTO CAPULOY, ALFREDO VALENCIA, MARIA L. VALENCIA, GERARDO GUERRA, GREGORIO M. LATAYAN, REMEDIOS M. GUEVARRA,JOSE C. BASCONCILLO, APLONAR TENORIO, JULIANA V. SUMAYA, ANTONIO C. HERNANDEZ, VERONICA MILLENA, TERSITA D.C. CASTILLO, DANTE M. LUSTRE, EFIPANIO M. CABUNGCAL, NESTOR V. LATINA, NENITA LLORCA, ROMEL L. LOMIDA, MARILOU CASTILLO, RUBEN CASTILLO, ARNOLD MANALO, RICARDO CAPULOY, AMELITA CALIMBAS, ROSALITA C. ELFANTE, LANIE CAMPIT, RODILLO RENTON, RUSTICO AMAZONA, LUZVIMINDA DE OCAMPO, DANILO DE OCAMPO, JOSE DARWIN LISTANCO, NEMESIO CABUNGCAL, RENATO ALZATE, BERNARDO AQUINO, RODRIGO CABUNGCAL, CHONA G. AGUILA, ROSA M. MANTUANO, ALLAN M. LUSTRE, FELIPE LOQUEZ, DOMINGO MANALO, DOMINADOR M. MANALO, JENNIFER H. MALIBIRAN, FELIXBERTO RITAN, LEONILA FERRER, TOMAS M. LORENO, CELSO VALENCIA, CONSTANTINO LUSTRE, REYNALDO C. MALIBIRAN, ORLANDO C. MALIBIRAN, RICARDO LLAMOSO AND SANTA DIMAYUGA, REPRESENTED BY JOSE C. BASCONILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220940, March 20, 2017 - JOY VANESSA M. SEBASTIAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NELSON C. CRUZ AND CRISTINA P. CRUZ AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212161, March 29, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANITO ENTRAMPAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 214536, March 13, 2017 - MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN AND JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUYAT MACAPUNDAG Y LABAO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188681, March 08, 2017 - FRANCISCO T. BACULI, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondent.; G.R. No. 201130, March 8, 2017 - THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION 2, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO T. BACULI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220054, March 27, 2017 - DEOGRACIA VALDERRAMA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND JOSEPHINE ABL VIGDEN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216015, March 27, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUSANO ARCENAL Y AGUILAN, Accused-Appellants.