Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > April 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 222748 - AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ARNULFO M. EGOS, RESPONDENT.:




G.R. No. 222748 - AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ARNULFO M. EGOS, RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 222748, April 03, 2019

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ARNULFO M. EGOS, RESPONDENT.


D E C I S I O N

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated August 28, 2015 and Resolution3 dated January 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130466. The CA affirmed the Decision4 dated December 27, 2012 and Resolution dated April 10, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 07-002187-12 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-11936-11), which found that respondent was constructively dismissed.

Facts

The facts, as narrated by the CA, are as follows:

On April 9, 1992, petitioners Airborne Maintenance and Allied Services, Inc. and Francis T. Ching (Airborne), a company engaged in providing manpower services to various clients, hired the services of private respondent as Janitor. He was assigned at the Balintawak Branch of Meralco, a client of Airborne.

Almost twenty years thereafter, or on June 30, 2011, the contract between Airborne and Meralco-Balintawak Branch expired and a new contract was awarded to Landbees Corporation, and the latter absorbed all employees of Airborne except private respondent, who allegedly had a heart ailment. Private respondent consulted another doctor and, based on the medical result, he was declared in good health and fit to work. He showed the duly issued medical certificate to Airborne but the same was disregarded.

Private respondent also reported for work but was just ignored by Airborne and was told that there was no work available for him. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint for constructive/illegal dismissal on August 05, 2011.

Airborne, on the other hand, insisted that private respondent was never dismissed from service. It claimed: 1) that when [its] contract with Meralco-Balintawak Branch was terminated, it directed all its employees including private respondent to report to its office for reposting; 2) that when private respondent failed to do so, it sent a letter dated August 12, 2011 at private respondent's last known address directing him to report to his x x x new assignment at Meralco Commonwealth Business Center; 3) that said letter, however, was returned to sender with a notation "RTS unknown"; 4) that another letter dated September 21, 2011 was sent to private respondent at his last known address reiterating the previous directive; and 5) that the same was again returned with a notation "RTS unknown."

On June 04, 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal, the fallo of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

On appeal to the NLRC, private respondent reiterated that he was constructively/illegally dismissed by Airborne. He pointed out that he made several follow-ups since July 1, 2011, but Airborne merely ignored him, and since then, he was not given a new assignment. Private respondent further argued that the letters were mere afterthoughts since Airborne was already aware of the illegal dismissal complaint prior to the sending of the said letters; that the same could not possibly reach him because his address was incomplete and such mistake was intentionally done for him not to receive the letters; and that he left his cellphone number with one Christine Solis, Airborne's Administrative Officer, but he never received a call from Airborne.

Airborne countered that private respondent introduced for the first time on appeal not only new factual allegations but also spurious, fabricated and self-serving evidence which should not be given credence.

On December 27, 2012, public respondent NLRC rendered a decision reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and declaring private respondent to have been constructively/illegally dismissed. The dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one issued declaring the respondents guilty of illegal dismissal.

Accordingly, respondents are ordered to pay complainant the following:

  1. Backwages
  2. Separation pay

SO ORDERED."5

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the NLRC. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 27, 2012 and Resolution dated April 10, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division in NLRC NCR LAC No. 07-002187-12 (NLRC NCR Case No. 08-11936-11) are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.6

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but this was denied.

Hence, this Petition. Respondent filed his Comment7 and, in turn, petitioner filed its Reply.8

Issues

The issues raised in the Petition are as follows:

I

CONTRARY TO EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS[,] WITH DUE RESPECT[,] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE NLRC DECLARING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY DISMISSED AND WORSE BY MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT PETITIONER CLAIMED ABANDONMENT AS A DEFENSE[.]

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR [CERTIORARI] RELYING SOLELY ON THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND LAW MADE BY THE NLRC DESPITE THE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.9

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is denied.

A review of the submissions of the parties shows that the CA was correct in affirming the NLRC's ruling that respondent was constructively dismissed. The CA ruled as follows:

In cases of termination of employees, the well-entrenched policy is that no worker shall be dismissed except for just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. Dismissals of employees have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality in the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.

x x x x

Clearly, the failure to observe the twin requisites of notice and hearing not only makes the dismissal of an employee illegal regardless of his alleged violation, but is also violative of the employee's right to due process.

x x x x

In this case, it is beyond cavil that none of the foregoing mandatory provisions of the labor law were complied with by Airborne.

x x x x

To buttress its contention that x x x respondent abandoned his work, Airborne alleged that it sent letters/notices to private respondent directing him to report for work. Nonetheless, no iota of evidence was presented by Airborne sufficiently showing that the letters/notices dated August 12, 2011 and dated September 21, 2011 were actually received by xxx respondent. In fact, said letters/notices were returned with a notation "RTS unknown" inasmuch as x x x respondent's address was incomplete and such was intentionally done for the latter not to receive said letters/notices.

As correctly observed by public respondent NLRC, the letters/notices were mere afterthoughts since Airborne was already aware of the filing of the illegal dismissal complaint prior to the sending of the said letters/notices.

Corollary thereto, it must be stressed that xxx respondent made several follow-ups since July 1, 2011, but Airborne did not give him a new assignment. Moreover, xxx respondent gave his cellphone number with Christine Solis, Airborne's Administrative Officer, but to no avail.10

On the other hand, the NLRC found that:

After a careful review of the records of the case, We find the appeal impressed with merit.

Complainant [respondent herein] claims that respondents [petitioner herein] told him that he had a heart ailment, thus, he could not be absorbed for continued employment. He consulted Dr. Rina Porciuncula of the Our Lady of the Angels Clinic in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The doctor declared him fit to work (rollo, pp. 25-27).

We find credence on his allegation that respondents denied him employment because he had a heart ailment. Nonetheless, despite the declaration that he was fit to work, the respondents still did not give him any assignment.

The complainant is a mere janitor, and to earn a living, he had to undergo the medical examination. He exerted effort and spent money to prove to respondents that he was capable of working.

To give semblance of legality to their act of not giving him an assignment, after the filing of the complaint for constructive dismissal, respondents sent him two (2) letters with incomplete address. The sending of the letters were a mere afterthoughts (sic).

The Supreme Court, in Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. NLRC G.R. No. 148893, July 12, 2006 ruled that "Afterthought cannot be given weight or credibility."

This Commission is not convinced that they had the sincerity to give him a new assignment. There is reason to believe that the incomplete address was intentionally done in order that complainant would not receive it, and respondents can put up as a defense their intention to have the complainant reposted by sending the two (2) letters.11

Petitioner, however, argues that there was no dismissal to speak of as it had placed respondent on floating status when the contract with Meralco was terminated.12

Although this was not discussed by both the CA and the NLRC, petitioner claims that it had valid grounds to suspend its business operation or undertaking for a period of six months and place its employees in a floating status during that period in accordance with Article 301, formerly Article 286, of the Labor Code. Article 301 states:

ART. 301 [286]. When Employment Not Deemed Terminated. — The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfilment (sic) by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

The Court finds that petitioner failed to prove that the termination of the contract with Meralco resulted in a bona fide suspension of its business operations so as to validly place respondent in a floating status.

The suspension of employment under Article 301 of the Labor Code is only temporary and should not exceed six months, as the Court explained in PT & T Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission:13

x x x Article 286 [now Article 301] may be applied but only by analogy to set a specific period that employees may remain temporarily laid-off or in floating status. Six months is the period set by law that the operation of a business or undertaking may be suspended thereby suspending the employment of the employees concerned. The temporary lay-off wherein the employees likewise cease to work should also not last longer than six months. After six months, the employees should either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the requirements of the law, and that failing to comply with this would be tantamount to dismissing the employees and the employer would thus be liable for such dismissal.14

In implementing this measure, jurisprudence has set that the employer should notify the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the affected employee, at least one month prior to the intended date of suspension of business operations.15 An employer must also prove the existence of a clear and compelling economic reason for the temporary shutdown of its business or undertaking and that there were no available posts to which the affected employee could be assigned. The Court explained in Lopez v. Irvine Construction Corp.16 as follows:

In this case, Irvine failed to prove compliance with the parameters of Article 286 of the Labor Code. As the records would show, it merely completed one of its numerous construction projects which does not, by and of itself, amount to a bona fide suspension of business operations or undertaking. In invoicing Article 286 of the Labor Code, the paramount consideration should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put some of its employees temporarily out of work. This means that the employer should be able to prove that it is faced with a clear and compelling economic reason which reasonably forces it to temporarily shut down its business operations or a particular undertaking, incidentally resulting to the temporary lay-off of its employees.

Due to the grim economic consequences to the employee, case law states that the employer should also bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the employee temporarily out of work can be assigned. Thus, in the case of Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, the Court found that the security guards therein were constructively dismissed considering that their employer was not able to show any dire exigency justifying the latter's failure to give said employees any further assignment x x x.17 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring in original)

Here, a review of the submissions of the parties shows that petitioner failed to show compliance with the notice requirement to the DOLE and respondent.

Making matters worse for petitioner, it also failed to prove that after the termination of its contract with Meralco it was faced with a clear and compelling economic reason to temporarily shut down its operations or a particular undertaking. It also failed to show that there were no available posts to which respondent could be assigned.

Also, not only did petitioner fail to prove it had valid grounds to place respondent on a floating status, but the NLRC and the CA both correctly found that respondent even had to ask for a new assignment from petitioner, but this was unheeded. Further, when respondent filed the complaint on August 5, 2011, petitioner, as an afterthought, subsequently sent notices/letters to respondent directing him to report to work. These, however, were not received by respondent as the address was incomplete.

In Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc.,18 the Court defined constructive dismissal as a dismissal in disguise as it is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, thus:

Constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay" and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. x x x19 (Citations omitted)

Here, the totality of the foregoing circumstances shows that petitioner's acts of not informing respondent and the DOLE of the suspension of its operations, failing to prove the bona fide suspension of its business or undertaking, ignoring respondent's follow-ups on a new assignment, and belated sending of letters/notices which were returned to it, were done to make it appear as if respondent had not been dismissed. These acts, however, clearly amounted to a dismissal, for which petitioner is liable.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 28, 2015 and Resolution dated January 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130466 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
J. Reyes, Jr., J.
, on wellness leave.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 11-55, excluding Annexes.

2 Id. at 57-66. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

3 Id. at 68-69.

4 Id. at 122-129. Penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora concurring.

5 Id. at 58-59.

6 Id. at 65.

7 Id. at 306-317.

8 Id. at 349-355.

9 Id. at 28-29.

10 Id. at 60-64.

11 Id. at 125-126.

12 See id. at 15-16, 30.

13 496 Phil. 164 (2005).

14 Id. at 177.

15 See Lopez v. Irvine Construction Corp., 741 Phil. 728, 741 (2014), citing PT & T Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, id. at 177-178.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 744-745.

18 680 Phil. 112 (2012).

19 Id. at 120-121.




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





April-2019 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 225705 - MAUNLAD TRANS, INC.; UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., SEACHEST ASSOCIATES; CARNIVAL CORPORATION; AND/OR RONALD MANALIGOD, PETITIONERS, v. ROMEO RODELAS, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 232325 - DOMINGO CREBELLO, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND TIMOTEO T. CAPOQUIAN, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • A.M. No. P-19-3919 (formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3630-P) - IONE BETHELDA C. RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, v. REBA A. BELIGOLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12457 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5128) - REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 224137 - LEONORA RIVERA-AVANTE, PETITIONER, v. MILAGROS RIVERA AND THEIR HEIRS WITH THE LATE ALEJANDRO RIVERA, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE DERIVING CLAIM OR RIGHTS FROM THEM, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 12289 - ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO, JR.; ATTY. RAMON JOSE G. DUYONGCO; ATTY. MARIO Y. CAVADA; AND ATTY. CHAD RODOLFO M. MIEL, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 216878 - JOAQUINA ZAMBALES, ESTELITA ZAMBALES NARVASA, ENRICO ZAMBALES, CASTULO ZAMBALES, ADELINA ZAMBALES, AND MIGUELA ZAMBALES CAYAO, PETITIONERS, v. SALVACION VILLON ZAMBALES (SURVIVING WIFE OF DECEASED DOMINGO ZAMBALES), AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS/CHILDREN, NAMELY: JOCELYN V. ZAMBALES, LILIBETH ZAMBALES-TERRANO, ARMSTRONG V. ZAMBALES, SUNDAY V. ZAMBALES, BLAS V. ZAMBALES, ISABEL V. ZAMBALES, ALAM ZAMBALES-JUNTERIAL AND SAMUEL ZAMBALES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 222078 - ROGACIANO L. OROPEZA AND AMELDA S. OROPEZA, PETITIONERS, v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION (NOW PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK) AND REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR CITY OF DAVAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 199802 - CONGRESSMAN HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS; MAYOR EFREN B. DIONA; MAYOR ANTONINO AURELIO; KAGAWAD MARIO ILAGAN; BARANGAY CHAIR PERLITO MANALO; BARANGAY CHAIR MEDEL MEDRANO; BARANGAY KAGAWAD CRIS RAMOS; BARANGAY KAGAWAD ELISA D. BALBAGO, AND ATTY. JOSE MALVAR VILLEGAS, PETITIONERS, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA; SECRETARY CESAR PURISIMA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; SECRETARY FLORENCIO H. ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; COMMISSIONER KIM JACINTO-HENARES, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND NATIONAL TREASURER ROBERTO TAN, BUREAU OF THE TREASURY, RESPONDENTS.; G.R. No. 208488, April 10, 2019 - HONORABLE ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 2ND DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN, PETITIONER, v. HONORABLE [PAQUITO] N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HONORABLE CESAR V. PURISIMA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; HONORABLE FLORENCIO H. ABAD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; HONORABLE KIM JACINTO-HENARES, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND HONORABLE ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 229926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. PERIGRINA CADUNGOG, APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 222616 - SPOUSES LUCIA A. OROZCO AND CRESENTE R. OROZCO (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: JOCELYN O. GUJELING, JUDITH O. SEMACIO, GENILYN O. PERIABRAS, GEMMA O. PERALTA,[1] ROCKY A. OROZCO AND GISSA O. FERRER,[2] PETITIONERS, v. FLORANTE G. LOZANO, SR. (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: EPIFANIA LOZANO, SHIRLEY L. SALCEDO, JOCELYN L. BASTARECHE, RACHEL L. GILOS, FLORANTE G. LOZANO, JR., AND ROBERT G. LOZANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 222748 - AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ARNULFO M. EGOS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 229352 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LEMUEL GONZALES Y BANARES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 224638 - ROLANDO D. CORTEZ, PETITIONER, v. LUZ G. CORTEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 237209 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MOHAMAD DAMPAK Y DISALO @ "LANDO" AND JAMIL DAMPAK Y MIMBALAWAG @ "JAMIL," ACCUSED. CATHERINE ROMOROSA Y OSTOY @ "LYN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 240199 - SPOUSES ISIDRO R. SALITICO AND CONRADA C. SALITICO PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF RESURRECCION• MARTINEZ FELIX, NAMELY: LUCIANO, CORAZON AND CONCEPCION, ALL SURNAMED FELIX, RECAREDO P. HERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF AMANDA H. BURGOS, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 219984 - VALENCIA (BUKIDNON) FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION (FACOMA) AS TRUSTEES, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY DAVID M. PORTICOS, BOARD CHAIRMAN, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF AMANTE P. CABOTAJE, NAMELY: ESTHER M. CABOTAJE, AMANTE M. CABOTAJE, JR., JULINDA M. CABOTAJE, FERNANDO M. CABOTAJE, CHRISTINA IMELDA M. CABOTAJE-NELAM, ALL HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ESTHER M. CABOTAJE, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227704 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SUSAN SAYO Y REYES AND ALFREDO ROXAS Y SAGON, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 219852 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DAVE CLAUDEL Y LUCAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233774 - MA. LUISA A. PINEDA, PETITIONER, v. VIRGINIA ZUÑIGA VDA. DE VEGA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 199705 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), PETITIONER, v. ROGUZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 173120 - SPOUSES YU HWA PING AND MARY GAW, PETITIONERS, v. AYALA LAND, INC., RESPONDENT.[G.R. No. 173141] HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANDRES DIAZ AND JOSEFA MIA, PETITIONERS, v. AYALA LAND, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2894 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3429-P) - ROMAN P. TRINIDAD, COMPLAINANT, v. ALAN C. JAVIER (SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, IN TANAUAN CITY, BATANGAS), RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 240596 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. NOVO TANES Y BELMONTE, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 230221 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGAR GAYON Y FERRERAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 219915 - WILFREDO CABUGUAS, RENATO CABUGUAS, ALEJANDRO "TABOY" CANETE AND ELEAZAR MORTOS,• PETITIONERS, v. GALLANTS. TAN NERY,•• REPRESENTED BY KATHERINE TAN NERY-TOLEDO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 218209 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROMEO ASENIERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 208027 - PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS INC., ROLAND DE JESUS, FE SISCAR, EUGENIA ABANIA, SARAH BUAN, FRANCIS RIVADELO, AND MICHAEL MOSQUEDA, PETITIONERS, v. ERIKA MARIE R. DE GUZMAN AND EDNA QUIRANTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 230443 - MARY CHRISTINE C. GO-YU, PETITIONER, v. ROMEO A. YU, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 239088 - SPOUSES JOHN T. SY AND LENY N. SY, AND VALENTINO T. SY, PETITIONERS, v. MA. LOURDES DE VERA-NAVARRO AND BENJAEMY HO TAN LANDHOLDINGS, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY GRACE T. MOLINA, IN HER CAPACITY AS CORPORATE SECRETARY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R No. 214782 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. BERMUDA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 8335 - AMALIA R. CENIZA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 202860 - LEE T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND ULYSSES A. BRITO, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 12467 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5072] - SPOUSES PEPITO AND PRESCILA FRIAS, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. NELLY E. ABAO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 215988 - CORDILLERA GLOBAL NETWORK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, GLORIA ABAEO; CORDILLERA PEOPLES ALLIANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL, ABIGAIL B. ANONGOS; CORDILLERA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LEGAL CENTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RHODA DALANG-GARCIA; CORDILLERA ECOLOGICAL PINE TREE CENTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DR. MICHAEL BENGWAYAN; LEON ALTOMONTE, GABRIELA ALTOMONTE, AND AENEAS ALTOMONTE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER, KARLO MARKO ALTOMONTE; KATHLEA FRANCYNN GAWANI D. YAÑGOT AND LEANDRO KIERAN LUGAT D. YAÑGOT III, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAÑGOT; ZACHARY T. DISTOR AND AGATHA ZITA T. DISTOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER, MILO S. DISTOR; JUSTICE YVONNE D. DONAAL, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, CHRISTOPHER DONAAL, TRICIA KATRINA M. ARNEDO AND MARGARET JALREYE M. ARNEDO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, MA. TERESA M. ARNEDO; KENSWORTH CORPUZ, REPRESENTED BY CARLITO C. TAAWAN; MARIE A. BALANGUE, MIGUEL ARVISU, GIDEON OMERO, PAUL ALLAIN R. ISICAN, KARMINN CHERYL DINNEY D. YANGOT, CRISTINA LAPPAO, NELSON LAPPAO, FLORENDA PEDRO, EDGAR Z. KAWIG, JUDITH G. FANAO, JULIO PUNAY, ARNOLD ABRIL, JEMELYN CORPUZ, MARY LEITH "SUMITRA" GUTIERREZ, ANDREA M. COSALAN, RHADA JUNE MANTILEZ, NELSON JOSEPH S. ALABANZA, RHIS BAYUCCA, JOSE OLARTE II, SONIA F. GALANG, SHIELO G. SABAOT, ANTHONY B. LAKING, DONATELA S.R. MOLINTAS, RUTH W. DEMOT, ROCKY A. CAJIGAN, RONALDO VILLAMOR, GLENN V. VILLAMOR, FIDEL DEMOT, SCOT MAGKACHI SABOY, ANNIELYN PUCKING, LUCIA B. RUIZ, CHESTER LAB-ING, MARISSA A. DERIJE FAITH MARIETTE DAO-AY, GABRIEL CRISTOBAL IV, ISIDRO GAYO, EDWIN A. NGINA, JASON DOMLING, J.P. PUNO, JULIA A. BAEYENS, WESLEY E. SAYUD, CLIFFORD M. LORENA, JERRY MAYONA, ZABRINA D. IBASCO, PRINCESS EUNICE CABURAO, ZITA J. GONGON, ALBERTO ROMAR R. ORDOÑA, MAURICIO PITAG, RYLYN JOHAN A. DANGANAN, JEFFREY C. CHIU, MICHAEL ANGELO A. SOTERO, LINDA ALISTO, GREGORY P. RUGAY, VANESSA B. OLARTE, BRIAN BATONG, MILAGROS LIWANAG JOSE, BABYLYNN M. DEGAY, EDEN JARLAWE T. VIRGINIO, IVY JOY D. BUENAOBRA, RICO M. GUTIERREZ, JOHN PAWI, CARMELLIE ANJOY M. SALVADO, JOAN MULLER, ROBERTO R. OCAMPO, DINAH DAYTEC AGCAOILI, CARMEN DAYTEC, ERVEEN ROSS PALMA, BUMBO VILLANUEVA, KHRISTINE E. MOLITAS, KATHLEEN G. BUGNOSEN, GLORIA B. LIMPIN, REY ANGELO E. AURELIO, RESTITUTO REFUERZO, MARCH FIANZA, FLORABEL M. SALES, DEAN MICHAEL CUANSO, BENJAMIN BIDANG, JR., JEANNIE MAY DAMOSLOG, JANICE M. DONAAL, CRISTOBAL SANTIAGO, ETHAN ANDREW VENTURA, MA. CRISTINA BALAJADIA, RODELIZA ABELLA ALTAMONTE, BEDE BAWAYAN, JR., CHRISTEL PAY SENG, PAUL LESTER DONAAL, VIROLABEL LADIO, HENDRIX SANCHEZ, GASPAR ELIZUR DONAAL, MICHAEL VINCENT CABRERA, SANTOS BAYUCCA, ELMER M. DATAYAN, ASH Y. VELASCO, POLEEN CARLA C. ROSITO, MIGHT GUPIT, JULIUS B. MANABENG, JENNY GRACE M. ABOEN, JOJO LA MARIA, VLADIMIR D. CAYABAS, JOHN LAKING, CHARLENE DAVID, GERALDINE D. CACHO, PERRY JOHN P. MENDOZA, HONORIO B. SAGMAYAO, RODOLFO "RUDZ" A. PARAAN, JOHN ERIC JOSEPH S. AGUILAR, CERI PAUL A. LOMAS-E, HECTOR ZARATE KAWIG, RICHARD DEAN F. BASA, MICHELLE B. SAMUEL, FERDY K. BAYASEN, AND SILVESTRE QUINTOS, PETITIONERS, v. SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; ATTY. JUAN MIGUEL T. CUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION; SECRETARY ROGELIO SINGSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, RESPONDENTS. JUDY LYN C. ADAJAR, RUBY C. ALTERADO, LEONOLYN M. ANAYASAN, MYLA A. APIGO, MARILOU N. ARAGON, LOIDA A. BACBAC, JULIET M. BADILLA, OLIVIA M. BALADLAD, ROXANNE K. BALANGCOD, MARIA JOCELYN J. BALDERAS, MARIVIC BALWAYAN, YVONNE F. BANGASAN, DIONISIA E. BANGLAY, RODEL E. BANIAGA, GRACIA D. BARIA, MA. ADA E. BASILIO, ESTRELLA C. BAUTISTA, EVA M. BAUTISTA, MARIBEL S. BINAY-AN, JOSEPHINE A. BORILLO, ANNIE MARIE B. BUENAFE, CHERRY H. BULONG, MARISOL B. CABUNAG, EDITH L. CALDITO, ANGELICA W. CAMBA, MARLON L. CAOILE, BRIGETTE M. CHALMAS, MYAN P. CUGA-AY, ELIZABETH A. DALAN, MA. GLENDA D. DE LA PENA, JESSICA A. DE VERA, JOHN PAUL A. DELA CRUZ, CARMILLA V. DELOS SANTOS, MARICRIS DIPASUPIL, BEATRIZ CONNIE M. ESCANO, DEBBIE B. ESGUERRA, PATRICIA PAULINE A. ESTOESTA, LADY DIANA D. ESTRADA, PRECILLA L. FUYAG, JANINA G. GALLEGOS, NOMER L. GINGO, JOCELYN T. BUMPENG, CECILIA G. GUNDRAN, JENNY M. HIPONA, LUNA C. IBAÑEZ, FLORIDA F. IDMILAO, JOE PIT R. LAURENCIO, AILENE M. LAYNO, JEANETTE S. MANANSALA, HILARIA M. MANUGUID, BRENNY MAY K. MENDOZA, DINAH D. NAVARRO, AMANDA M. PADER, SAMUEL A. PALEYAN, DENNIS JULIUS R. PANEDA, RUBY L. PARAZO, MARY GRACE A. PASTOR, DONNALYN F. PRADO, SHENNA APRIL V. QUINTO, ESPERANZA E. ROSIDO, ROSALINA N. SAMPAGA, JUDY P. SIA, MARY-AN L. SUPSUPIN, MARILOU A. TA-A, MARY ANN L. TABAO-EC, MICAH JOY H. MATAROMA, EUGENIA N. TAYABAN, RUBY L. TAYNEC, RITA M. TINIPAC, MICHELLE R. TUALLA, JOAN D. VALDEZ, RODRIGO B. VALDEZ, HAZEL P. VALENTIN, VICTORIA A. VENTURA, ESTELITA A. WALLANG, AND VERONICA P. ZARATE, PETITIONERS, v. SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; ATTY. JUAN MIGUEL T. CUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; DIRECTOR CLARENCE BAGUILAT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES-CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION; SECRETARY ROGELIO SINGSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS; HON. MAURICIO DOMOGAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF BAGUIO CITY; SM PRIME HOLDINGS AND SM SUPERMALLS, AND THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 5900 - RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CRESENCIO P. CO UNTIAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 210297 - BNL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND ROMEO DAVID, PETITIONERS, v. REYNALDO UY, RODIEL BALOY, ATTY. LUALHATI CRUZ, ALBERTO WONG, TERESITA PASIA, ROLAND INGEL, AND MARISSA SEVILLA, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 206719 - BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.[G.R. No. 206784] TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L. CALDERON, ELITA T. MONTILLA, AND ANDREA H. CEDO, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.[G.R. No. 207755] BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 214081 - P/INSP. II GILBERT C. SAN DIEGO, PETITIONER, v. FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE* (UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS), REPRESENTED BY AGIO DON. A ESQUIVEL, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 216795 - MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING INC.; AND A.P. MOLLER A/S, PETITIONERS, v. EDGAR S. ALFEROS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 193548 - ROSETTE Y. LERIAS, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS; AND THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SOUTHERN LEYTE, REPRESENTED BY DAMIAN C. MERCADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 201785 - DIAMOND DRILLING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. CRESCENT MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT; G.R. No. 207360, April 10, 2019 - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PETITIONER, v. DIAMOND DRILLING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 204971 - CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ASSOCIATES LABOR UNIONS (CIO-ALU), PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 223228 - FELIX GOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS.

  • B.M. No. 3288 - MERCURIA D. SO, COMPLAINANT, v. MA. LUCILLE P. LEE,[*] RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. Nos. 204187 and 206606 - JAKA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER,V. URDANETA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. AND AYALA LAND, INC. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 225696 - ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 213023 - MICHAEL C. GUY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RAFFY TULFO, ALLEN MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., JANET BAY, JESUS P. GALANG, RANDY HAGOS, JEANY LACORTE, AND VENUS TANDOC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 210500 - KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL ROGELIO SOLUTA; REP. FERNANDO HICAP FOR HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST; CENTER FOR TRADE UNION AND HUMAN RIGHTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAISY ARAGO; JOSELITO USTAREZ AND SALVADOR CARRANZA, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KMU; NENITA GONZAGA, PRESCILA A. MANIQUIZ, REDEN ALCANTARA, PETITIONERS, v. HON. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AND EMILIO S. DE QUIROS, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227497 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DIOSCORO COMOSO TUREMUTSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 208836 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NASROLLAH MACAUMBANG Y ALI AND JOSE SAGARBARIA Y MISA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 242407 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLIAM PIÑERO ALIAS JUN JUN GENERALAO @ "TALEP," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R No. 213517 - SEBASTIAN M. QUINOL,* ALIMITA RENDAL-QUINOL, PORFERIA QUINOL-MACATIGUIB, MARCELO MACATIGUIB, BALTAZAR QUINOL, ELAINE KILAPKILAP-QUINOL, AND PATRICIA QUINOL, PETITIONERS, v. LORENZA INOCENCIO, EPIFANIA POA, JIMMY POA, ARTEMIO QUINOL, AND JESUS QUINOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 236271 - RO-ANN VETERINARY MANUFACTURING INC., RONILO DELA CRUZ AND RAFAELITO LAGAT, JR., PETITIONERS, v. FERNANDO A. BINGBING, AND GILBERT C. VILLASEÑOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 235837 - BELINA AGBAYANI CONCEPCION, PETITIONER, v. THE FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 195372 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.), PETITIONER, v. WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.[G.R. No. 195375]WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.), RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 231581 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY NISSAN MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC.), RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 211435 - RAMON CORPUS TAN, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, AND THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF QUEZON CITY (NOW PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY), RESPONDENTS.DECISON

  • G.R. No. 219419 - CAROLINA'S LACE SHOPPE, LOURDES RAGAS AND CLAUDINE MANGASING, PETITIONERS, v. GLORIA MAQUILAN AND JOY MAQUILAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 199766 - GENEROSO SEPE, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF ANASTACIA* KILANG, REP. BY HER CHILDREN MARIA, DONATA, FELICIANA, DOMINGA AND SEVERO ALL SURNAMED SOLIJON, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227676 - MA. CARMEN ROSARIO ABILLA,* PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 202388 - ELPIDIO* T. QUE, PETITIONER, v. ASIA BREWERY, INC. AND/OR MICHAEL G. TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 230619 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ANGEL GURO Y COMBO ALIAS "JASON," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 223795 - QUINTIN V. BELTRAN,* PETITIONER, v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-BIÑAN/AMA EDUCATION SYSTEM, CHERYL ROJAS, EVANGELINE BONDOC, AND AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 241950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ARCADIO MALABANAN Y PERALTA AND NORMAN QUITA Y QUIBIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 230789 - PERLY TUATES Y CHICO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233455 - HIPOLITO AGUSTIN AND IMELDA AGUSTIN, PETITIONERS, v. ROMANA DE VERA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 190410 - QUIRICO D. ANIÑON, PETITIONER, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENT.