Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > August 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 210955 - DANILO A. LERONA, PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., AND/OR MS. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.:




G.R. No. 210955 - DANILO A. LERONA, PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., AND/OR MS. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 210955, August 14, 2019

DANILO A. LERONA, PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., AND/OR MS. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

JARDELEZA, J.:

We deny the seafarer's claim for disability benefits due to fraudulent misrepresentation and medical abandonment, as provided under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (2000 POEA-SEC).

On February 27, 2009, respondent Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. employed petitioner Danilo A. Lerona on behalf of respondent Neda Maritime Agency Co., Ltd. to work as a fitter on board M/V Penelope (the vessel) with a monthly salary of US$550.00. Petitioner's contract was for a period of three months, extendible for one month upon mutual consent of the parties.1 Prior to his deployment, petitioner underwent pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he was declared "FIT TO WORK AS SEAMAN." He boarded the vessel on March 6, 2009.2 On August 1, 2009, he felt severe chest pains and dizziness, which prompted him to request for a medical checkup. He was brought to a hospital in China, but the doctor who examined him did not prescribe any medication or recommend hospitalization or repatriation.3 Notwithstanding this, petitioner was repatriated to the Philippines on August 13, 2009. He was confined at the De Los Santos Medical Center the following day, and examined by respondents' team of accredited physicians.4 In his initial medical report, Dr. Jose Emmanuel F. Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales), respondents' company-designated physician, stated that petitioner's chief complaint was body weakness. Petitioner disclosed that he had been hypertensive and is taking Norvasc tablet for two years. In consultation with a cardiologist, Dr. Gonzales declared that petitioner might have Coronary Arterial Disease for which pertinent laboratory and diagnostic examinations should be conducted.5

Petitioner's laboratory tests showed that he had a high level of triglycerides, although his electrocardiogram (ECG) tracing had no significant findings. The cardiologist requested for petitioner to undergo Stress-Thallium Test to confirm the status and function of his heart's blood vessels before he can be given medical clearance.6 The test revealed that petitioner has a mild reversible defect in the apical to basal inferior wall of his heart's blood vessels. His blood pressure was also 130/80. Consequently, he was given additional maintenance drugs on top of his previous oral anti-hypertensive medication. Thereafter, the cardiologist suggested a coronary angiogram to verify the findings of the Stress-Thallium Test.7 Results showed that petitioner was negative for any vessel abnormality. He did not need any surgical intervention, just medical treatment and modification of his lifestyle to address his hypertension.8

Significantly, in his Medical Report dated October 15, 2009, Dr. Gonzales stated that the cardiologist cleared petitioner of Coronary Arterial Disease. Nevertheless, petitioner was referred to an ear, nose and throat specialist because he was complaining of dizziness. He later underwent Pure Tone Audiometry with Tympanometry, the result of which revealed that he has mild sensori-neural hearing loss on both ears. No surgical procedure was required but he was prescribed to take Vitamin B complex regularly. Petitioner was placed under observation for another week prior to the issuance of a medical clearance. He was required to come back for a follow-up checkup on October 23, 2009.9 However, he did not show up. Consequently, Dr. Gonzales declared him to have absconded.10

Unknown to respondents, petitioner consulted an independent physician on December 17, 2009. Dr. Efren R. Vicaldo (Dr. Vicaldo) of the Philippine Heart Center gave petitioner the following diagnosis: Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Angina Pectoris, Impediment Grade VII (41.80%).11 Dr. Vicaldo declared, among others, that: (1) petitioner is permanently unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity; (2) his illness is considered work aggravated/related; and (3) he is not expected to land gainful employment given his medical background.12

On January 14, 2010, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses and attorney's fees against respondents. During the mandatory conference before the labor arbiter (LA), respondents manifested that petitioner failed to report back to their company-designated physician for final assessment. Thus, upon respondents' insistence, petitioner went back to Dr. Gonzales on April 21, 2010, at which time he was declared "Fit to Resume Sea Duties."13

In his position paper, petitioner claimed that he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits because he was unable to work for more than 120 days as a result of his illness.14 For their part, respondents claimed that petitioner was declared fit for sea duty by their company-designated physician, hence, he is not entitled to any disability benefit. Further, petitioner failed to disclose that he has hypertension during his PEME. The concealment of his pre-existing condition disqualifies him from any compensation and benefit under Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. Also, the findings of Dr. Gonzales should prevail over the declarations of Dr. Vicaldo, who only examined petitioner once.15

On August 2, 2010, the LA rendered a Decision16 ordering respondents to jointly and severally pay petitioner permanent and total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00 and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.17 The LA held that Dr. Gonzales did not issue any disability rating/grading to petitioner within the mandatory 120-day period. He declared petitioner "fit to resume sea duties" on April 21, 2010, long after Dr. Vicaldo pronounced him "unfit to resume sea duties in any capacity" on December 17, 2009.18 Furthermore, if it were true that petitioner had already become fit to work, then why was he not re-engaged by respondents?19 The LA also ruled that petitioner's pre-existing hypertension does not disqualify him from claiming disability benefits. Respondents were estopped from denying that in all of petitioner's six previous contracts with them, including the last one, the company doctors always declared him fit to work after his PEME. Finally, respondents' defense that petitioner absconded from his checkup does not avail since respondents could have easily issued the result to petitioner and told him to report for duty.20

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA through its February 8, 2011 Decision.21 It held that the medical examination of respondents' accredited doctors, Dr. Gonzales and Dr. Ana Ma. Luisa D. Javier, the internist-cardiologist, was more extensive than the examination made by Dr. Vicaldo on petitioner. The latter's findings were not supported by laboratory results or diagnostic examinations. No proof was presented to show that petitioner has a cardiovascular disease that was acquired during the term of his employment.22 Moreover, the doctors on both sides of the case had the same medical findings as regards petitioner's hypertension. Under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, hypertension is compensable if it causes impairment of functions of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting to permanent disability as substantiated by certain documents. However, petitioner's ECG tracing revealed no significant findings. His coronary angiogram was also negative for any vessel abnormalities.23 Finally, the NLRC held that petitioner failed to observe the third doctor referral rule under the 2000 POEA-SEC. Consequently, his claim for disability compensation must be denied.24

Acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself and reinstated the ruling of the LA. In its June 24, 2011 Resolution,25 it held that the 2000 POEA-SEC does not require the parties to at all times assign a third doctor to assess the seafarer's disability. Hence, a seafarer is not precluded from filing a complaint before the NLRC even if the parties failed to secure the opinion of the third doctor. More, the record is bereft of showing that petitioner's health condition was restored to its status quo so as to enable him to return to his former work as a fitter. The fact that petitioner did not need to undergo any surgical procedure or intervention does not conclusively show that he is already fit to work.26 The NLRC held that at the time petitioner filed the case on January 14, 2010, five months after his repatriation, he is still unable to return to his work as a fitter for respondents. His inability to perform his customary work for more than 120 days constitutes total and permanent disability.27

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it through its Resolution28 dated October 24, 2011.

Undaunted, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122984. In its assailed Decision29 dated October 2, 2013, the CA set aside the NLRC Resolution for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and reinstated its initial decision to dismiss petitioner's complaint. It ruled that the findings of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, are not supported by substantial evidence.30 It is undisputed that petitioner's hypertension was a pre-existing condition, yet, he did not indicate it in his PEME form. Thus, petitioner committed misrepresentation which disqualifies him from recovering any disability benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC.31

Even assuming that petitioner did not conceal his condition, the CA held that a seafarer's inability to resume his work after the lapse of more than 120 days from the time he suffered illness is not a magic wand that would automatically warrant the grant of total and permanent disability benefits. None of the instances when a seafarer may be allowed to pursue an action to claim total and permanent disability exists. Dr. Gonzales pronounced petitioner fit to work on April 10, 2010, or approximately 200 days after his repatriation. The delay was solely attributable to petitioner since he failed to report after his 5th medical examination. The fit to work certification could have been issued earlier had he not absconded.32

Moreover, the CA held that there is no reason to depart from the settled rule that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seafarer's disability. The medical finding of petitioner's doctor of choice was made on the same day that petitioner consulted him. Petitioner was not required to undergo medical tests to confirm the doctor's diagnosis. On the other hand, the findings of the company-designated physician were made after petitioner underwent laboratory examinations.33 Finally, the CA noted that petitioner did not follow the third doctor-referral rule under the 2000 POEA-SEC.34

Petitioner moved for reconsideration,35 but the CA denied it through the assailed January 22, 2014 Resolution.36 Hence, this petition.

The issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

We hold that he is not.

Preliminarily, the Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. Hence, We generally do not review factual issues.37 Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to probe and resolve factual issues when exceptional circumstances are present. The conflicting rulings of the LA and NLRC on one hand, and of the CA on the other, in this case is one such exception to the general rule. It is thus imperative to review the records to determine which finding is more conformable to the evidentiary facts.38

I.

Petitioner cannot claim disability benefits because he committed fraudulent misrepresentation.

The contract of employment between the parties is subject to the terms and conditions of the 2000 POEA-SEC,39 Section 20(E) of which provides that deliberate concealment by a seafarer of a pre-existing medical condition in his PEME constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation which shall disqualify him from any disability compensation and benefits. Thus:
E. A seafarer who knowingly conceals and does not disclose past medical condition, disability and history in the pre-employment medical examination constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and shall disqualify him from any compensation and benefits. This may also be a valid ground for termination of employment and imposition of the appropriate administrative and legal sanctions.
As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner did not indicate in the appropriate box in his PEME form that he has hypertension, although he had been taking Norvasc as maintenance medicine for two years. He only disclosed his pre-existing medical condition after he was repatriated to the Philippines. Petitioner claims that he did not reveal his hypertension during his PEME out of an honest belief that it had been "resolved."40 However, this is not persuasive. That petitioner continues to take maintenance medicine indicates that his condition is not yet resolved. Additionally, within the two years that petitioner had been taking maintenance medication for his hypertension, he had boarded respondents' ships four times.41 Since PEME is mandatory before a seafarer is able to board a ship, it goes to show that petitioner concealed his hypertension no less than four times as well. This circumstance negates any suggestion of good faith that petitioner makes in defense of his misdeed.

The Court had on many occasions42 disqualified seafarers from claiming disability benefits on account of fraudulent misrepresentation arising from their concealment of a pre-existing medical condition. This case is not an exception. For knowingly concealing his hypertension during the PEME, petitioner committed fraudulent misrepresentation which unconditionally bars his right to receive any disability compensation from respondents.

Even if We disregard petitioner's misrepresentation, his claim for disability benefits would still fail. Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides for certain requirements before hypertension may be considered a compensable occupational disease. Thus:
20. Essential Hypertension.

Hypertension classified as primary or essential is considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability; Provided, that the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest x-ray report, (b) ECG report, (c) blood chemistry report, (d) funduscopy (sic) report, and (f) (sic) C-T scan.
Here, there is no showing that petitioner's hypertension impaired the functioning of any of his vital organs, resulting in permanent disability. Moreover, petitioner did not submit any of the enumerated medical test results. Petitioner's physician, Dr. Vicaldo, did not subject him to any tests. He concluded that petitioner was permanently unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity, without stating the basis for his prognosis other than an elevated blood pressure.

On the contrary, petitioner's ECG tracing showed no significant findings43 and his coronary angiogram gave negative results for vessel abnormalities.44 Having failed to satisfy the requisites under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, petitioner's hypertension is not compensable.

Finally, We reject petitioner's argument that respondents are estopped from denying him disability benefits because he passed his PEME. A "fit to work" declaration in the PEME is not a conclusive proof that a seafarer is free from any disease prior to his/her deployment. Status Maritime Corporation v. Spouses Delalamon45 is instructive, viz.:
The fact that Margarito passed his PEME cannot excuse his willful concealment nor can it preclude the petitioners from rejecting his disability claims. PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition; it merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.46 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
II.

Petitioner also cannot claim disability benefits because he committed medical abandonment.

In C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta,47 We held that a seafarer commits medical abandonment when he fails to complete his treatment before the lapse of the 240-day period, which prevents the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability.48 Section 20(D) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides that "[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties. x x x"49 A seafarer is duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating by the company-designated physician.50

In this case, after undergoing several tests, petitioner was placed under observation. Dr. Gonzales advised him to return for his medical clearance on October 23, 2009, or 71 days from his repatriation, but petitioner did not do so. He argues that he could still feel the symptoms of his ailment despite having been cleared by respondents' cardiologist from coronary arterial disease on October 15, 2009. Hence, he was prompted to consult another doctor. However, while indeed a seafarer has the right to seek the opinion of other doctors under Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, this is on the presumption that the company-designated physician had already issued a certification on his fitness or disability and he finds this disagreeable.51 As case law holds, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or to determine his disability within a period of 120 or 240 days from repatriation. The 120-day period applies if the duration of the seafarer's treatment does not exceed 120 days. On the other hand, the 240-day period applies in case the seafarer requires further medical treatment after the lapse of the initial 120-day period. In case the company-designated doctor failed to issue a declaration within the given periods, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled.52 When petitioner chose not to show up at the appointed date of consultation, effectively preventing Dr. Gonzales from making a fitness or disability assessment, he breached his duty under the 2000 POEA-SEC. Without any final assessment from the company-designated physician, petitioner's claim for permanent total disability benefits must fail.

Indeed, when petitioner filed his complaint before the LA on January 14, 2010, or 154 days after his repatriation, he had no cause of action against respondents because Dr. Gonzales has not yet issued an assessment on his fitness or unfitness for sea duty. The 240-day maximum period for treatment has not yet lapsed. We cannot subscribe to petitioner's theory that the company-designated physician only had 120 days from repatriation to issue a disability assessment. Case law teaches that the 120-day rule applies only when the complaint was filed prior to October 6, 2008. However, if the complaint was filed from October 6, 2008 onwards, as in this case, the 240-day rule applies.53 It was thus error on the part of petitioner to reckon his entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits based on the 120-day rule.

All told, the CA did not err in reversing the rulings of the LA and the NLRC. Petitioner cannot claim total and permanent disability benefits against respondents because he committed fraudulent misrepresentation and medical abandonment, both of which disqualify a seafarer from any disability compensation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The October 2, 2013 Decision and January 22, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122984 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, C. J., (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, (Working Chairperson), Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, p. 47.

2Id. at 361, 428.

3Id. at 361, 431.

4Id. at 361.

5Id. at 361, 432-433.

6Id. at 361, 434.

7Id. at 435.

8Id. at 362, 436.

9Id. at 362, 437.

10Id. at 362, 438.

11Id. at 55, 363.

12Id. at 56.

13Id. at 363-364, 443.

14Id. at 66, 364.

15Id. at364.

16Id. at 144-153; penned by Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati.

17Id. at 152-153.

18Id. at 149.

19Id. at 150.

20Id. at 151-152.

21Id. at 203-218; penned by Commissioner Angelo Ang Palana with Presiding Commissioner Herminio V. Suelo and Commissioner Numeriano D. Villena, concurring.

22Id. at 215.

23Id. at 216.

24Id. at 217.

25Id. at 238-246.

26Id. at 241-242.

27Id. at 244.

28Id. at 247-248.

29Id. at 360-371; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Rodil V. Zalameda (both now Members of this Court), concurring.

30Id. at 367.

31Id. at 367-368.

32Id. at 368-369.

33Id. at 370-371.

34Id. at 370.

35 Id.at 372-382.

36Id. at 384.

37Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 467, 481-482.

38Status Maritime Corporation v. Spouses Delalamon, G.R. No. 198097, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 390, 401.

39 See the parties' Contract of Employment dated February 27, 2009, rollo p 427.

40Id. at 31.

41Id. at 48.

42Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corporation, G.R. No. 203161, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 538; Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, supra note 37; Status Maritime Corp. v. Spouses Delalamon, supra note 38.

43 See Medical Report dated August 17, 2009, rollo, p. 434.

44 See Medical Report dated September 29, 2009, id. at 436.

45Supra note 38.

46Id. at 407.

47 G.R. No. 211111, September 25, 2017, 840 SCRA 483.

48Id. at 501. Citation omitted.

49 Emphasis supplied.

50 See New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Despabeladeras, G.R. No. 209201 November 19, 2014, 741 SCRA 375, 391.

51C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, G.R. No. 193679, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 296, 316.

52Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 204769, June 6, 2016, 792 SCRA 344, 356.

53Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Quillao, G.R. No. 202885, January 20, 2016, 781 SCRA 477, 488, citing C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Obligado, G.R. No. 192389, September 23, 2015, 771 SCRA 369.



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






August-2019 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 2018-03-SC - RE: MS. NENNETTE G. ZALDIVAR, TRAINING SPECIALIST II, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY VS. MR. ELIZALDE S. CARMONA, JUDICIAL STAFF EMPLOYEE II, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY.

  • A.M. No. 19-03-16-SC - RE: INVESTIGATION RELATIVE TO THE FAKE DECISION IN G.R. NO. 211483 (MANUEL TAMBIO v. ALBERTO LUMBAYAN, ET AL.)D E C I S I O N

  • G.R. No. 238349 - VALMORE VALDEZ Y MENOR, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 241445 - REY BEN P. MADRIO, PETITIONER, v. ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. P-19-3988 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 17-4692-P] - MARILYN MEIM M. VDA. DE ATIENZA, COMPLAINANT, v. PALERMO I. AGUILAR, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 241164 - CRIZALINA B. TORRES, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 204378 - HEIRS OF JUAN M. DINGLASAN, REPRESENTED BY SONIA M. DINGLASAN, PETITIONERS, v. AYALA CORPORATION, OMNIPORT ECONOMIC CENTER, INC., AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 218241 - ENGR. REYNALDO C. LIWANAG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE ANGELES CITY WATER DISTRICT (ACWD), PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. Nos. 234670-71 - OMAR ERASMO GONOWON AMPONGAN, PETITIONER, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND OMBUDSMAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 198849 - CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233466 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARK ANDREW PAZ Y ROCAFORD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 202897 - MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ("DENR"), THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD ("PAB"), THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION ("EMB-NCR"), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION III ("EMB-REGION III"), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION IV ("EMB�-REGION IV"), RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 206823] MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, v. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (EMB-NCR), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION III (EMB�-REGION III), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION IV ("EMB-REGION IV-A"), AND THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (PAB), RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 207969] METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, v. THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 240922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PATRICIO HONASAN Y GRAFIL, NOEL CARPIO, AND BONIFACIO OSEO, ACCUSED, PATRICIO HONASAN Y GRAFIL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ] - PRESIDING JUDGES TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III AND MERINNISA O. LIGAYA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCHES 5 AND 1, RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, COMPLAINANTS, v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, RESPONDENT.[A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC]] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 237977 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NOMER WISCO Y FAILANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 225325 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ISIDRO RAMOS Y BONDOC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 220635 - PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., AND/OR FURTRANS DENIZCILIK TICARET VE SANAYI AS, PETITIONERS, v. RAYMOND F. BERNARDO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 238971 - CHARBEN DUARTE Y OLIVEROS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 229720 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. MELVIN DUNGO Y OCAMPO, APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 238613 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y TARIMAN, ACCUSED -APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 243940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALFREDO DOCTOLERO, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.M. No RTJ-19-2567 (Formerly A.M. No. 01-12-641-RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ (RET.), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, ILOILO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. P-17-3746 - RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CEBU CITY.

  • G.R No. 211810 - MILA B. RECAMARA, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233470 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALAN BANDING Y ULAMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 225210 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY SULTAN Y ALMADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 228516 - RICARDO P. CARNIYAN AND AMONG OTHER REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST SIMILARLY SITUATED BONA FIDE RESIDENTS, PETITIONERS, v. HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-19-1928 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 17-2910-MTJ] - JULIANA P. AREVALO, SOUVEN P. AREVALO AND OSCAR P. AREVALO, JR. COMPLAINANTS, v. HON. ELI C. POSUGAC, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIRUMA, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 201176 - ESTRELLA ABID-BABANO, PETITIONER, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 225433 - LARA'S GIFTS & DECORS, INC., PETITIONER, v. MIDTOWN INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 212143 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MARGARITA P. JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MA. ALETA L. TOLENTINO, MABEL V. MAMBA, FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B. NANTES, AND GENERAL MANAGER JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, PETITIONERS, v. TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES PTY LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS TMA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.) AND TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC. RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 225457] PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MARGARITA P. JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MA. ALETA L. TOLENTINO, MABEL V. MAMBA, FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B. NANTES, AND GENERAL MANAGER JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, PETITIONERS, v. TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES PTY LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS TMA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.), AND TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 236888] PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD MARGARITA P. JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MA. ALETA L. TOLENTINO, MABEL V. MAMBA, FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B. NANTES, AND GENERAL MANAGER JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, PETITIONERS, v. HONORABLE JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 66, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES PTY LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS TMA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.) AND TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 222233 - SKYWAY O & M CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. WILFREDO M. REINANTE, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 224742 - PRUDENCIO DE GUZMAN Y JUMAQUIO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 231345 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, v. MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 232406] ROBERTO R. GALON, PETITIONER, v. MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 213957-58 - ELENITA S. BINAY, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 232620 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAYSON MERANDO Y AVES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 226200 - RUEL L. GUADALQUIVER, PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISE, INC., MISSISSAUGA ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR MS. ANTONIETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.M. No. P-17-3655 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. TEODORO G. SIDRO, SHERIFF III, BRANCH 84; ROLLY S. OCAMPO, SHERIFF III AND LEONELLE E. MENDOZA, CLERK III, BOTH OF BRANCH 53, ALL OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 234035 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. CRISPIN MAMUYAC, JR. Y PALMA, APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 227222 - VIRGILIO P. VILLALONGHA, LUZVIMINDA P. VILLALONGHA-OMBING, AND VIRGINCITA P. VILLALONGHA-BATUTO, PETITIONERS, v. COURT OF APPEALS, (TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAVAO CITY BRANCH 38, FELIPA VDA. DE VILLALONGHA, AURORA VILLALONGHA-CABARRUBIAS, RAMONITO VILLALONGHA, JOSEFINA VILLALONGHA-DALEON, BOLTON BRIDGE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF DAVAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 210955 - DANILO A. LERONA, PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO., LTD., AND/OR MS. ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 234346 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION NETHERLANDS B.V., AND CAPTAIN LEOPOLDO C. TENORIO, PETITIONERS, v. PRIMO D. QUIJANO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 247777 - NARZAL R. MU�EZ AND ROGELIO LALUCAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 227700 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. REYNALDO LOZANO Y LEANADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 211999 - RICARDO E. ROTORAS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 231896 - MUNICIPALITY OF TUPI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL MAYOR REYNALDO S. TAMAYO, JR., PETITIONER, v. HERMINIO B. FAUSTINO, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 5987 - VIDAYLIN YAMON-LEACH, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 9354 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3655] - MARIFE A. VENZON, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. AMADOR B. PELEO III, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R Nos. 225353-54 - RHEMA INTERNATIONAL LIVELIHOOD FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL., v. HIBIX, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, YOSHIMITSU TAGUCHE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 11351 - PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC., REPRESENTED BY CARLOS GAUDENCIO M. MA�ALAC, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 242875 - AUGORIO A. DELA ROSA, PETITIONER, v. ABS-CBN CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-18-2537 [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 13-4027-RTJ] - ABDULSAMAD P. BOGABONG, COMPLAINANT, v. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 12, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALABANG, LANAO DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 5285 - JUDGE NIMFA P. SITACA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. DIEGO M. PALOMARES, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 223637 - ERIC STO. TOMAS, ROLAND CABIGAS, ARCH. JOJO CENTENO, RET. COL. LARRY ZUBIA, GEORGE BADULIS, JOSE DE BELEN, LARRY GALANG, CARMEN DIMAGIBA, ELVIS BASAS, BRANDON WHISENHUNT, TONY TURINGAN, ARMANDO YANGA, ALEX DANDAN AND VERMONT ROYALE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (VRHAI), PETITIONERS, v. ADORACION I. DEL VALLE, JO-ANNE I. DEL VALLE, ARCH. ROBERTO R. CAMACHO AND NELSON Z. OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 7578 - PAQUITO PELIPEL, JR., COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. CIRILO A. AVILA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 238191 - FREDERICK L. SURIAGA, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONERS ALICIA DELA ROSA-BALA AND ROBERT S. MARTINEZ, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 194529 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. FRAULEIN CABANBAN CABANAG AND JESUS T. PANAL, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 232161 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SHAGER LACDAN Y PARTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • A.C. No. 10949 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3915) - CARMELITA CANETE, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI, RESPONDENT

  • A.C. No. 12008 - PALALAN CARP FARMERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOP, REPRESENTED BY BEVERLY DOMO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 227755 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NOEL LITA AND ROMULO MALINIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

  • G.R. No. 201273 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY DR. RUBINA O. CRESENCIO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY AND MARILYN V. STA. CATALINA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - REGIONAL FIELD UNIT - CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (DA RFU-CAR), PETITIONER, HEIRS OF IKANG PAUS, NAMELY: (1) OLARTE A. PAUS, SR., (2) HEIRS OF DAVID PAUS, REPRESENTED BY PETER PAUS, (3) JOSEPHINE BASIL, (4) HEIRS OF MACARIO A. PAUS, SR., REPRESENTED BY NORBERTO D. PAUS, (5) HEIRS OF MONTO PAUS, REPRESENTED BY ELIAS PAUS, SR., AND (6) HEIRS OF FORBASCO PAUS, REPRESENTED BY DOLOR PAUS MALLARE; THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATTY. JUANITO K. AMPAGUEY; THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ZENAIDA BRIGIDA HAMADA-PAWID; THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, BENEDICTO B. ULEP; AND HONORABLE CLETO R. VILLACORTA III, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENTS.; HEIRS OF MATEO CARI�O AND BAYOSA ORTEGA HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ANDRES CARANTES, RUBY GIRON, JOANNA K. CARI�O, LEO CAMILO, CECILIA H. CHAN, AND RONALD PEREZ, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION

  • G.R. No. 238339 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOMAR CASTILLO Y MARANAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 225793 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 212022 - PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 230204 - BARRIO BALAGBAG OF PASAY CITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF BARRIO BALAGBAG OF PASAY CITY, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 220741 - ANGELINA A. BAYAN* AND JAIME A. BAYAN HEREIN REP. BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARIA FLORA A. FALCON, PETITIONERS, v. CELIA A. BAYAN (DECEASED), EDWARD DY, MA. LUISA B. TANGHAL, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 242512 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARINO BAYA Y YBIOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 220262 - ISLA LPG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. LEYTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 232888 - JULIETA T. VERZONILLA, PETITIONER, v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 217031 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WENDALINO ANDES Y CAS A.K.A. WINDALINO ANDES Y CAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 229656 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), MANUEL M. LAPID, MA. VICTORIA M. AQUINO-ABUBAKAR, LEOLITA M. AQUINO AND DEXTER ALEXANDER S.D. VASQUEZ, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 197722 - JOCELYN MODOMO AND DR. ROMY MODOMO, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES MOISES P. LAYUG, JR. AND FELISARIN[*] E. LAYUG; MOISES P. LAYUG, JR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: HIS WIFE, FELISARIN E. LAYUG, AND CHILDREN, MA. CELESTE LAYUG CO, EUGENE ESPINOSA LAYUG, FRANCIS ESPINOSA LAYUG AND SHERYL ESPINOSA LAYUG, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 228884 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. QUIRINO BUMANGLAG Y SUMALPON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 217365 - HEIRS OF SATRAMDAS V. SADHWANI AND KISHNIBAI S. SADHWANI, REPRESENTED BY RAMCHAND S. SADHWANI AND RAJAN S. SADHWANI, PETITIONERS, v. GOP S. SADHWANI AND KANTA G. SADHWANI, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 232393 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSEPH PAGKATIPUNAN Y CLEOPE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 199558 - KAWASA MAGALANG AND MONA WAHAB, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES LUCIBAR HERETAPE AND ROSALINA FUNA, ROBERTO LANDERO, SPOUSES NESTOR HERETAPE AND ROSA ROGADOR, AND ENGR. EUSEBIO F. FORTINEZ, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 228958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EUTIQUIO BAER @ "TIKYO," ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 219157 - ZENAIDA E. SILVER AND NELSON SALCEDO, PETITIONERS, v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY, IN HER CAPACITY AS JUDGE DESIGNATE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 11, DAVAO CITY, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, LORETO HAO, KENNETH HAO, ATTY. AMADO L. CANTOS, ZENAIDA TALATTAD AND MAUREEN ELLA M. MACASINDIL, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 227550 - UNIVERSITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY EMILY DE LEON AS PRESIDENT, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE BENGUET PINES TOURIST INN, PETITIONER, v. JOSEPHINE P. PINERA, YOLANDA A. CALANZA AND LEONORA P. SONGALIA, RESPONDENTS

  • A.C. No. 11956 - ROGER C. CAS, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. RICHARD R. LIBRADA, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 243190 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DENNIS SARABIA Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 226385 - CELSO S. MANGUBAT, JR., PETITIONER, v. DALISAY SHIPPING CORPORATION, WEALTH SHIPPING LIMITED AND DANNY DADILA, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 196743 - SPOUSES LOLITO CHUA AND MYRNA PALOMARIA AND SPOUSES SERGIO CHUA (DECEASED) AND ELENA CHUA, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES AGUSTIN LO AND JOSEFINA N. BECINA, VICTOR LO AND AGUSTIN LO REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 232522 - CARISSA E. SANTO, PETITIONER, v. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 200344 - GLENN M. MILLER, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS, NAMELY: [1] EVELYN L. MILLER; [2] JENNIFER ANN L. MILLER; [3] LESLIE ANN L. MILLER; [4] RACHEL ANN L. MILLER; AND [5] VALERIE ANN L. MILLER, PETITIONERS, v. JOAN MILLER Y ESPENIDA A.K.A. JOHNLYN MILLER Y ESPENIDA AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF GUBAT, SORSOGON,RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 221869 - ANTHONY U. UNCIANO, PETITIONER, v. FEDERICO U. GOROSPE AND LEONA TIMOTEA U. GOROSPE, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 237334 - CICL XXX, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND GLENN REDOQUERIO, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 235785 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOEY NABUA Y CAMPOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 221836 - ESTHER ABALOS Y PUROC, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 224289 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DANG ANGELES Y GUARIN, JAMES SANTOS @ "CHITA," DENNIS RAMOS, AND SONNY BAYNOSA @ "JONG," ACCUSED, DANG ANGELES Y GUARIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 231787 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RODEL VELASCO Y LUZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 230334 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 229658 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ELMAR SANTOS Y DEL CARMEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 212840 - PAZ MANDIN-TROTIN,* PETITIONER, v. FRANCISCO A. BONGO, SABINA BONGO-BUNTAG AND ARTEMIA BONGO-LIQUIT, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 208595 - GUINO ESCABARTE, MARIA HAMPAC VDA. DE ANGUILID, HEIRS OF FAUSTO ISAW, PEDRO LATAWAN, ADELAIDA ISIG-VALLECER, ROGELIO B. MACIAS, SALVADOR BAWING, BRUNO ESCABARTE, NENE ESCABARTE, APOLONIO ESCABARTE, NANING ESCABARTE, JUANITO ESCABARTE, VICENTA ESCABARTE, NOTOO C. LATAWAN, LOLONG C. ISAW, BULAC C. ISAW, DODOY C. ISAW, MAYAN CAINDOG- HAMPAC, OBIG HAMPAC, ALENE TALIBINIO-ISAW, HEIRS OF CANDELARIA ISAW, ANTONIA PERATER-ISAW, HEIRS OF PEDRO ISAW, LOVENA ISAW, LAIDA LATAWAN, ARQUILINA LATAWAN, ESTRELLA BAWING, NELIA ECHAVIA-BAWING AND TIBURCIO BAWING, PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF BENIGNO ISAW NAMELY: MERLINDA ALBA VDA. DE ISAW, JERRY D. ISAW, GENALIE ISAW AND JESSIE ISAW, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 243288 - DR. RUBEN C. BARTOLOME, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 242656 - ROWENA SANTOS Y COMPRADO AND RYAN SANTOS Y COMPRADO, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. Nos. 200021-22 - JASON ALVARES PARAN,* PETITIONER, v. ERLINDA MANGUIAT AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 241012 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLANTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CROMWELL TORRES Y PALIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 195341 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION (NOW PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK), PETITIONER, v. ELIZABETH SIA, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 228231 [Formerly UDK 15531] - PRUDENCIO CLEMENTE, JR., PETITIONER, v. ESO-NICE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 232823 - SPOUSES NELSON A. PADILLA & CLARITA E. PADILLA, PETITIONERS, v. FILIPINAS P. SALOVINO, HELEN S. TAN, NORMA S. MERIDA AND RAUL S. PADILLA, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 242830 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALLAN NIEVERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 223705 - LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 228355 - ENGR. RICARDO O. VASQUEZ, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND NOTARY PUBLIC JUDE JOSE F. LATORRE, JR., PUBLIC AUCTION OFFICER, RESPONDENTS.; G.R. No. 228397, August 28, 2019 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, v. ENGR. RICARDO O. VASQUEZ, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 214315 - HEIRS OF BENIGNO SUMAGANG, REPRESENTED BY JESUS S. ABELLANOSA, MARINA BELLITA, RESURRECION CAVAN, ALEX MAPAIT AND TEODORICO SUMAGANG, PETITIONERS, v. AZNAR ENTERPRISES, INC., AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT INC., (CO-DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-CLAIM DEFENDANTS), HEIRS OF PERFECTA LABAYA, WITH ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IN THE PERSON OF FRANCIS R. PESTA�O (COMPLAINANTS), TERESITA DELA CALZADA-REYES,** ET AL. (1st COMPLAINANTS-INTERVENORS), AND CELSO DEIPARINE *** (2ND COMPLAINANT-INTERVENOR), RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 213389 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. EBO PLACIENTE Y TEJERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT,

  • G.R. No. 202039 - ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL, PETITIONER, v. GEORG KEPPEL, RESPONDENT

  • A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC - RE: REQUEST OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROBERTO A. ABAD FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT DUE TO LONGEVITY OF SERVICE, RESOLUTION

  • G.R. No. 215712 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CAROL T. YGOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. No. 207039 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 214923 - SHULEY MINE, INC., PETITIONER, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REP. BY SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, REP. BY ACTING DIRECTOR LEO L. JASARENO, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REP. BY DIRECTOR JUAN MIGUEL T. CUNA, AND PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE REP. BY CHIEF PRIVATIZATION OFFICER, KAREN G. SINGSON, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. Nos. 208733-34 - CLAIRE ANNE CHANSUYCO, RONALD ALLAN CHANSUYCO AND ABRAHAM CHANSUYCO II, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES LOPE AND JOCELYN[1] CERVERA PALTEP, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 223134 - VICENTE G. HENSON, JR., PETITIONER, v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 215136 - EDWIN D. VELEZ, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 210738 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES GUILLERMO ALONSO AND INOCENCIA BRITANICO-ALONSO, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 220224 - LYDIA I. AGUIRRE, PETITIONER, v. DIRECTOR CECILIA R. NIETO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE V, LEGASPI CITY, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 225595 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROLANDO SOLAR Y DUMBRIQUE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

  • G.R. Nos. 224648 & 224806-07 - PSUPT. HENRY YLARDE DUQUE, PETITIONER, v. HON. OMBUDSMAN AND FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, PSSUPT. JOB F. MARASIGAN, AND PSSUPT. JOEL NAPOLEON CORONEL, RESPONDENTS.; G.R. Nos. 225188 & 225277, August 28, 2019 - PSSUPT. ASHER A. DOLINA, PSSUPT. FERDINAND P. YUZON, PSSUPT. THOMAS U. ABELLAR, PSSUPT. CORNELIO R. SALINAS, PSSUPT. NEPUMOCENO MAGNO M. CORPUS, JR., PSSUPT. RICO P. PAYONGA, AND PSUPT. MICHAEL AMOR FILART, PETITIONERS, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (REPRESENTED BY HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES), OMB-MOLEO (REPRESENTED BY AGIO III DON A. ESQUIVEL, AGIO III ANATOLIO A. ALEJANDRINO, LA II ED ROWLAND A. SOLIDON, AND JOB F. MARASIGAN, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 227268 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, v. PCSUPT. RAUL D. PETRASANTA, RESPONDENT.