Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > December 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 230901 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., AND/OR GARY M. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, v. ALLAN F. BUICO, RESPONDENT.:




G.R. No. 230901 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., AND/OR GARY M. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, v. ALLAN F. BUICO, RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 230901, December 05, 2019

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., AND/OR GARY M. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, v. ALLAN F. BUICO, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

CAGUIOA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition)� under Rule 45 of the Rules� of Court� assailing� the Decision 2 dated� October� 13, 2016 and Resolution3�� dated March 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144772, which denied petitioners� petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.


Facts

On November� 5, 2013,� petitioner Magsaysay� Maritime� Corporation (Magsaysay), a local manning agency, in behalf of its principal, petitioner Princess� Cruise� Lines� Ltd.,� entered into a contract of� employment with respondent� Allan F. Buico (Buico) as Second Pantryman aboard� the vessel Star Princess (Hotel).4� Buico's� basic wage was US$477.00 per month with guaranteed overtime pay of US$498.00 per month, among other benefits.5

While on board, Buico met an accident which caused him an injury on his right leg and ankle.6� First aid treatment was initially given to Buico and he was thereafter transferred to a hospital in Canada where he underwent an Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) surgery procedure.7 Thereafter, he was repatriated to the Philippines on July 9, 2014 for further treatment.8

After� examination,� the� company-designated� physician� initially diagnosed Buico to have "sip ORIF (July 4, 2014-Canada) for Fracture, lateral and posterior� malleolus� with talar shift, right", and recommended an orthopedic follow-up checkup and continued wound care.9 The company� designated' physician� again examined Buico on August� 14, 2014 and, in a medical report, he recommended 12 sessions of physical therapy10� All in all, Buico underwent therapy for a total of 36 sessions starting August 19, 2014 until November 28,2014, as shown by his certificate of attendance.11

On�� October�� 11,� 2014�� and� November�� 15,� 2014,� the�� company� designated physician issued an Interim Disability Grading, assessing Buico's disability at Grade 10 pursuant to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).12 Subsequently,� on� December� 1,� 2014,� the� company-designated�� physician gave� a Final� Medical� Report 13� and� a Disability� Grading14��� of� Grade� 10 disability in accordance with the POEA-SEC.

Unhappy� with� this� assessment,� Buico� consulted� his own� physician who diagnosed Buico unfit to perform sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability status.15

On March� 13, 2015, Buico then filed a Complaint 16 with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against petitioners for permanent and total disability benefits.

In their defense, petitioners essentially made the following arguments: Buico was not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits because the company-designated� physician� had already assessed his disability at Grade 10 pursuant to the POEA-SEC; Buico failed to follow the third doctor rule; the company-designated� physician had knowledge of Buico's actual medical condition, hence, he was more qualified to assess his disability and his assessment should be upheld.17

The Ruling of the LA

In a Decision 18� dated June 30,-2015, the LA found that Buico suffered from Grade 10 disability, and ruled that� Buico's� physician's assessment was not done as thoroughly as that of the company-designated� physician who had continuously� attended� to him for a period of more than four (4) months.19 The dispositive portion of the LA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,� premises considered,� judgment� is hereby rendered as follows:

1)� Declaring [Buico] as suffering from Grade 10 disability[; and]

2)�� Ordering� [petitioners� Magsaysay],� Princess� Cruise� Lines� Ltd. and� Gary� M.��� Castillo� to� jointly� and� severally� pay� [Buico] disability�� benefit�� in� the�� amount�� of�� US$10,075�� or� in� its Philippine Peso equivalent� at the time of payment.

All other claims are dismissed�� or lack of merit.

So Ordered.20
Aggrieved, �� �Buico �� �appealed with�� the�� National �� �Labor �� �Relations Commission (NLRC).

The Ruling of the NLRC

In a Resolution21� dated November 27, 2015, the NLRC reversed the LA's� findings,� ruling that the referral to a third doctor was not mandatory and that the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor�� were�� inconclusive�� because�� they�� still�� had�� to� be� weighed�� and considered�� by� the� labor� tribunals.22�� Further,�� the� NLRC� ruled� that� the company-designated� physician's assessment was not accurate and precise, pointing� out� that� the� company-designated� physician� even� admitted� in the Final Medical Report that Buico was not restored to his previous condition, hence, his disability should therefore be considered as total and permanent23 The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of [Buico] is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 30, 2015 is hereby MODIFIED in that� [petitioners]� are� hereby� ORDERED to� solidarily� pay� [Buico]� the amount� of US$60,000� as permanent a� d total disability compensation� plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED24
In�� a�� Resolution25���� dated�� January�� 21,�� 2016,�� the�� NLRC�� denied petitioners'� motion for reconsideration.� Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition with the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In a Decision26� dated October� 13, 2016, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC rulings finding Buico entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. The CA held that the Disability Grading given by the company-designated� physician� was not accurate� and precise� as to Buico's actual�� medical�� condition.27��� Because�� the� company-designated�� physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of Buico's fitness or disability within the statutory periods, the CA ruled that Buico should be deemed totally and permanently disabled and entitled to the corresponding disability benefit.28

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,29 but this was denied by the CA in a Resolution30 dated March 31, 2017. Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Court.

On July 31, 2017, the Court issued a Resolution31 requiring Buico to file� a Comment� on� the� instant� Petition.� Subsequently,� in a July� 9, 2018 Resolution,32� the Court noted that Buico's� counsel, Atty. Vicenzo Nonato M. Taggueg� (Atty.� Taggueg),� failed� to� file� a� Comment� on� the� Petition� and resolved to require Atty. Taggueg to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily� dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and to comply with the July 31, 2017 Resolution. On March 4, 2019, the Court again issued a Resolution33� which required the filing of a comment and imposed a fine of P1,000.00 'upon Atty. Taggueg for his failure to comply with the show cause resolution." Since the Court has not received Buico's Comment� despite the issued Resolutions� requiring the filing of the same, the Court shall dispense with the filing of the Comment� and now resolve the controversy based on the Petition and the existing records.

Issue

The main issue in the case at bar is whether Buico is entitled to the award of total and permanent disability benefits.

The Court's Ruling

The instant Petition is meritorious.

At the� outset,� it is important� to note that a Rule� 45 review� by this Court in labor cases generally does not delve into factual questions or to an evaluation�� of�� the�� evidence�� submitted� by�� the�� parties.34 However,�� one exception to this rule is when the judgment is based on a misapprehension� of facts.35� Such exception applies in the instant case because, contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, the company-designated physician� had issued a final, accurate, and precise disability grading within the prescribed statutory� periods.� Hence,� Buico� is no�� entitled� to� the� award� of� total� and permanent disability benefits.

It is� settled� that� the� seafarer's entitlement� to� disability� benefits� is governed by law, the parties' contracts, and by medical findings. Since Buico was employed in 2013, the procedure to be observed in claiming disability benefits is outlined in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, as follows:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A.�� �COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The� liabilities� of� the� employer� whet�� the� seafarer� suffers� work-related injury or illness during the term of his�� contract are as follows:
x x x x

2.�� x x x However,� if after repatriation,� the seafarer� still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, be shall� be so� provided at� cost� to� the employer until� such� time� he� is declared� fit or the degree�� of�� his�� disability� has�� been established by the company-designated physician.

3.� In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical�� attention,� the seafarer�� shall�� also�� receive�� sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from� the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability� has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall� be entitled o his sickness allowance� shall� not exceed� 120� days.� Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but�� not less than once a month.

xxxx

If a� doctor�� appointed by the� seafarer� disagrees with� the assessment, a third� doctor may be agreed� jointly between� the Employer and� the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and� binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant� to� the� above� provisions,� when� a� seafarer� suffers� a� work-related injury, the employer is obligated to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician who has to arrive� at a definite� assessment of the seafarer's fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation.36� However, if� there� is� no� definitive� declaration� because� the� seafarer� required� further medical attention, then the period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.37 The case of Jebsens Maritime,� Inc.�� v.� Mirasol 38�� succinctly� summarized�� the� rules� governing seafarers' claims for total and permanent disability benefits as follows:
1. The� company-designated physician� must� issue� a final medical assessment� on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;

2.�� If� the� company-designated� physician� fails� to� give� his� assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent� and total;

3.� If the company-designated physician� fails to give his assessment within�� the�� period�� of� 120� days� with�� a� sufficient�� justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and. treatment shall be extended� to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and

4.�� If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes�� permanent��� and �total;�� regardless�� of�� any�� justification.39(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar, while the company-designated� physician had issued both the Final Medical Report and Disability Grading on December 1, 2014 - beyond� the� initial� 120-day� period� from� repatriation� which� ended� on November� 6, 2014 - there was sufficient� justification� for such failure to give a timely medical assessment and to extend the period of diagnosis and treatment� because� Buico had required further medical treatment. As found by the CA, Buico had religiously undergone therapy from August 19, 2014 until� November�� 28,� 2014.40��� The� Final� Medical�� Report� and� Disability Grading was thus timely issued by the company-designated� physician within the extended 240-day period which ended on March 6, 2015.

Despite� this,� however,� both� the� NLRC� and� the� CA� ruled� that� the disability assessment and medical report made by the company-designated physician� were� not� accurate� and� precise� as to Buico's� medical� condition based on their� wording. A closer look at these documents, however, gives a contrary conclusion.

The�� Final�� Medical�� Report41 issued�� by�� the�� company-designated physician contained the following discussion as to Buico's� condition:
On� December� 1,� 2014,� [Buico]� was� reevaluated� by� Orthopedic Surgery service.� At this time, he has completed� a total� of 36 sessions of physical therapy. Subjectively,� the patent reported intermittent� right foot pain�� of�� VAS�� 4110� felt�� on�� prolonged� walking�� and�� stair�� climbing. Objectively,� [the]� latest� x-ray� dated November� 4,� 2014� showed healed fracture� with� implants� in� place.� Patient was able to tolerate full weight bearing, however� there was note of a� limping gait. Residual� limitation� in range� of� motion� on� the� right� ankle� was� noted.� No� other� treatment intervention was indicated for� the patient� aside� [from]� continued self� guided� home� exercises� and� as need� d intake of pain� medication. Mr. Buico was deemed� maximally medically improved for� the� Orthopedic condition referred.42 (Emphasis supplied)
The Disability Grading43 also issued by the company-designated physician on the same date contained the following statement:
Should it be needed, [the] disability grading that closely corresponds to the patient's� present functional capacity, in accordance [with] the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Disease or� Illness Contracted),� Lower Extremities, Malleolar� fracture with� displacement� of� the� foot inward� or� outward,� is� a Grade� 10 disability.44 (Emphasis supplied; italic� in the original)
After� perusing� the� above� excepts,� the� Court� disagrees� with� the findings of the CA and NLRC. The above documents show that the findings of the company-designated physician as to Buico's� disability were final, accurate, and precise, especially since there was a specific disability grading and since it stated that there was no other treatment� intervention� indicated for Buico. It is likewise noteworthy that the disability grading given by the company-designated� physician� was a result of several months of diagnosis and treatment.� In fact, this Grade 10 disability� rating� was already given to Buico at least twice as an interim disability grading, thereby further lending credence to the assessment given by the company-designated physician.

In the� face� of� such� final� disability grading� given� by the company� designated physician� within the prescribed period, the seafarer who intends to contest such assessment has the duty to observe the third doctor provision under the 2010 POEA-SEC.45

As��� stated��� in�� jurisprudence,���� in��� case��� of��� non-observance��� by the seafarer of the third�� doctor�� referral�� provision�� in� the� contract,�� the employer can insist on the company-designated� physician's assessment even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagree1nent by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make a determination� and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.46 Securing� a� third� doctor's�� opinion� is� the� duty� of� the� seafarer,� who� must actively or expressly request for it.47

Contrary to the pronouncement� made by the NLRC, the referral to a third doctor� is mandatory.48� Without� referral to a third doctor, there is no valid challenge to the company-designated� physician's findings. Ultimately, therefore,� the company-designated� physician's� findings in such a situation must be upheld over the findings of the personal doctor of the seafarer.49

In� the� instant� case,� after� the� company-designated� physician� gave� a final Grade 10 disability assessment, Buico consulted his own physician who opined that he was unfit to perform sea duty in whatever capacity with a permanent disability status. Thereafter, Buico filed a complaint against his employers without first expressly requesting the company for the referral of the matter t,, o a third doctor.

This failure by Buico to comply with the requirement of referral to a third doctor is tantamount to a violation of terms under the POEA-SEC. Consequently, without a binding third-party opinion, the final, accurate and precise findings of the company-designated physician prevail over the conclusion of the seafarer's personal doctor.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the LA had correctly awarded� Grade� 10� disability� benefits� to� Buico� based� on� the� disability grading given by the company-designated� physician. Further, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the total monetary award in his favor shall be subject to an interest� of 6% per annum from the finality� of this Decision until full payment.

WHEREFORE, premises� considered,� the� Petition� is� GRANTED. The Decision dated October 13, 2016 and Resolution dated March 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144772 are SET� ASIDE.� The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated June 30, 2015 is REINSTATED. The total monetary award shall be subject to the interest rate of 6% per am1um from the finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, Inting, JJ.,* concur

Endnotes:


* Stated as "Cruises" in some parts of the rolla and CA rollo.

*Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2726 dated October 25, .2019.

1Rollo, pp. 3-40.

2 Id. at 41-50. Pe1med by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ramon Paul L. Hernando �� �(now a Member of the Court).

3 Id. at 52-53.

4 Id. at41-42.

5 Id. at 42.

6� Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 CA rollo, pp. 126-127.

14 Id. at 128.

15Rollo, p. 4>3.

16� CA rollo,pp.l31-132.

17 Rollo, p. 43.

18 CA rollo, pp. 68-75. Penned by Labor Arbiter Remedios L.P. Marcos.

19 Id. at 71-72.

20 Id. at 75.

21 Id. at 57-66. Penned� by Commissioner� Alan A. Ventura and concurred� in by Presiding Commissioner Gregorio 0. Bilog, III and Commissioner� Erlinda T. Agus.

22Rollo, p. 44; CA rollo, pp. 63-64.

23 Id.; Id. at 60-62.

24 CA rollo, p. 65.

25� Id. at 77-79.

26 Rollo,� pp. 41-50.

27 Id. at 48.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 55-75.

30 Id. at 52-53.

31 Id. at 76.

32 Id. at 79-80.

33� Id. at 84-85.

34Magsaysay Mol Marine,� Inc. v. Atraj , G.R. No. 229192, July 23, 2018,

35Mighty Corp. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery. 478 Phil. 61� , 639-640 (2004).

36Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines,� Inc., G.R. No. 238842, November� 19,2018, p. 7.

37� Id. at 8-9.

38� G.R. No. 213874, June 19,2019.

39� Id. at 6.

40Rollo, p. 42.

41 CA rollo, pp. 126-127.

42 Id. at 127.

43 Id. at 128.

44 Id.

45 2010 POEA-SEC,� Sec. 20 states:
SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A.�� COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

xxxx

If a doctor� appointed� by the seafarer disagrees� with the assessment, a third doctor� may be agreed� jointly� between the Employer� and� the seafarer. The third� doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. (Emphasis supplied)


46Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines,� Inc., supra note 36, at 11.

47Esteva v. Wilhelmsen� Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 225899, July 10, 2019, p. 11.

48 INC Navigation Co. Philippines,� Inc. v. Rosales, 744 Phil. 774, 787 (2014).

49 Esteva v. Wilhelmsen� Smith Bell Manning, Inc., supra note 47, at 12.



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






December-2019 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 234419 - HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES VICTOR L. MONTEVILLA AND RESTITUTA C. MONTEVILLA, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ANITA C. MONTEVILLA, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES LEO A. VALLENA AND MELBA G. VALLENA, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 227605 - IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF DIVORCE BETWEEN MINURO* TAKAHASHI AND JULIET RENDORA MORA�A,JULIET RENDORA MORA�A, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 197164 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. BENEDICTA MALLARI AND CHI WEI-NENG, RESPONDENTS

  • G.R. No. 241557 - FERNANDO N. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

  • A.C. No. 12487 - FE EUFEMIA E. VALMONTE, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR., RESPONDENT

  • G.R. No. 240749 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GIOVANNI DE LUMEN Y LADLAGARAN AND MAURA ARANZASO Y MENDOZA, ACCUSED, GIOVANNI DE LUMEN Y LADLAGARAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 223485 - DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (PHIL.), INC., PETITIONER, v. REYNALDO P. BETONIO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 238258 - DUTY PAID IMPORT CO. INC., RAMON P. JACINTO, RAJAH BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., AND RJ MUSIC CITY, PETITIONERS, v. LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 191946 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ANICIA MARASIGAN-DE LIMA AND CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, PETITIONER, v. ROGELIO L. BERAY, MELISSA T. ESPINA AND VIOLETA R. TADEO, RESPONDENTS.; G.R. No. 191974 - MELISSA T. ESPINA AND VIOLETA R. TADEO, PETITIONERS, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ANICIA MARASIGAN-DE LIMA AND CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 205473 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES MARCELINO BUNSAY AND NENITA BUNSAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 228088 - AUTOMATIC APPLIANCES, INC, SAMSON F. LIM, CORNELIO P. BUENAVENTURA and CHRISTINE M. PONTILLAS, Petitioners, v. FRANCIA B. DEGUIDOY, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233659 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOHN SANOTA Y SARMIENTO, DEO DAYTO Y GENORGA @ "RUBROB" AND ROLANDO ESPINELI Y ACEBO @ "LANDOY," ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 230901 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., AND/OR GARY M. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, v. ALLAN F. BUICO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 211537 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. POLILLO PARADISE ISLAND CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 221890 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUSTAQUIO AND PETRA SAMBAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 229693 - ENGR. FELIPE A. VIRTUDAZO AND SPOUSE ESTELITA M. VIRTUDAZO, PETITIONERS, v. ALIPIO LABUGUEN AND HIS SPOUSE DAMIANA MABUTI AND GENARA LABUGUEN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 207154 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, v. VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD, RESPONDENT.; G.R. No. 222046 - VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 213230 - NAOAKI HIRAKAWA REPRESENTED BY ERICA M. SHIBAMURA, PETITIONER, v. LOPZCOM REALTY CORPORATION AND ATTY. GARI M. TIONGCO, RESPODENT.

  • G.R. No. 215324 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JACKIE MAYCABALONG AND DAVE PASILAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 220647 - NOLI D. APARICIO AND RENAN CLARITO, PETITIONERS, v. MANILA BROADCASTING COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 221313 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. EUGENIA UY, ROMUALDO UY, JOSE UY, RENATO UY, ARISTIO UY, AND TERESITA UY-OLVEDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 225181 - EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 226920 - PACIFIC METALS CO., LTD., PETITIONER, v. EDGAR ALLAN TAMAYO, ERAMEN MINERALS, INC., AND ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 236293 - PROCESO L. MALIGALIG, PETITIONER, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SIXTH DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227460 - PABLO UY, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MYLENE D. UY, PAUL D. UY, AND PAMELA UY DACUMA, PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF JULITA UY-RENALES, REPRESENTED BY: JESSICA R. ROSERO, JOSELITO RENALES AND JANET U. RENALES; JOVITO ROSERO AND MARILYN RENALES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 234401 - CONNIE L. SERVO,PETITIONER VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12408 - VENSON R. ANG, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 235020 - ATTY. LEONARD FLORENT O. BULATAO, PETITIONER, v. ZENAIDA C. ESTONACTOC, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 245972 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARTIN H. ASAYTUNO, JR. AND RENATO H. ASAYTUNO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 246497 - RAMON R. MAGADIA, PETITIONER, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. AND ENTERPRISES SHIPPING AGENCY SRL, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 204487 - NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETITIONER, v. BRANCOMM CABLE AND TELEVISION NETWORK CO., RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 3989 - EDUARDO L. ALCANTARA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. SAMUEL M. SALAS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 202676 - TELUS INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND MICHAELSY, PETITIONERS, v. HARVEY DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12202 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4535) - JERRY F. VILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS ATTY. PAULA DIMPA[**] BEATRIZ DEFENSOR -VELEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 11583 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2878] - PILAR C. PROSPERO AND CLARINDA P. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. JOAQUIN L. DELOS SANTOS AND ATTY. ROBERTO A. SAN JOSE, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 9176 - AGUSTIN ABOY, SR., COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. LEO, B. DIOCOS, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No . 12485 - NARCISO L. HIPOLITO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. MA. CARMINA M. ALEJANDRO-ABBAS AND ATTY. JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 200972 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, v. MANUEL C. BULATAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 229703 - EDITHA SALINDONG AGAYAN, PETITIONER, v. KITAL PHILIPPINES CORP., RICARDO CONSUNJI III AND JOCELYN CAVANEYRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.M. No. P-19-4024 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3282-P) - JOSELITO S. FONTILLA, COMPLAINANT, v. JAIME S. ALCANTARA, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MIDSAYAP, COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 228898 - MAUNLAD HOMES, INC., N.C. PULUMBARIT, INC., N.C.P. LEASING CORPORATION AND NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT, SR., PETITIONERS, v. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 10252 - IAN B. CARONONGAN, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JAIRO M. LADERA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 206249 - ROMMEL V. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, v. EVA T. SHAIKH, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 241251 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SAMMY GLOBA Y COTURA, A.K.A. "JR" AND LOUIE ANADIA Y LUGARPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 244047 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 244835 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ABC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 240441 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. XXX," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233321 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES APPELLEE, v. ROBERTO F. VALDEZ APPELLANT.