Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > March 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 221780 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. V.Y. DOMINGO JEWELLERS, INC., RESPONDENT.:




G.R. No. 221780 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. V.Y. DOMINGO JEWELLERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 221780, March 25, 2019

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. V.Y. DOMINGO JEWELLERS, INC., RESPONDENT.


D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This is petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc Decision1 dated July 1, 2015 in CTA EB Case No. 1170, which granted respondent V.Y. Domingo Jewellers, Inc.'s (V.Y. Domingo) petition for review, and ordered the remand of the case to the CTA First Division for further proceedings; and the Resolution2 dated December 3, 2015 which denied petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) motion for reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

On September 9, 2009, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice3 (PAN) against V.Y. Domingo, a corporation primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling emblematic jewelry, assessing the latter the total amount of P2,781,844.21 representing deficiency income tax and value-added tax, inclusive of interest, for the taxable year 2006.

V.Y. Domingo filed a Request for Re-evaluation/Re-investigation and Reconsideration4 dated September 17, 2009 with the Regional Director of BIR - Revenue Region No. 6, requesting a "thorough re-evaluation and re-investigation to verify the accuracy of the computation as well as the accounts included in the Preliminary Assessment Notice."

V.Y. Domingo then received a Preliminary Collection Letter5 (PCL) dated August 10, 2011 from the Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 28 - Novaliches, informing it of the existence of Assessment Notice No. 32-06-IT-0242 and Assessment Notice No. 32-06-VT-0243, both dated November 18, 2010, for collection of its tax liabilities in the amounts of P1,798,889.80 and P1,365,727.63, respectively, for a total amount of P3,164,617.43. The PCL likewise stated:

If you want to know the details and/or settle this assessment, may we invite you to come to this office, within ten (10) days from receipt of this notice. However, if payment had already been made, please send or bring us copies of the receipts of payment together with this letter to be our basis for canceling/closing your liability/ies.

We will highly appreciate if you can give this matter your preferential attention, otherwise we shall be constrained to enforce the collection thereof thru Administrative Summary Remedies provided for by the law, without further notice.6
On September 12, 2011, V.Y. Domingo sent a letter to the BIR Revenue District Office No. 28 in Quezon City, requesting certified true copies of Assessment Notice Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06-VT-0243. Upon receipt of the requested copies of the notices on September 15, 2011, V.Y. Domingo filed on September 16, 2011 a Petition for Review7 with the CTA in Division, under Section 7(1) of RA No. 1125 and Section 4, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), praying that Assessment Notice Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06-VT-0243 dated November 18, 2010 and the PCL dated August 10, 2011 be declared null and void, cancelled, withdrawn, and with no force and effect, for allegedly having been issued beyond the prescriptive period for assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes.

During trial, the CIR filed her Motion to Dismiss8 the petition for lack of jurisdiction. She argued that under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125 ("An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals"), as amended, and the RRCTA, it is neither the assessment nor the formal letter of demand that is appealable to the CTA but the decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment. Claiming that V.Y. Domingo's petition was anchored on its receipt of the PCL, which it treated as a denial of its Request for Re-evaluation/Re-investigation and Reconsideration, the CIR further argued that there was no disputed assessment to speak of, and that the CTA had no jurisdiction to entertain the said Petition for Review.

In a Resolution9 dated January 29, 2014, the CTA First Division granted the CIR's motion and dismissed V.Y. Domingo's Petition for Review. It held that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the rule is that for the CTA to acquire jurisdiction, as assessment must first be disputed by the taxpayer and either ruled upon by the CIR to warrant a decision, or denied by the CIR through inaction. The CTA First Division ruled that what were appealed to it were the subject assessments, not a decision or the CIR's denial of its protest; thus, the said assessments had attained finality, and the CTA in Division was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

V.Y. Domingo's motion for reconsideration having been denied in a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, it filed on May 30, 2014 a petition for review before the CTA En Banc. It argued that the CTA First Division erred when it upheld the CIR's position that V.Y. Domingo should have administratively protested the Assessment Notices first before filing its Petition for Review. Furthermore, V.Y. Domingo claimed that it was denied due process when the CIR failed to send the Notice of Final Assessment to it.

In its Decision dated July 1, 2015, the CTA En Banc granted V.Y. Domingo's Petition for Review, reversing and setting aside the January 29, 2014 and April 23, 2014 Resolutions of the CTA First Division. It remanded the case to the CTA First Division for further proceedings to afford the CIR full opportunity to present her evidence. It held �
Petitioner's case did not fall within the usual procedure in the issuance of an assessment as respondent failed to serve or send the FAN to petitioner. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 are silent as to the procedure to be followed in case the taxpayer did not receive the FAN but instead receives a preliminary collection letter or a warrant of distraint/levy or similar communications, informing the taxpayer of the existence of a FAN for the first time. Understandably, this would cause some confusion as to what the next step it. Hence, petitioner cannot be faulted for not filing an administrative protest before filing a petition for review before the Court in Division since it did not receive the FAN and the language of the PCL shows that the respondent is already demanding payment from petitioner presupposing that the assessment has become final.10
Thus, the present petition raising the sole issue of whether the First Division of the CTA has jurisdiction to entertain V.Y. Domingo's petition for review.

The CIR argues that assessment notices are not appealable to the CTA as the power to decide disputed assessments is vested in the CIR, subject only to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA. The CIR adds that a thorough review of V.Y. Domingo's petition for review before the CTA First Division would readily show that it was an original protest on the assessment made by the petitioner, a matter that, under R.A. No. 1125, is not within the jurisdiction of the CTA.

The CIR likewise claims that a close scrutiny of V.Y. Domingo's petition for review before the CTA would reveal that it was anchored on its receipt of the PCL issued by the BIR, which V.Y. Domingo mistakenly treated as a denial of its motion for reinvestigation of the PAN.11 Before V.Y. Domingo filed its petition for review before the CTA First Division on September 16,2011, it had already received copies of Assessment Notice Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06- VT-0243 and the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated September 9, 2010. However, instead of challenging the contents of the said assessment notices by filing the appropriate protest or motion for reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from September 15, 2011, the date it received the copies of the notices, the CIR laments that V.Y. Domingo opted to immediately institute a petition for review on the basis of the PCL.12 This, argues the CIR, is in clear violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

This Court, through a Resolution13 dated March 7, 2016, required respondent V.Y. Domingo to comment on the Petition for Review.

In its Comment,14 V.Y. Domingo contends that contrary to the CIR's allegation, the CTA has jurisdiction to take cognizance of its Petition for Review. Citing Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended, V.Y. Domingo suggests that the CIR may have disregarded the fact that the jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to review of decisions of the CIR. in cases involving disputed assessments only, but also includes "other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue."15 V.Y. Domingo reiterates that its case does not involve an appeal from a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment since in the first place, there is no "disputed" assessment to speak of.16

Furthermore, V.Y. Domingo also claims that the tenor of the PCL forecloses any opportunity for it to file its administrative protest as a reading of the same will show that the CIR had already decided to deny any protest as regards the assessment made against the respondent taxpayer.17

We rule for the petitioner.

At the outset, it bears emphasis that the CTA, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance only of matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction.18 Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, specifically provides:
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. � The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws, administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal. Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;

x x x.19
In relation thereto, Section 228 of R.A. No. 8424 or The Tax Reform Act of 1997, as amended, implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 12-99,20 provides for the procedure to be followed in issuing tax assessments and in protesting the same. Thus:
Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. � When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:
(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or

(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or

(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or

(d) When the excise tax due on excisable articles has not been paid; or

(e) When an article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons.
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.

Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice.

If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings.

Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant, supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final., executory and demandable.21
On the other hand, Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99,22 implementing Section 228 above, provides:
3.1.5. Disputed Assessment. � The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. . .

x x x x

If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.

If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the said decision, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.

In general, if the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision, otherwise, the assessment shall become final executory and demandable: Provided, however, that if the taxpayer elevates his protest to the Commissioner within thirty (30.) days from date of receipt of the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the latter's decision shall not be considered final, executory and demandable, in which case, the protest shall be decided by the Commissioner.

If the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative fails to act on the taxpayer's protest within one hundred eighty (180) days from date of submission, by the taxpayer, of the required documents in support of his protest, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the said 180-day period, otherwise the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. (Emphasis ours)
It is clear from the said provisions of the law that a protesting taxpayer like V.Y. Domingo has only three options to dispute an assessment:

1. If the protest is wholly or partially denied by the CIR or his authorized representative, then the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the whole or partial denial of the protest;

2. If the protest is wholly or partially denied by the CIR's authorized representative, then the taxpayer may appeal to the CIR within 30 days from receipt of the whole or partial denial of the protest;

3. If the CIR or his authorized representative failed to act upon the protest within 180 days from submission of the required supporting documents, then the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period.23

In this case, records show that on August 11, 2011, V.Y. Domingo received the PCL issued by petitioner CIR informing it of Assessment Notice Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06-VT-0243 dated November 18, 2010. On September 12, 2011, the former sent a letter request to the BIR requesting for certified true copies of the said Assessment Notices.

However, instead of filing an administrative protest against the assessment notice within thirty (30) days from its receipt of the requested copies of the Assessment Notices on September 15, 2011, V.Y. Domingo elected to file its petition for review before the CTA First Division on September 16, 2011, ratiocinating that the issuance of the PCL and the alleged finality of the terms used for demanding payment therein proved that its Request for Re-evaluation/Re-investigation and Reconsideration had been denied by the CIR.

That V.Y. Domingo believed that the PCL "undeniably shows" the intention of the CIR to make it as its final "decision" did not give it cause of action to disregard the procedure set forth by the law in protesting tax assessments and act prematurely by filing a petition for review before the courts. The word "decisions" in the aforementioned provision of R.A. No. 9282 has been interpreted to mean the decisions of the CIR on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments.24 Definitely, said word does not signify the assessment itself.25 Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the CTA only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment.26

Admitting for the sake of argument the claim of V.Y. Domingo in its Comment � that its case does not involve an appeal from a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment since in the first place, there is no disputed assessment to speak of � admits the veracity of petitioner CIR's claim: there being no disputed assessment to speak of when V.Y. Domingo filed its petition for review before the CTA First Division, the latter had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thus, the latter's dismissal of the petition for review was proper.

Evidently, V.Y. Domingo's immediate recourse to the CTA First Division was in violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her.27 Section 228 of the Tax Code requires taxpayers to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within 30 days from receipt of the assessment.28 Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required prior to resort to the CTA precisely to give the Commissioner the opportunity to "re-examine its findings and conclusions" and to decide the issues raised within her competence.29

V.Y. Domingo posits that its case is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and the rule on primary jurisdiction as it cannot be expected to be able to file an administrative protest to the Assessment Notices which it never received.30 It expressly admitted that it did not file an administrative protest, based on its alleged non-receipt of the same.31 Citing the case of Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR,32 wherein this Court ruled that the filing of therein petitioner of a petition.for review with the CTA without first contesting the FAN issued against it was an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, V.Y. Domingo maintains that in its case, the CIR was similarly estopped from claiming that the filing of the petition for review was premature.

However, as previously mentioned, the records of the case show that V.Y. Domingo did receive the certified true copies of the Assessment Notices it requested on September 15, 2011, the day before it filed its petition for review before the CTA First Division. V.Y. Domingo cannot now assert that its recourse to the court was based on its non-receipt of the Assessment Notices that it requested.

Likewise, this Court cannot apply the ruling in Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR,33 wherein the demand letter sent by the CIR was worded as follows:
It is requested that the above deficiency tax be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency. This is our final decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal the final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.34
The ruling of this Court in the said case was grounded on the language used and the tenor of the demand letter, which indicate that it was the final decision of the CIR on the matter. The words used, specifically the words "final decision" and "appeal," taken together led therein petitioner to believe that the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices was, in fact, the final decision of the CIR on the letter-protest it filed and that the available remedy was to appeal the same to the CTA.35

Comparing the wording of the above-quoted demand letter with that sent by the CIR to V.Y. Domingo in the instant case, it becomes apparent that the latter's invocation of the ruling in the Allied Banking Corporation case in misguided as the foregoing statements and terms are not present in the subject PCL dated August 10, 2011.

What is evident in the instant case is that Assessment Notice Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06-VT-0243 dated November 18, 2010 have not been disputed by V.Y. Domingo at the administrative level without any valid basis therefor, in violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. To reiterate, what is appealable to the CTA are decisions of the CIR on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments. There being no protest ruling by the CIR when V.Y. Domingo's petition for review was filed, the dismissal of the same by the CTA First Division was proper. As correctly put by Associate Justice Roman G. Del Rosario in his Dissenting Opinion, "(C)learly, petitioner did not exhaust the administrative remedy provided under Section 228 of the MRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 12-99 which is fatal to its cause. Consequently, the non-filing of the protest against the FLD let to the finality of the assessment."36

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari. The assailed July 1, 2015 Decision and December 3, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the January 29, 2014 and April 23, 2014 Resolutions of the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Carandang,*JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., on wellness leave.



April 26, 2019

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on March 25, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on April 26, 2019 at 3:10 p.m.


Very truly yours,



(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, with Associate Justices Juanito C. Casta�eda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban concurring, with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, and Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla dissenting; rollo, pp. 37-51.

2Id. at 56-62.

3Rollo, pp. 63-64.

4Id. at 66.

5Id. at 68.

6Id.

7Id. at 69-89.

8Id. at 92-99.

9 Penned by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, with Associate Justices Roman G. Del Rosario an Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla concurring, id. at 105-115.

10Id. at 49.

11Id. at 23.

12Id. at 24-25.

13Id. at 116.

14Id. at 117-149.

15Id. at 122.

16Id. at 124-125.

17Id. at 125-126.

18CIR V. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., 146 Phil. 139, 152 (2014).

19 Emphasis supplied.

20 Dated September 6, 1999.

21 Emphasis ours.

22Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the Code through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty. September 6, 1999.

23Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, et al., 119 Phil. 547, 558 (2016).

24Allied Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 625 Phil. 530, 538 (2010).

25Lascona Land Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 683 Phil. 430, 440 (2012).

26Id.

27Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc., 645 Phil. 324, 331 (2010).

28CIR v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201398-99 & 201418-19, October 3 2018.

29Id.

30Rollo, p. 125.

31Id. at 124.

32Supra note 24, at 541 -542.

33Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR, supra note 24.

34Id. at 535.

35Id. at 544.

36Rollo, p. 54.



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-2019 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 230642 - OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, ERROL B. COMAFAY, JR., RENE B. GOROSPE, EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, VICTORIA B. LOANZON, ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ, ARNOLD E. CACHO, AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, LEIGHTON R. SIAZON, ARIANNE C. ARTUGUE, CLARABEL ANNE R. LACSINA, KRISTINE JANE R. LIU, ALYANNA MARI C. BUENVIAJE, IANA PATRICIA DULA T. NICOLAS, IRENE A. TOLENTINO, AND AUREA I. GRUYAL, PETITIONERS, v. LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR, HON. EMERSON B. AQUENDE, AND LEB MEMBER HON. ZENAIDA N. ELEPA�O, RESPONDENTS; ATTYS. ANTHONY D. BENGZON, FERDINAND M. NEGRE, MICHAEL Z. UNTALAN, JONATHAN Q. PEREZ, SAMANTHA WESLEY K. ROSALES, ERIKA M. ALFONSO, KRYS VALEN O. MARTINEZ, RYAN CEAZAR P. ROMANO, AND KENNETH C. VARONA, INTERVENORS; APRIL D. CABALLERO, JEREY C. CASTARDO, MC WELLROE P. BRINGAS, RHUFFY D. FEDERE, CONRAD THEODORE A. MATUTINO, AND NUMEROUS OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ST. THOMAS MORE SCHOOL OF LAW AND BUSINESS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT RODOLFO C. RAPISTA, FOR HIMSELF AND AS FOUNDER, DEAN, AND PROFESSOR, OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW, JUDY MARIE RAPISTA-TAN, LYNNART WALFORD A. TAN, IAN M. ENTERINA, NEIL JOHN VILLARICO AS LAW PROFESSORS AND AS CONCERNED CITIZENS, PETITIONERS-�INTERVENORS.[G.R. No. 242954]FRANCIS JOSE LEAN L. ABAYATA, GRETCHEN M. VASQUEZ, SHEENAH S. ILUSTRISMO, RALPH LOUIE SALA�O, AIREEN MONICA B. GUZMAN, DELFINO ODIAS, JR., DARYL DELA CRUZ, CLAIRE SUICO, AIVIE S. PESCADERO, NI�A CHRISTINE DELA PAZ, SHEMAR K QUENIAHAN, AL JAY T. MEJOS, ROCELLYN L. DA�O, MICHAEL ADOLFO, RONALD A. ATIG, LYNNETTE C. LUMAYAG, MARY CHRIS LAGERA, TIMOTHY B. FRANCISCO, SHEILA MARIE C. DANDAN, MADELINE C. DELA PE�A, DARLIN R. VILLAMOR, LORENZANA L. LLORICO, AND JAN IVAN M. SANTAMARIA, PETITIONERS, v. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON EMERSON B. AQUENDE, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 230615 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HERMOGENES MANAGAT, JR. Y DE LEON AND DINDO CARACUEL Y SULIT, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 225744 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JONATHAN VISTRO Y BAYSIC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 227187 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ERIC L. SEVILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 231838 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FRANKIE MAGALONG Y MARAMBA** @ ANGKIE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.C. No. 12415 - JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS�-PERALTA, JUSTICE STEPHEN C. CRUZ, AND JUSTICE RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 217158 - GIOS-SAMAR, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON GERARDO M. MALINAO, PETITIONER, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AND CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 226240 - MYRA M. MORAL, PETITIONER, v. MOMENTUM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 238815 - RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 240676 - JIMMY LIM PALACIOS, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 228684 - EDMUND C. MAWANAY, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., RIZZO-BOTTIGLIERI - DE CARLINI ARMATORISPA AND/OR CAPT. DANILO SALASAN,* RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 222192 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LAHMODIN AMERIL Y ABDUL @ "AMOR/MHONG", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233800 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MINDA PANTALLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.C. No. 12426 - IN RE: G.R. NO. 185806 GENEROSO ABELLANOSA, ET AL., vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. CIPRIANO P. LUPEBA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 234038 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOY JIGGER P. BAYANG AND JAY M. CABRIDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 221780 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. V.Y. DOMINGO JEWELLERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233598 - JUVY DESMOPARAN A.K.A. "MASYADOR," PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233251 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBEN D. DURAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 232989 - RUFINA S. JORGE, PETITIONER, v. ALBERTO C. MARCELO, JOEL SAN PASCUAL, ROMEO SALEN, CELSO SANTOS, HIGINO DALANGIN, JR., EDUARDO A. GARCIA, JULIUS FRONDA, ROGELIO VERGARA, LARRY P. TORRES, RODEL L. ZAMORA, ALEXANDER F. SUERTE, EDISIO G. CASEBO, FERNANDO ENORME, NOEL ALMAZAN, REGINO CRUZ, RONALD ALLAM, LOLITO DIZON, CECERON S. PENA, JR., RENATO M. ZONIO, ROBERTO F. LAYUSON, CRISTOSI S. ALBOR, ROGER TIBURCIO, AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 228765 - MINDA TOPINIO CADAVAS, PETITIONER, COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, AND DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND/OR RAYMUNDO DEL VAL, PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 207281 - ELAINE R. ABANTO, NINFA B. ABOTOTO, MAGTANGGOL P. AGUILA, MARIE PAZ F. AGUILA, MERLINDA V. ALCANTARA, REMEGIO S. AMAR, JOSEFINA A. AMPAT, ADRIAN E. ANCHETA, ANDRES P. ANDRADA, DANILO R. ANGELES, JOSEFINA P. ARCE, SALVACION G. ARZADON, JOEL F. ASCA�O, MA. VICTORIA B. ASETRE, EMILIO I. BACCAY, JESUSA A. BALINGAO, GIL C. BANDILLA, LAURA G. BAQUIRAN, MARLAN G. BARBA, LOURDES M. BEAULAC, EDISON A. BELARMINO, RENE L. BELJERA, DALISAY D. BERNARDO, AUREO B. BILANGEL, JR.,i LUCIBAR G. BODO, MELBA GLORIA M. BUMA-AT, CLARA LANI G. CABABARO, BERNADETTE G.ii CABERTE, EVANGELINE J. CALUB, MA. ROSARIO P. CALUB, SONIA F. CASTEN, JOSE P. CASTRO, AIDA LINA D. CELINO, EMILY A. COLICO, TOBIAS V. COLINA, FRANCISCO R. CRUZ, LILEIZA A. CRUZ, LEROY A. CUEVAS, ANTONIO P. CUSTODIO, SYLVIA G. DACUAN, RITA M. DAGAL, ROSALIER B. DAGONDON, MARCELO S. DANGCALAN,iii OFELIA C. DE GUZMAN, CARINA G. DELA CRUZ, ELIZABETH M. DELA PE�A, RODOLFO T. DE LEON, DENNIS A. DINO, LETICIA N. DUCUSIN, FRED S. EDANIO, ROSABEL C. ESTEBAN, LEONORA A. FERNANDEZ, MARIETTA F. FERNANDEZ, ROSALIO G. FETALBO, ROGELIO C. FLORES, PURIFICACION G. FRONDOZO, MA. ANA B. FUENTES, MARIETA M. GARCIA, NUMIER T. GO, ROLANDO N. GORDOVEZ, ADELAIDA B. GUANZON, DOMINGO A. HABULAN, CECILIA S. HERMOSURA, CESAR M. JACOB, ESTRELLA E. ICASIANO, MA. LUZ L. JARDENIL, ANICETO K. JAVIER, JR.,iv ZENAIDA D. JOSE, RODELIO L. LABIT, CRISTINA V. LAFUENTE, JANNETTE G. LAGAREJOS, RUFO M. LEDESMA, LOURDES ANNE E. LIAO, ENRIQUETA A. LLORENTE, ALBERTO S. LOPEZ, LEDELINA B. LOVERES, JOSE R. LUMINATE, THELMA V. MACEDA, CLARITO L.v MAGSINO, CEFERINA C. MAKASIAR, NELSON D. MAKASIAR, AMORDELIZA C. MANAMTAM, DANILO A. MANAMTAM,vi LORNA S. MANLAPIG, AIDA D. MANZANO, GETULIO E. MARCOS,vii JUANITA C. MATA, MARILOU S. MATANGUIHAN, CAESAR M. MATIGNAS, NATIVIDAD S. MAUSISA, CONRADO P. MEDINA, GREGORIO M. MICO, JR.,viii EULINIA S. MORALES, LILIAN O. MORALES, GORGONIO T. MORA, BERNARDINO E. OLAYVAR, JR.,ix EDUARDO A. ONG, MARIA LUISA J. PADILLA, CESAR A. PADRIQUE, ROSARIO MELANIE C. PAMA, SOTERO A. PINE, MA. THERESA L. QUIRINO, AURORA A. RADOMES, RICARDO O. RAMIREZ, ADELA P. RARA, EDUARDO E. REYES, AIDA A. RIVERA, EDITHA P. RIVERA, ANITA C. RIVERO, SUSAN V. RODRIGUEZ, GIL A. ROMERO, ARSENIO V. ROYALES V,x ENRIQUE P. SADIE, DIANA T. SANTIAGO, TERESITA S. SANTIAGO, RICARDO P. SANTILLAN,xi ALMA P. SANTOS, DOROTHY C.xii SANTOS, JUANITO C. SEBASTIAN, IGNACIO C. SERRANO, JOCELYN G. SIONGCO, MA. BELLA L. SORIANO, THELMA C. SUSTENTO,xiii RAUL T. TAASAN, IMELDA L. TAGARAO, RODEL C. TANI�AS,xiv MA. LIBERTY C. TEC, BENILDA A. TEJADA, NENITA C. TENORIO, GRACE M. TERTE, AME CRIS C. TOLEDO, ERNESTO P. TORPIAS, GRESELDA MARGARITA S. TORRALBA, DANILO S. VELORIA, ALMARIO SJ. VENTURA, EUGENIO O. VERDE, MA. ISABEL H. VERDE, ANNABELLA T. VERGARA, ALBERTO D. VILLARIN, AURITA B. VILLOSO, AND DANIEL C. VINLUAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, NAMELY: JOSE A. NU�EZ, GIL BUENAVENTURA, JUAN KEVIN G. BELMONTE, DANIEL Y. LAOGAN, ALBERTO A. LIM, CECILIO B. LORENZO, AND JOSE LUIS L. VERA, RESPONDENTS. MARY IRMA D. LARA AND JOSEPHINE JAURIGUE, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION. [G.R. No. 210922] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 227363 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SALVADOR TULAGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 225511 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. VICENTE VA�AS Y BALDERAMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 210631 - SOLITO TORCUATOR, GENERAL MANAGER, POLOMOLOK WATER DISTRICT AND EMPLOYEES OF POLOMOLOK WATER DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY CECIL MIRASOL, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND POLOMOLOK WATER DISTRICT AUDIT TEAM LEADER ALIA ARUMPAC-MASBUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 12401 - NELITA S. SALAZAR, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. FELINO R. QUIAMBAO, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 8124 - ATTY. FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. DOMINGO C. LAENO, ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO, ATTY. REGINALDO D. BERGADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 9269 - AZUCENA C. TABAO, PETITIONER, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER R. LACABA, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 7169 - SPOUSES RAY AND MARCELINA ZIALCITA, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. ALLAN LATRAS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 226152 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LUISITO CARTINA Y GARCIA, ALLAN JEPEZ Y TUSCANO AND NELSON RAMOS, JR. Y CARTINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 222187 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SIEGFREDO OBIAS, JR., Y ARROYO A.K.A. "BOBOY", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 212674 - CENTRAL VISAYAS FINANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES ELIEZER* S. ADLAWAN AND LEILA ADLAWAN, AND SPOUSES ELIEZER* ADLAWAN, SR. AND ELENA ADLAWAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227741 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLARD LAWAY Y CANOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233544 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALBERTO GONZALES Y VITAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 229205 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDUARDO CATINGUEL Y VIRAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 226053 - MARK ANTHONY REYES Y MAQUINA,* PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. Nos. 226634-44 - SANTIAGO G. BARCELONA, JR., PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G. R. No. 216632 - AUGUSTO REGALADO Y LAYLAY, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 205068 - HEIRS OF RENATO P. DRAGON, REPRESENTED BY PATRICIA ANGELI D. NUBLA, PETITIONERS, v. THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 237987 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A AND GENEVIEVE E. CUARESMA, AS ONE OF THE CERTIFYING OFFICERS AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT OF THE ASSAILED CNA INCENTIVE,* PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233016 - REYNALDO S. ZAPANTA, PETITIONER, EDILBERTO U. LAGASCA, PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALFRED J. ZAPANTA; EDILBERTO U. LAGASCA, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 11641 - MARILU C. TURLA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JOSE M. CARINGAL, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12475 - ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 237813 - JAMES ARTHUR T. DUBONGCO, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM OFFICER II OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM PROVINCIAL OFFICE-CAVITE IN REPRESENTATION OF DARPO-CAVITE AND ALL ITS OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 195215 - EMPIRE INSURANCE, INC., MARIO A. REMOROSA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS APPROVING OFFICER OF EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY), VIRGINIA BELINDA S. OCAMPO, JOSE AUGUSTO G. SANTOS, AND KATRINA G. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, v. ATTY. MARCIANO S. BACALLA, JR., ATTY. EDUARDO M. ABACAN, ERLINDA U. LIM, FELICITO A. MADAMBA, PEPITO M. DELGADO, AND THE FEDERATION OF INVESTORS TULUNGAN, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G. R. No. 187225 - MELINDA M. MALABANAN, PETITIONER, v. FRANCISCO MALABANAN, JR., SPOUSES RAMON AND PRESCILA MALABANAN, AND SPOUSES DOMINADOR III AND GUIA MONTANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 203242 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. LUCY GRACE AND ELMA GLORIA FRANCO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VICENTE GUSTILLO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 241247 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. REYNOLD MONSANTO Y FAMILARAN/PAMILARAN,[*] ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 204753 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, PETITIONER, v. SPS. ALISON ANG-SY AND GUILLERMO SY, RENATO ANG, NENA ANG, RICKY ANG, AND DERICK CHESTER SY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 216018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DON VEGA Y RAMIL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.C. No. 10697 - LARRY C. SEVILLA, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. MARCELO C. MILLO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 236279 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. CHERYL PAULINE R. DEANG, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 210607 - SPOUSES EDILBERTO & EVELINE POZON; EDILBERTO POZON, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY, WIFE EVELINE POZON AND DAUGHTERS GERALDINE MICHELLE POZON AND ANGELICA EMILIA POZON, PETITIONERS, v. DIANA JEANNE[*] LOPEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 226722 - FREYSSINET FILIPINAS CORPORATION (NOW FREY-FIL CORPORATION), ERIC A. CRUZ, GAUDENCIO S. REYES, AND CARLOTA R. SATORRE, PETITIONERS, v. AMADO R. LAPUZ, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 234501 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC. PETITIONER, v. SARA YI, ALSO KNOWN AS SARAH YI, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 213457 - THE HEIRS OF EDGARDO DEL FONSO, NAMELY, MILA A. DEL FONSO, LOUISA DEL FONSO BACANI, CARMINA DEL FONSO, EDGARDO PAULO A. DEL FONSO, AND VICTORIA DEL FONSO FRANCISCO, BEACON EQUITIES, INC., AND DAGUMA AGRO-MINERALS, INC., PETITIONERS, v. BENJAMIN T. GUINGONA, MAMERTO S. BOCANEGRA, TOMAS J. PRUDENCIO, ANTONIO ILOMIN, LEVITICO TOQUERO, ARNOLD MANAT, GENEROSO SENGA, CHRISTIAN M. MONSOD, AND EPIFANIO SEDIGO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 228610 - FLORO T. TADENA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 220030 - SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, v. JOSEFA GUTIERREZ, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. Nos. 226648-49 - PROCESO T. DOMINGO, ANGELITO D. TWA�O AND SUSAN M. SOLO, PETITIONERS, v. HON. SECRETARY OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE PAQUITO N. RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 210641 - DOMESTIC PETROLEUM RETAILER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 218516 - DAVAO ACF BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ROGELIO ANG, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 202799 - VIVENCIO DALIT, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES ROLANDO E. BALAGTAS, SR. AND CARMELITA G. BALAGTAS, ROLANDO G. BALAGTAS, JR., CLARINA G. BALAGTAS, CARLOTA G. BALAGTAS, CARMELA G. BALAGTAS, SOFRONIO SARIENTE[*] AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 215614 - CARMELITA V. DIZON, PETITIONER, v. JOSE LUIS K. MATTI, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 218581 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LARRY LUMAHANG Y TALISAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 220826 - HUN HYUNG PARK, PETITIONER, v. EUNG WON[*] CHOI, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 192393 - FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC., MEGATOP REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PEAKSUN ENTERPRISES AND EXPORT CORPORATION, ARTURO E. DY AND ELENA DY JAO, PETITIONERS, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES SANTIAGO T. GO,* AND NORMA C. GO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR SON AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT KENDRICK C. GO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 231773 - CESAR C. PELAGIO, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS SALINAS, AND NORWEGIAN CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 212607 - PUERTO DEL SOL PALAWAN, INC., PETITIONER, v. HON. KISSACK B. GABAEN, REGIONAL HEARING OFFICER, REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE IV, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND ANDREW ABIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 201116 - PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC., NOW CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC., PETITIONER, v. PARC CHATEAU CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND/OR EDUARDO B. COLET, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 210191 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN AND THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF PANGASINAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 217611 - ROGELIO LOGROSA, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES CLEOFE AND CESAR AZARES, SPOUSES ABUNDIO, JR. AND ANTONIETA TORRES, SPOUSES NELSON SALA AND ARLENE ANG, AND SPOUSES BONIFACIO, JR., AND WELHELMINA BARUIZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 224466 (Formerly UDK-15574) - KAREN NU�EZ* VITO, LYNETTE** NU�EZ MASINDA, WARREN NU�EZ, AND ALDEN*** NU�EZ, PETITIONERS, v. NORMA MOISES-PALMA, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12460 - DIWEI "BRYAN" HUANG, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JUDE FRANCIS V. ZAMBRANO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 236516 - ASUNCION Z. JURADO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND REX[*] A. JURADO, CATALINA Z. ALILING, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND JOSE P. O. ALILING IV, AND THE HEIRS OF FERNANDO M. ZAMORA, NAMELY: CECILIA F. ZAMORA, RAFAEL VICTOR F. ZAMORA, FRANCIS NOEL F. ZAMORA, AND CARLA MARIE F. ZAMORA, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES VICENTE AND CARMEN CHAI, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 241631 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RODEL TOMAS Y ORPILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 200676 - SPOUSES LUIS G. BATALLA AND SALVACION BATALLA, PETITIONERS, v. PRUDENTIAL BANK, NAGATOME AUTO PARTS, ALICIA RANTAEL, AND HONDA CARS SAN PABLO, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 212471 - MARIA LUZ AVILA BOGNOT, PETITIONER, v. PINIC INTERNATIONAL (TRADING) CORPORATION/CD-R KING, NICHOLSON SANTOS, AND HENRY T. NGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 242860 - THE LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOTR), PETITIONERS, v. HON. CARLOS A. VALENZUELA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 213 AND DBDOYC, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 213199 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. ESPERANZA BRIONES-BLANCO, ROSARIO R. BRIONES, MARIA CELSA BRIONES, EMMA BRIONES-MARCAIDA, MILAGROS BRIONES-ASPRER, CARMELITA BRIONES-CABUNDOC, REBECCA BRIONES-BUNALOS, FERDINAND R. BRIONES, LUNA C. BRIONES, MARILOU BRIONES-CHIONGBIAN, JOSE C. BRIONES, JR., MANUEL C. BRIONES II, EVELYN G. BRIONES, MARIA CELESTINA G. BRIONES, MARIA CRISTITA G. BRIONES, MARIA ANTONETTE G. BRIONES, MANUEL ANTONIO G. BRIONES, MARIANO G. BRIONES, ALLAN G. BRIONES AND JOCELYN B. AVILA, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 209014 - NIEVES TURGO JADER AND HEIRS OF ALFREDO TURGO: ZENAIDA TURGO BASCO AND LUCIA R. TURGO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CARLITO JADER, PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF EVELYN TURGO ALLONES: NICASIO ALLONES AND MICHAEL TURGO ALLONES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 229775 - LILIBETH ESPINAS-LANUZA, ONEL ESPINAS, AS HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO ESPINAS, AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF DARAGA, ALBAY, PETITIONERS, v. FELIX LUNA, JR., ARMANDO VELASCO AND ANTONIO VELASCO, AS HEIRS OF SIMON VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 194114 - FILIPINAS ESLON MANUFACTURING CORP., PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF BASILIO LLANES, NAMELY: CASIANO LLANES, DOMINGO LLANES, FABIAN LLANES, VICTORINA L. TAGALIMOT, PACENCIA L. MANALES, NORMA L. BACALARES, LOURDES L. PAJARDO, JOSEPHINE LLANES, JOSEFA LLANES AND JOVENCITA LLANES; ROLYNWIN Q. LAMSON; PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK, ALSO KNOWN AS AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; SPOUSES MEDEL AND CARMEN JUSTINIANO A.K.A. CARMEN & MEDEL JUSTINIANO; RUFINO V. GENILO; MARIA SOL A. SEVESES; SPOUSES SALVADOR AND CHEQUETHELMA GERONA; CRESOGONO R. SEVESES, MONERA M. LALANTO; CLAUDIO M. CLOSAS; SPOUSES SERAFIN AND ELSA FERRAREN; EDILBERTO V. PAZA* AND GENEROSO EMPUESTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 194619 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, ANTONIO M. DIAZ, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, SIMEON G. MIRANDA. RENATO D. TAYAG, JUAN F. TRIVINIO, CESAR VIRATA, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, JOSE MACARIO LAUREL IV, JOSE J. LEIDO, JR. (ALL FORMER DIRECTORS OF PNB 304 EL HOGAR FIL. BLDG., 115 JUAN LUNA ST., BINONDO, MANILA), RAFAEL G. PEREZ, FELICISIMO R. GONZALES[*] (BOTH FORMER MANAGERS OF PNB DUMAGUETE BRANCH, DUMAGUETE CITY), RAMON V. ESCA�O, EVELINA TEVES, HERMINIO V. TEVES, LORENZO G. TEVES, CATALINO NOEL, AND LAMBERTO MACIAS (ALL FORMER OFFICERS OF TOLONG SUGAR MILLING COMPANY, INC.), RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 213666 - VICTORIA* T. FAJARDO, PETITIONER, v. BELEN CUA-MALATE, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 12098 - MARILYN PABALAN COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ELISEO MAGNO C. SALVA RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 197494 - COCA-COLA[*] BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, v. CCBPI STA. ROSA PLANT EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 243345 - JESUS CONCEPCION Y TABOR A.K.A. "BAKLA/BONG," PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 11584 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604) - ROLANDO T. KO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 220400 - ANNIE TAN, PETITIONER, v. GREAT HARVEST ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 239077 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GARRY BRIONES Y ESPINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1385 - EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, COMPLAINANT, v. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.[A.M. No. P-17-3704 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1758-P]] VICTORIA BENIGNO, COMPLAINANT, v. EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1472 [Formerly A.M. No. 02-10-271-MTC]]OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ AND CLERK OF COURT EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 211839 - PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND CITY GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 240664 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JONATHAN MAYLON Y ALVERO ALIAS "JUN PUKE" AND ARNEL ESTRADA Y GLORIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 218097 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM PETITIONER, v. APOLINARIO K. DAYMIEL, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS MADELINE D. VILORIA, YOLANDA D. DE CASTRO, JOVENA D. ACOJEDO, ALBERTO DAYMIEL, MA. IMELDA D. GANDOLA, MARIDEL D. MORANDANTE[*] AND MA. NYMPHA DAYMIEL, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 224854 - LUCITA S. PARDILLO, PETITIONER, v. DR. EVELYN DUCAY BANDOJO, OWNER AND MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF E & R HOSPITAL, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 223295 - FALCON MARITIME AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., YOKOHAMA MARINE AND MERCHANT CORPORATION, AND/OR FLORIDA Z. JOSE, PETITIONERS, v. ANGELITO B. PANGASIAN, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233777 - MARVIN PORTERIA Y MANEBALI, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 203697 - INTERPHIL LABORATORIES, INC., PETITIONER, v. OEP PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 206316 - PANASONIC MANUFACTURING PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (FORMERLY MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC PHILIPPINES CORP.), PETITIONER, v. JOHN PECKSON, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 221139 - HA DATU TAWAHIG (RODERICK D. SUMATRA), TRIBAL CHIEFTAIN, HIGAONON TRIBE, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR I LINETH LAPINID, CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR II FERNANDO GUBALANE, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ERNESTO NARIDO, JR., CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR NICOLAS SELLON, AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 12, CEBU CITY ESTELA ALMA SINGCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 233520 - ROICE ANNE F. FOX, PETITIONER, v. THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY AND THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 206354 - POLICE SUPERINTENDENT HANSEL M. MARANTAN, PETITIONER, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO A. ARELLANO), AND MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF PROSECUTORS (SENIOR DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE VILLANUEVA, CITY PROSECUTOR VIMAR BARCELLANO, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR HAZEL DECENA-VALDEZ, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR NIVEN CANLAPAN, AND PROSECUTION ATTORNEY CESAR ANGELO CHAVEZ III), RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 9833 - FORTUNE MEDICARE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, DOROTHEA J. SIBAL, AND ATTY. MELAN ESPELA, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. RICHARD C. LEE, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. Nos. 212491-92 - MARIA SHIELA HUBAHIB TUPAZ, PETITIONER, v. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS; ATTY. FERNANDO ABELLA, REGISTER OF DEEDS; AND MACRINA ESPINA, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 202430 - METRO BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. ANDRADA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 211214 - LARRY SABUCO MANIBOG, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 186432 - THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VIII, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF PROVINCE OF LEYTE, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF TABANGO, LEYTE, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEYTE, PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF REDEMPTOR AND ELISA ABUCAY, NAMELY: RENA B. ABUCAY, RHEA B. ABUCAY-BEDUYA, RIS B. ABUCAY-BUANTE, ELVER B. ABUCAY, REDELISA ABUCAY-AGUSTIN, RHOTA B. ABUCAY, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT RENA B. ABUCAY, RESPONDENTS.; G.R. No. 186964 - THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VIII, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, PROVINCE OF LEYTE, PETITIONERS, v. HEIRS OF REDEMPTOR AND ELISA ABUCAY, NAMELY: RENA B. ABUCAY, RHEA B. ABUCAY� BEDUYA, RIS B. ABUCAY-BUANTE, ELVER B. ABUCAY, REDELISA ABUCAY-AGUSTIN, RHOTA B. ABUCAY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 175727 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. FLORENCIO O. VILLARIN AND FIRST CARGOMASTERS CORPORATION, CEBU ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES CORPORATION AND GUERRERO G. DAJAO, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 178713]LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATLON, PETITIONER, v. FLORENCIO O. VILLARIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 237769 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN LABADAN Y MANMANO AND RAQUEL SAGUM Y MARTINEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • A.C. No. 12113 (Formerly CBD 08-2193) - LEO LUMBRE, LEOJOHN L. LUMBRE, AND RUFREX L. LUMBRE, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. ERWIN BELLEZA, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 9361 - JOHAIDA GARINA ROA� BUENAFE, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. AARON R. LIRAZAN, RESPONDENT.

  • A.C. No. 11131 - DENNIS M. MAGUSARA, PETITIONER, v. ATTY. LOUIE A. RASTICA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R No. 228880 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LINA ACHIENG NOAH, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 237802 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MACMAC BANGCOLA Y MAKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233209 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HEROFIL OLARTE Y NAMUAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • A.C. No. 12423 - ALFREDO SAN GABRIEL, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 234155 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDUARDO CARI�O Y LEYVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 222974 - JEFFREY CALAOAGAN, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 237166 - FIRST GLORY PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, v. BRIAN L. LUMANTAO, STEVE J. PETARCO, ROY P. CABATINGAN, AND ZYZAN T. LADRAZO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 238748 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGAR GALLARDO Y BARRIOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R No. 203865 - UNITRANS INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS, INC., PETITIONER, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, UNKNOWN CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL M/S "DORIS WULLF", AND TMS SHIP AGENCIES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 239399 - ROLANDO P. DIZON, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 240914 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. REYNALD[*] ESPEJO Y RIZALDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 225752 - SEVERINO A. YU, RAMON A. YU, AND LORENZO A. YU, PETITIONERS, v. DAVID MIRANDA, MORNING STAR HOMES CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION - SAN JOSE BI�AN - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., TIMMY RICHARD T. GABRIEL, AND LILIBETH GABRIEL, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 206780 - DR. RICO VARGAS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, CECILIA VARGAS AND CHILDREN, NAMELY: RICHELLE JOSIE JUDY VARGAS-CASTRO, ARVEE T. VARGAS AND CECILIA VARGAS,[*] PETITIONERS, v. JOSE F. ACSAYAN, JR., RESPONDENT.; G.R. No. 206843, March 20, 2019 - STARDIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC., BENJAMIN N. LIBARNES AND ERNESTO V. PARANIS, PETITIONERS, v. JOSE F. ACSAYAN, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 200182 - ANACLETO ALDEN MENESES,[*] PETITIONER, v. JUNG SOON LINDA LEE-MENESES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 201021 - PILLARS PROPERTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. CENTURY COMMUNITIES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 212699 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 230412 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. TEAM ENERGY CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION), RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 234648 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ELIZALDE JAGDON Y BANAAG A.K.A. "ZALDY," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 217428 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. OSCAR S. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), SIMEON KEN R. FERRER, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CORPORATE SECRETARY OF MERALCO, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 222614 - HEIR OF PASTORA T. CARDENAS AND EUSTAQUIO CARDENAS, NAMELY REMEDIOS CARDENAS-TUMLOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JANET TUMLOS-QUIZON, PETITIONER, v. THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE CHURCHES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY REO REPOLLO AND LEOCADIO DUQUE, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 200487 - BIGG'S INC., PETITIONER, v. JAY BONCACAS, THELMA DIVINA, ALLAN DY, CHARVIE NEO, RICHARD SABATER, ARACELI ENRIQUEZ, MA. REBECCA SAN JOSE, ALFREDO ODIAMAR, JR., MICHAEL MAPA, DANTE BAYTA, GLEN REBUSI, RACHELLE MEA, ALBERT TINASAS, WILHELMN JARDINERO,[*] JUN LADABAN, ARLENE COMIA, AND PURA SABATER, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 200636, March 6, 2019 - JUNNIE ARINES,[**] MARY JEAN SAN JUAN-REPUESTO, REYNALDO LIRIA, EMMANUEL STA. ROSA, MENANDRO[***] RAMOS, ARNOLD SARTE, SHEILA RAYMUNDO-PONTE, MARILYN JANA, MARIANO AYCARDO, ROSENDO CHICA, JOCELYN AYCARDO, JAY ARINES, ANTONIO MONSALVE, JOSELITO ENRIQUEZ, SEGUNDINO CHICA, WINCESLAO LIRAG, LINA BARTOLOME-ODIAMAR, ANA MARIE FRANCISCO-SATUR, CARMEN TEJERO-BAYTA, NORBERTO PASANO, AND HEIRS OF EDWIN AYCARDO, REPRESENTED BY MARIA JOSEFA P. AYCARDO, PETITIONERS, v. BIGG'S INCORPORATED, ARLENE ACABADO, TERESITA AREJOLA, TERESA BUENAFLOR, CONSUELO BICHARA, AND MARICAR MANJON, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 9218 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3487] - ENRICA BUCAG, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT LOPE B. TIO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. BERNARD P. OLALIA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 235898 - MARLON DOMINGUEZ Y ARGANA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 229943 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGAR ROBLES, WILFREDO ROBLES, ROLANDO ROBLES ALIAS "BEBOT," DANTE ARON (DECEASED), DANILO ROBLES ALIAS "TOTO," JOSE ROBLES (DECEASED), ACCUSED; EDGAR ROBLES AND WILFREDO ROBLES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.