Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > March 2019 Decisions > 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. 200676 - SPOUSES LUIS G. BATALLA AND SALVACION BATALLA, PETITIONERS, v. PRUDENTIAL BANK, NAGATOME AUTO PARTS, ALICIA RANTAEL, AND HONDA CARS SAN PABLO, INC., RESPONDENTS.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 200676, March 25, 2019

SPOUSES LUIS G. BATALLA AND SALVACION BATALLA, PETITIONERS, v. PRUDENTIAL BANK, NAGATOME AUTO PARTS, ALICIA RANTAEL, AND HONDA CARS SAN PABLO, INC., RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

J. REYES, JR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the October 10, 2011 Decision1 and February 1, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92097, which affirmed with modification the July 23, 2008 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City (RTC).

In March 1998, petitioner Spouses Luis G. Batalla and Salvacion Batalla (Spouses Batalla) purchased a brand new Honda Civic from respondent Honda Cars San Pablo, Inc. (Honda). Respondent Alicia Rantael (Rantael), then acting manager of Pilipinas Bank, now merged with respondent Prudential Bank (Prudential), brokered the deal.4

To finance the purchase of the said motor vehicle, Spouses Batalla applied for a car loan with Prudential. On March 23, 1998, they executed a promissory note for the sum of P292,200.00 payable within 36 months. On May 29, 1998, the Car Loan Agreement5 was approved. As such, Prudential issued a Manager's Check in the said amount payable to Honda.6

For their part, Spouses Batalla paid P214,000.00 corresponding to the remaining portion of the purchase price for the Honda Civic. In addition, they also paid P11,000.000.00 for delivery cost and the installation of a remote control door mechanism, and P28,333.56 for insurance.7

On April 21, 1998, Spouses Batalla received the car after Rantael informed them that it was parked near Prudential. However, after three days, the rear right door of the car broke down. The Spouses Batalla consulted a certain Jojo Sanchez (Sanchez), who claimed that the power lock of the rear right door was defective and that the car was no longer brand new because the paint of the roof was merely retouched.8

On May 3, 1998, Spouses Batalla sent a letter to the manager of Prudential notifying it of the said defects and demanding the immediate replacement of the motor vehicle. On August 27, 1998, they took the car to the Auto Body Shop for a thorough evaluation of the status of the vehicle. According to Arturo Villanueva (Villanueva), the vehicle was no longer brand new because the rooftop was no longer shiny in appearance. Thereafter, the manager of Prudential, together with two individuals from Honda, met Spouses Batalla and offered to repair the vehicle. Spouses Batalla rejected it because they wanted the car to be replaced with a brand new one without hidden defects.9

Unable to secure a brand new car in replacement of the alleged defective vehicle, Spouses Batalla filed a Complaint for Rescission of Contracts and Damages10 against Prudential and Honda.

The RTC Decision

In its July 23, 2008 Decision, the RTC dismissed the Spouses Batalla's complaint. The trial court ruled that the car sold to Spouses Batalla was a brand new one and that any perceived defects could not be attributed to Honda. It highlighted that Spouses Batalla failed to prove that the defects in the car door were due to the fault of Honda and that the car was merely repainted to make it appear brand new. In addition, the RTC expounded that the perceived defects were minor defects which did not diminish the fitness of the car for its intended use. On the other hand, it posited that Spouses Batalla must pay the loan amount to Prudential as they admitted that they have not paid the same. The RTC disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendants Prudential Bank, Honda Cars San Pablo, Inc., and Alicia Rantael, on the one hand and against the plaintiffs spouses Luis G. Batalla and Salvacion Batalla, on the other hand, as follows:

  1. The Complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of cause of action;

  2. The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay the defendants as follows;
  1. To defendant Prudential Bank - Two Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P292,200.00), Philippine currency, plus 30% interest per annum from April 23 1998 until fully paid;

  2. To defendant Honda Cars San Pablo, Inc., - One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P175,500.00), Philippine currency, for attorney's fees and travelling expenses of counsel;

  3. To defendant Alicia Rantael - Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), Philippine currency, for attorney's fees.
  1. The cross-claim of defendant Prudential Bank against defendant Honda Cars San Pablo, Inc., is ordered DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.11

Undeterred, Spouses Batalla appealed to the CA.

The CA Decision

In its October 10, 2011 Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC decision. The appellate court ruled that Spouses Batalla cannot rescind the promissory note and car loan agreement on account of the car's alleged defects because they are distinct from the contract of sale entered into with Honda. In any case, it found that the documentary evidence, which Spouses Batalla never disputed, presented by Honda, proved that the motor vehicle was brand new with no signs of alteration and tampering. The CA, however, reduced the attorney's fees in favor of Honda from P175,000.00 to P30,000.00. Thus, it ruled:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is Denied. Accordingly, the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4 of Legazpi City, Albay in Civil Case No. 9995 dated July 23, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification of reducing the attorney's fees in the sum of P30,000.00 awarded in favor of appellee Honda Motors, San Pablo, Inc.

SO ORDERED.12

Unsatisfied, Spouses Batalla moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its February 1, 2012 Resolution.

Hence, this present petition raising:

The Issues

I

WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE DELIVERED BY HONDA HAD HIDDEN DEFECTS; AND

II

WHETHER SPOUSES BATALLA MAY RESCIND THE CONTRACT OF SALE, CAR LOAN AGREEMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE DUE TO THE DEFECTS OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE SOLD.

Spouses Batalla argued that the car loan it obtained from Prudential was for the purchase of a brand new motor vehicle. They lamented that what was delivered to them was a defective vehicle as manifested by Honda's offer to repair the vehicle. Spouses Batalla assailed that because of the breach of the implied warranty against hidden defects, they were entitled to rescind the contract of sale, together with the car loan and the promissory note.

In its Comment13 dated May 27, 2013, Prudential countered that the car loan and promissory note are distinct transactions from the contract of sale. It explained that while Rantael may have assisted in the acquisition of the motor vehicle, it does not change the fact that the transaction of Spouses Battala with it was for a loan and not a sale of a motor vehicle. Thus, Prudential averred that it cannot be held liable for any breach of warranty because it was never a party to the sale. In their Comment dated May 14, 2013,14 Rantael and Honda also posited that the contract between Spouses Batalla and Prudential was different from the contract between Honda and them.

In their Joint Reply15 dated March 25, 2015, Spouses Batalla reiterated that they were entitled to the remedy of rescission of contract because the motor vehicle delivered to them was not brand new and had hidden defects. They were constrained to pursue such action because respondents refused to replace the car with a brand new one.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

It is axiomatic that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are limited to questions of law.16 Questions of fact are beyond the ambit of a petition under Rule 45 because the Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to examine, review or evaluate evidence all over again.17 Nevertheless, the following are exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, to wit:

(1)
When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2)
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3)
Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4)
When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5)
When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6)
When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8)
When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9)
When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(10)
The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.18

In the case at bench, none of the exceptions are present. The courts a quo have consistently found that the motor vehicle delivered to Spouses Batalla was brand new. In addition, they ruled that if there were defects, it could not be attributed to Honda, or, were minor defects that could have been easily repaired. Moreover, these findings of fact are sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.

Even if this procedural issue is set aside, the petition of Spouses Batalla still deserves scant consideration.

Spouses Batalla anchored their complaint for rescission of contract against Prudential and Honda on the allegation that the car delivered to them was not brand new and that it contained hidden defects. In support of their allegations, they presented Villanueva who testified that the car was no longer brand new because the roof was no longer shiny and appeared to be only repainted � he also testified that the rear door was damaged. Spouses Batalla also offered in evidence computer printouts from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) where it was indicated that the car was first registered on April 25, 1994.

As correctly observed by the RTC, however, the evidence of the respondents outweighed the evidence presented by Spouses Batalla. The trial court noted that several documentary evidence attest to the fact that the car was brand new. In addition, the purported printout from the LTO was a mere photocopy and was never authenticated. Further, the document's credibility is seriously in doubt, especially as to the entry that the car was first registered in 1994, because the car model that Spouses Batalla bought was manufactured only in 1998.

In the present case, the RTC gave little credence to the testimony of Villanueva that the car delivered to Spouses Batalla was not brand new on account of the condition of its rooftop painting. As pointed out by the trial court, Villanueva only had limited formal training in painting and that his assessment as to the condition of the car paint was made only after a visual examination. As such, the RTC cannot be faulted if it was left unconvinced of Villanueva's testimony for lack of certainty and technical basis.

Under Rule 130, Section 48 of the Rules of Court, the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. In turn, the determination of the credibility of the expert witnesses and the evaluation of their testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.19 Here, the RTC found that Villanueva had no special knowledge or training with regards to car painting and that his method of examination of Spouses Batalla's vehicle was wanting as it was limited to a mere visual examination rendering its results inconclusive.

Neither could the alleged defects of the car door be sufficient basis to prove that what was delivered to Spouses Batalla was a second hand car. As they admitted, they immediately had a remote control door mechanism installed. It could not be readily ascertained whether the defects in the car door were existing at the time of the car's manufacture or was caused by the installation of the remote control door system. Thus, the defects in the car door or in the paint, neither establish that the car was second hand nor could it be attributed, to the fault of Honda.

Even assuming that the car delivered to Spouses Batalla had a defective car door, they still do not have any grounds for rescinding the contract of sale.

Article 1561 of the Civil Code provides for an implied warranty against hidden defects in that the vendor shall be responsible for any hidden defects which render the thing sold unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price. In an implied warranty against hidden defects, vendors cannot raise the defense of ignorance as they are responsible to the vendee for any hidden defects even if they were not aware of its existence.20

In order for the implied warranty against hidden defects to be applicable, the following conditions must be met:

  1. Defect is Important or Serious

    1. The thing sold is unfit for the use which it is intended

    2. Diminishes its fitness for such use or to such an extent that the buyer would not have acquired it had he been aware thereof

  2. Defect is Hidden

  3. Defect Exists at the time of the sale

  4. Buyer gives Notice of the defect to the seller within reasonable time.21 (Emphasis supplied)

In case of a breach of an implied warranty against hidden defects, the buyer may either elect between withdrawing from the contract and demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in either case.22 Here, Spouses Batalla opted to withdraw from the contract of sale after their demand for a replacement car was not granted.

As can be seen, the redhibitory action pursued by Spouses Batalla was without basis. For one, it was not sufficiently proven that the defects of the car door were important or serious. The hidden defect contemplated under Article 1561 of the Civil Code is an imperfection or defect of such nature as to engender a certain degree of importance and not merely one of little consequence.23 Spouses Batalla failed to prove that such defect had severely diminished the roadworthiness of the motor vehicle. In fact, they admitted that they had no problem as to the road worthiness of the car.24

In addition, it cannot be ascertained whether the defects existed at the time of the sale. As previously mentioned, a remote control door mechanism was immediately installed after the car was delivered to Spouses Batalla. The modification made to the motor vehicle raises the possibility that the defect could have been caused or had occurred after the installation of the remote control door system. As the party alleging hidden defects, Spouses Batalla had the burden to prove the same. Unfortunately, they failed to do so considering that they did not present as witnesses, the persons who had actually examined the car door and found it defective. Their testimony could have shed light on the origin of the said defect and whether it was of such extent that the motor vehicle was unfit for its intended use or its fitness had been greatly diminished. Thus, other than Spouses Batalla's own testimony claiming that the car doors were defective, no other evidence was presented to establish the severity of the said defects and whether they had persisted at the time of the sale.

Loan agreement independent of
the contract of sale

Other than rescission of the contract of sale, Spouses Batalla also sought for the rescission of the car loan agreement and promissory note with Prudential. They believed that they had ground to rescind the car loan agreement and promissory note they executed with Prudential. Spouses Batalla surmised that the object of these documents was the delivery of a brand new car without hidden defects, and because of the alleged defects of the vehicle, there was no valid object for the contract.

A contract of loan is one where one of the parties delivers money or other consumable thing upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.25 It is perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract.26 On the other hand, a contract of sale is a special contract whereby the seller obligates himself to deliver a determinate thing and to transfer its ownership to the buyer.27 The same is perfected by mere consent of the parties.28

Thus, it is readily apparent that a contract of loan is distinct and separate from a contract of sale. In a loan, the object certain is the money or consumable thing borrowed by the obligor, while in a sale the object is a determinate thing to be sold to the vendee for a consideration. In addition, a loan agreement is perfected only upon the delivery of the object i.e., money or another consumable thing, while a contract of sale is perfected by mere consent of the parties.

Under this premise, it is not hard to see the absurdity in the position of Spouses Batalla that they could rescind the car loan agreement and promissory note with Prudential on the ground of alleged defects of the car delivered to them by Honda. The transactions of Spouses Batalla with Prudential and Honda are distinct and separate from each other. From the time Spouses Batalla accepted the loan proceeds from Prudential, the loan agreement had been perfected. As such, they were bound to comply with their obligations under the loan agreement regardless of the outcome of the contract of sale with Honda. Even assuming that the car that Spouses Batalla received was not brand new or had hidden defects, they could not renege on their obligation of paying Prudential the loan amount.

Spouses Batalla erroneously relies on Supercars Management & Development Corporation v. Flores29 as basis to rescind the loan agreement with Prudential on account of the perceived defects of the car delivered to them. In the said case, only the contract of sale with the car dealer was rescinded on account of breach of contract for delivering a defective vehicle. While therein lendee-bank was originally impleaded for rescission of contract, the trial court dropped it as party-defendant because the breach of contract pertained to the contract of sale and not to the car loan agreement. In the same vein, Spouses Batalla's recourse in case of defects in the motor vehicle delivered to them was limited against Honda and does not extend to Prudential as it merely lent the money to purchase the car.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 10, 2011 Decision and February 1, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92097 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1 Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 36-50.

2 Id. at 59-61.

3 Penned by Judge Edgar L. Armes; id. at 88-109.

4 Id. at 14.

5 Id. at 69-74.

6 Id. at 15 and 93.

7 Id. at 15-16.

8 Id. at 16-17 and 90.

9 Id. at 17-18.

10 Id. at 80-87.

11 Id. at 108-109.

12 Id. at 49.

13 Id. at 126-138.

14 Id. at 116-119.

15 Id. at 153-159.

16Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 194944, September 18, 2017, 840 SCRA 37, 52.

17Co v. Vargas, 676 Phil. 463, 470 (2011).

18Pascual v. Burgos, 116 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016), citing Medina v. Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 226-227 (1990).

19People v. Basite, 459 Phil. 191, 207 (2003).

20 CIVIL CODE. Art. 1566.

21Geromo v. La Paz Housing and Development Corporation, 803 Phil. 506, 516 (2017).

22 Art. 1567, supra.

23Moles v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 251 Phil. 711, 724 (1989).

24Rollo, p. 103.

25 Art. 1933, supra.

26Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, 668 Phil. 172, 182 (2011), citing Art. 1934, supra.

27Cabrera v. Ysaac, 747 Phil. 187, 205 (2014).

28Ace Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies., Co., Ltd., 723 Phil. 742, 751 (2013).

29 487 Phil. 259, 268-269 (2004).




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.