 Home

 Law Firm
 Law Library
 Laws
 Jurisprudence

June 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > 

June 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 208146, June 08, 2016 -
VIRGINIA DIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND TIMOTHY DESMOND, Respondents.:

G.R. No. 208146, June 08, 2016 - VIRGINIA DIO,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TIMOTHY
DESMOND, Respondents.
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 208146, June 08, 2016

VIRGINIA DIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES AND TIMOTHY DESMOND, Respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

When a motion to quash an information is based on a

defect that may be cured by amendment, courts must
provide the prosecution with the opportunity to amend the
information.

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing

the Court of Appeals Decision2 dated January 8, 2013 and
Resolution3 dated July 10, 2013. The Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court Order that
quashed the Informations charging petitioner Virginia Dio
(Dio) with libel because these Informations failed to allege
publication.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Private respondent Timothy Desmond (Desmond) is the

Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Subic Bay Marine
Exploratorium, of which Dio is Treasurer and Member of
the Board of Directors.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On December 9, 2002, Desmond filed a complaint against

Dio for libel.6 Two (2) separate Informations, both dated
February 26, 2003, were filed and docketed as Criminal
Case Nos. 9108 and 9109.7 The Information in Criminal
Case No. 9108 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That on or about July 6, 2002 in Morong, Bataan,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused with malicious
 intent to besmirch the honor, integrity and
reputation of Timothy Desmond, Chairman and Chief
Executive Office of Subic Bay Marine
Exploratorium, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously send electronic
messages to the offended party and to other
persons namely: Atty. Winston Ginez, John
Corcoran, and Terry Nichoson which read as
follows:

'NOW THAT WE ARE SET TO BUILD THE HOTEL SO THAT

YOU COULD SURVIVED, (sic) YOU SHOULD STOP YOUR
NONSENSE THREAT BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT EVEN FEED
YOUR OWN SELF UNLESS WE PAY YOUR EXHORBITANT
(sic) SALARY, HOUSE YOU ADN (sic) SUPPORT ALL
YOUR PERSONAL NEEDS. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED IN
DOING THIS. AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED, YOU ARE
NOTHING EXCEPT A PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO SURVIVED
(sic) AT THE PRETEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL
PROTECTOR [sic]. YOU ARE PADI (sic) TO THE LAST
CENTS ON ALL YOUR WORK IN THE WORK (sic). AT THE
SAME TIME, YOU BLOATED THE PRICE OF EACH ANIMAL
YOU BROUGHT TO THE PHILIPPINES from US$500,000.00
to US$750,000.00 each so that you could owned
(sic) more shares that you should. Please look
into this deeply.

IF YOU INSISTS (sic) TO BE CALLED AN

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL PROTECTOR IN OUR
COUNTRY, THEN YOU AND YOUR WIFE SHOULD STOP
BLEEDING THE COMPANY WITH YOUR MONTHLY PAYROLL OF
ALMOST P1 MILLION A MONTH.'

The above-quoted electronic message being

defamatory or constituting an act causing or
tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt
against the person of the said Timothy Desmond,
to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.8cralawred

The Information in Criminal Case No. 9109

reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about July 13, 2002 in Morong, Bataan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with malicious
intent to besmirch the honor, integrity and
reputation of Timothy Desmond, Chairman and Chief
Executive Office of Subic Bay Marine
Exploratorium, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously send electronic
messages to the [sic] Atty. Winston Ginez and
Fatima Paglicawan, to the offended party, Timothy
Desmond and to other persons namely: Hon.
Felicito Payumo, SBMA Chariman [sic], Terry
Nichoson, John Corcoran, and Gail Laule which
read as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

'Dear Winston and Fatima:

UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF TIM DESMOND AS

CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
SBME, AS OF THIS DATE THE COMPANY HAD
INCURRED A LOSS OF MORE THAN ONE
HUNDRED MILLION. A BALANCE SHEET
SUBMITTED TODAY BY THEIR ACCOUNTANT
JULIET REFLECT AND (sic) ASSETS OF MORE
THAN THREE HUNDRED MILLION PESOS, 50%
OF WHICH IS OVERVALUED AND NON-
EXISTENT. TIM DESMOND AND FAMILY HAD
ACCUMULATED A (sic) SHARES OF MORE THAN
70% OF THE RECORDED PAID UP CAPITAL BY
OVERVALUING OF THE ASSETS CONTRIBUTION,
PAYMENT TO THEIR OWN COMPANY IN THE
USA, ETC. AT THE SAME TIME, TIM DESMOND
AND FAMILY BLEED THE COMPANY FROM DATE
OF INCORPORATION TO PRESENT FOR AN
AVERAGE OF ONE MILLION PER MONTH FOR
THEIR PERSONAL GAIN, LIKE SALARY, CAR,
ET, [sic] ETC.'cralawred

The above-quoted electronic message being

defamatory or constituting an act causing or
tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt
against the person of the said Timothy Desmond,
to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.9cralawred
On April 22, 2003, Dio filed a Petition to suspend the
criminal proceedings,10 but it was denied in the Order
dated February 6, 2004.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Dio moved for reconsideration of the February 6, 2004

Order.12 She also moved to quash the Informations,
arguing that the "facts charged do not constitute an
offense."13 In its Order14 dated July 13, 2004, the trial
court denied both Motions. The dispositive portion of the
Order reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Premises considered, the Motion For

Reconsideration of the Order dated February 6,
2004 and the Motion To Quash, both filed for
accused, as well as the Motion For Issuance of a
Hold Departure Order filed by the Prosecution,
are hereby DENIED.

Arraignment will proceed as previously set on

July 20, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.

SO ORDERED.15cralawred

Dio moved for partial reconsideration of the July 13, 2004

Order, but the Motion was denied in the trial court's Order
dated September 13, 2005.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On October 11, 2005, Dio filed a Motion for leave of court

to file a second motion for reconsideration. 17 She also filed
an Omnibus Motion to quash the Informations for failure to
allege publication and lack of jurisdiction, and for second
reconsideration with leave of
18
court. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The trial court's Order dated February 7, 2006 denied both

Motions and scheduled Dio's arraignment on March 9,
2006.19 Dio moved for partial
20
reconsideration. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The trial court granted Dio's Motion for Partial

Reconsideration in its February 12, 2009 Order, 21 the
dispositive portion of which
reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
 WHEREFORE, the Motion For Partial Reconsideration
filed by the accused in Criminal Cases (sic) Nos.
9108 and 9109, on the ground that the
Informations in the said cases fail (sic) to
allege publication, is GRANTED and, accordingly,
the Informations filed against the accused are
thereby QUASHED and DISMISSED.

No finding as to costs.

SO ORDERED.22cralawred

After filing a Notice of Appeal on March 5,

2009,23 Desmond raised before the Court of Appeals the
following issues:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN

UPHOLDING THE ACCUSED'S ARGUMENT THAT
THE PRESENT CHARGES SHOULD BE QUASHED
FOR FAILURE OF THE INFORMATIONS TO
ALLEGE PUBLICATION.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN

DISMISSING THE CASE AND QUASHING THE INFORMATIONS
WITHOUT GIVING THE PROSECUTOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
AMEND THE INFORMATIONS.24cralawred

In its January 8, 2013 Decision, the Court of Appeals

sustained that the Informations did not substantially
constitute the offense charged.25 It found that the
Informations did not contain any allegation that the emails
allegedly sent by Dio to Desmond had been
accessed.26 However, it found that the trial court erred in
quashing the Informations without giving the prosecution
a chance to amend them pursuant to Rule 117, Section 4
of the Rules of Court:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Although we agree with the trial court that the

facts alleged in the Informations do not
 substantially constitute the offense charged, the
most prudent thing to do for the trial court is
to give the prosecution the opportunity to amend
it and make the necessary corrections. Indeed, an
Information may be defective because the facts
charged do not constitute an offense, however,
the dismissal of the case will not necessarily
follow. The Rules specifically require that the
prosecution should be given a chance to correct
the defect; the court can order the dismissal
only upon the prosecution's failure to do so. The
trial court's failure to provide the prosecution
with this opportunity constitutes an arbitrary
exercise of power.27cralawred

The dispositive portion reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is

GRANTED. The order of the Regional Trial Court of
Balanga City, Branch 3 dated February 12, 2009 in
Criminal Case Nos. 9108 and 9109 is REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial
court and the Public Prosecutor of Balanga City
is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Informations.

SO ORDERED.28cralawred

Dio moved for reconsideration, 29 but the Court of Appeals

denied the Motion in its July 10, 2013
30
Resolution. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Hence, this Petition was filed.

Desmond and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their

Comments,31 to which Dio filed her Reply.32 On April 2,
2014, this Court gave due course to the Petition and
required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The Office of the Solicitor General filed on June 11, 2014 a

Manifestation and Motion34 adopting its Comment.
Desmond and Dio filed their memoranda on June 19,
201435 and July 10, 2014,36 respectively.
Dio stresses that "venue is jurisdictional in criminal
cases."37 Considering that libel is limited as to the venue of
the case, failure to allege "where the libelous article was
printed and first published" 38 or "where the offended party
actually resided at the time of the commission of the
offense"39 is a jurisdictional defect. She argues that
jurisdictional defects in an Information are not curable by
amendment, even before arraignment. To support this
position, she cites Agustin v. Pamintuan:40

We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that

the defects in the Informations are merely
formal. Indeed, the absence of any allegations in
the Informations that the offended party was
actually residing in Baguio City, where the
crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a
substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the
Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court
cannot be allowed.41 (Citations omitted)cralawred

Dio also cites Leviste v. Hon. Alameda,42 where this Court

has stated that not all defects in an Information are
curable by amendment prior to
arraignment:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It must be clarified though that not all defects

in an information are curable by amendment prior
to entry of plea. An information which is
void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a
ground for quashal. An amendment which operates
to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is
likewise impermissible.43 (Citations
omitted)cralawred

Dio argues that the Informations were void as the

prosecutor of Morong, Bataan had no authority to conduct
the preliminary investigation of the offenses
44
charged.  The complaint filed before the prosecutor did
not allege that the emails were printed and first published
in Morong Bataan, or that Desmond resided in Morong,
Bataan at the time of the offense. 45 In the absence of
these allegations, the prosecutor did not have the
authority to conduct the preliminary investigation or to file
the information.46ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Dio further argues that publication, one of the elements of
libel, was not present in the case. She asserts that
emailing does not constitute publication under Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code. As there was no allegation in
the Informations that the emails were received, accessed,
and read by third persons other than Desmond, there
could be no publication.47 Further, emails are not covered
under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, at the
time the allegedly libelous emails were sent, there was no
law punishing this act.48ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Finally, Dio argues that she sent the emails as private

communication to the officers of the corporation, who
were in the position to act on her grievances. 49 The emails
were sent in good faith, with justifiable ends, and in the
performance of a legal duty.50ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The primordial issue for resolution is whether an

information's failure to establish venue is a defect that can
be cured by amendment before arraignment.

The Petition is denied.

If a motion to quash is based on a defect in the

information that can be cured by amendment, the court
shall order that an amendment be made. Rule 117,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court
states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SEC. 4. Amendment of complaint or information. -

If the motion to quash is based on an alleged
defect of the complaint or information which can
be cured by amendment, the court shall order that
an amendment be made.

If it is based on the ground that the facts

charged do not constitute an offense, the
prosecution shall be given by the court an
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.
The motion shall be granted if the prosecution
 fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
information still suffers from the same defect
despite the amendment.cralawred

This Court has held that failure to provide the prosecution

with the opportunity to amend is an arbitrary exercise of
power.51 In People v. Sandiganbayan:52

When a motion to quash is filed challenging the

validity and sufficiency of an Information, and
the defect may be cured by amendment, courts must
deny the motion to quash and order the
prosecution to file an amended Information.
Generally, a defect pertaining to the failure of
an Information to charge facts constituting an
offense is one that may be corrected by an
amendment. In such instances, courts are mandated
not to automatically quash the Information;
rather, it should grant the prosecution the
opportunity to cure the defect through an
amendment. This rule allows a case to proceed
without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be
cured by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals
based on technical grounds, which only result to
prolonging the proceedings, are avoided.

More than this practical consideration, however,

is the due process underpinnings of this rule. As
explained by this Court in People v. Andrade,
the State, just like any other litigant, is
entitled to its day in court. Thus, a court's
refusal to grant the prosecution the opportunity
to amend an Information, where such right is
expressly granted under the Rules of Court and
affirmed time and again in a string of Supreme
Court decisions, effectively curtails the State's
right to due process.53cralawred

In this case, petitioner Virginia Dio has not yet been

arraigned; thus, Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of Court
applies. If the information is defective, the prosecution
must be given the opportunity to amend it before it may
be quashed.

Petitioner claims that Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of

Court applies only to informations that can be cured by
amendment. She argues that before a court orders that an
amendment be made, or otherwise gives the prosecution
an opportunity to amend an information, it must first
establish that the defective information can be cured by
amendment.

Petitioner relies on Agustin to argue the proscription of an

amendment of an information in order to vest jurisdiction
in the court. This is misplaced.

In Agustin, the accused in the criminal case was already

arraigned under a defective information that failed to
establish venue.54 The Court of Appeals held that the
defect in the information was merely formal and,
consequently, could be amended even after plea, with
leave of court. Thus, this Court
held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that

the defects in the Informations are merely
formal. Indeed, the absence of any allegations in
the Informations that the offended party was
actually residing in Baguio City, where the
crimes charged were allegedly committed, is a
substantial defect. Indeed, the amendments of the
Informations to vest jurisdiction upon the court
cannot be allowed.55cralawred

In turn, Agustin cited Agbayani v.
56
Sayo.  However, Agbayani does not involve the
amendment of a defective information before or after
arraignment. Subsequent cases have cited Agustin as
basis that amendment of an information to vest
jurisdiction in the trial court is impermissible. Thus,
in Leviste, this Court cited Agustin and stated that certain
amendments are impermissible even before
arraignment:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It must be clarified though that not all defects

in an information are curable by amendment prior
to entry of plea. An information which is
void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a
ground for quashal. An amendment which operates
 to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is
likewise impermissible.57cralawred

It may appear that Leviste supports petitioner's contention

that an amendment operating to vest jurisdiction in the
trial court is impermissible. However, the statement
in Leviste was obiter dictum. It cites only Agustin, which
did not involve the amendment of an information before
arraignment.

Aside from obiter dictum in jurisprudence, petitioner

provides no legal basis to reverse the Court of Appeals'
determination that the defective informations may be
amended before arraignment. Although the cases
petitioner cited involved defective informations that failed
to establish the jurisdiction of the court over the libel
charges, none involved the amendment of an
information before arraignment. Thus, these cannot be
controlling over the facts of this case.

II

A defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal is not a

ground to quash an information. In Sasot v. People:58

Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal

Procedure, which was then in force at the time
the alleged criminal acts were committed,
enumerates the grounds for quashing an
information, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over

b)
the offense charged or the person of the accused;

That the officer who filed the information had no

c)
authority to do so;

That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed

d)
form;
 That more than one offense is charged except in those
e) cases in which existing laws prescribe a single
punishment for various offenses;

That the criminal action or liability has been

f)
extinguished;

That it contains averments which, if true, would

g)
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and

That the accused has been previously convicted or in

h) jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense
charged.
Nowhere in the foregoing provision is there any
mention of the defect in the complaint filed
before the fiscal and the complainant's capacity
to sue as grounds for a motion to
59
quash. cralawred

On the other hand, lack of authority to file an information

is a proper ground. In Cudia v. Court of Appeals:60

With respect to the second requisite, however, it

is plainly apparent that the City Prosecutor of
Angeles City had no authority to file the first
information, the offense having been committed in
the Municipality of Mabalacat, which is beyond
his jurisdiction. Presidential Decree No. 1275,
in relation to Section 9 of the Administrative
Code of 1987, pertinently provides that:

"Section 11. The provincial or the city fiscal

shall:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

. . . .

(b) Investigate and/or cause to be

investigated all charges of crimes,
misdemeanors and violations of all
penal laws and ordinances within their
respective jurisdictions and have the
necessary information or complaint
 prepared or made against the persons
accused. In the conduct of such
investigations he or his assistants
shall receive the sworn statements or
take oral evidence of witnesses
summoned by subpoena for the purpose.

. . . .cralawred

It is thus the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga,

not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare
informations for offenses committed within
Pampanga but outside of Angeles City. An
information, when required to be filed by a
public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by
another. It must be exhibited or presented by the
prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by
law. If not, the court does not acquire
jurisdiction.

Petitioner, however, insists that his failure to

assert the lack of authority of the City
Prosecutor in filing the information in question
is deemed a waiver thereof. As correctly pointed
out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner's plea to
an information before he filed a motion to quash
may be a waiver of all objections to it insofar
as formal objections to the pleadings are
concerned. But by clear implication, if not by
express provision of the Rules of Court, and by a
long line of uniform decisions, questions
relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceeding. It is a valid
information signed by a competent officer which,
among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on
the court over the person of the accused (herein
petitioner) and the subject matter of the
accusation. In consonance with this view, an
infirmity in the information, such as lack of
authority of the officer signing it, cannot be
cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by
express consent.

In fine, there must have been a valid and

sufficient complaint or information in the former
prosecution. If, therefore, the complaint or
 information was insufficient because it was so
defective in form or substance that the
conviction upon it could not have been sustained,
its dismissal without the consent of the accused
cannot be pleaded. As the fiscal had no authority
to file the information, the dismissal of the
first information would not be a bar to
petitioner's subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy
does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty
to a defective indictment that is voluntarily
dismissed by the prosecution.

Petitioner next claims that the lack of authority

of the City Prosecutor was the error of the
investigating panel and the same should not be
used to prejudice and penalize him. It is an all
too familiar maxim that the State is not bound or
estopped by the mistakes or inadvertence of its
officials and employees. To rule otherwise could
very well result in setting felons free, deny
proper protection to the community, and give rise
to the possibility of connivance between the
prosecutor and the accused.

Finally, petitioner avers that an amendment of

the first information, and not its dismissal,
should have been the remedy sought by the
prosecution. Suffice it to say that this Court,
in Galvez vs. Court of Appeals has ruled that
even if amendment is proper, pursuant to Section
14 of Rule 110, it is also quite plausible under
the same provision that, instead of an amendment,
an information may be dismissed to give way to
the filing of a new information.61 (Emphasis in
the original, citations omitted)cralawred

However, for quashal of an information to be sustained,

the defect of the information must be evident on its face.
In Santos v. People:62

First, a motion to quash should be based on a

defect in the information which is evident on its
face. The same cannot be said herein. The
Information against petitioner appears valid on
its face; and that it was filed in violation of
her constitutional rights to due process and
 equal protection of the laws is not evident on
the face thereof. As pointed out by the CTA First
Division in its 11 May 2006 Resolution, the more
appropriate recourse petitioner should have
taken, given the dismissal of similar charges
against Velasquez, was to appeal the Resolution
dated 21 October 2005 of the Office of the State
Prosecutor recommending the filing of an
information against her with the DOJ
63
Secretary. cralawred

For an information to be quashed based on the

prosecutor's lack of authority to file it, the lack of the
authority must be evident on the face of the information.

The Informations here do not allege that the venue of the

offense was other than Morong, Bataan. Thus, it is not
apparent on the face of the Informations that the
prosecutor did not have the authority to file them.

The proper remedy is to give the prosecution the

opportunity to amend the Informations. If the proper
venue appears not to be Morong, Bataan after the
Informations have been amended, then the trial court may
dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, as well as lack
of authority of the prosecutor to file the information.

III

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code

provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Article 355. Libel by means of writings or

similar means. - A libel committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means,
shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from
200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to civil
action which may be brought by the offended
party.cralawred
Petitioner argues that at the time of the offense, emails
were not covered under Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code. Petitioner claims this is bolstered by the enactment
of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the Anti-
Cybercrime Law, which widened the scope of libel to
include libel committed through email, among
64
others. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Whether emailing or, as in this case, sending emails to the

persons named in the Informations—who appear to be
officials of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority where Subic
Bay Marine Exploratorium is found—is sufficiently "public,"
as required by Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal
Code and by the Anti-Cybercrime Law, is a matter of
defense that should be properly raised during trial.

Passionate and emphatic grievance, channelled through

proper public authorities, partakes of a degree of
protected freedom of
65
expression. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Certainly, if we remain faithful to the dictum that public

office is a public trust,66 some leeway should be given to
the public to express disgust. The scope and extent of that
protection cannot be grounded in abstractions. The facts
of this case need to be proven by evidence; otherwise,
this Court exercises barren abstractions that may wander
into situations only imagined, not real.

IV

Good faith is not among the grounds for quashing an

information as enumerated in Rule 117, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court. It is not apparent on the face of the
Informations, and what is not apparent cannot be the
basis for quashing them. In Danguilan-Vitug v. Court of
Appeals:67

We find no reason to depart from said conclusion.

Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court
enumerates the grounds for quashing an
information. Specifically, paragraph (g) of said
provision states that the accused may move to
 quash the complaint or information where it
contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification.
Hence, for the alleged privilege to be a ground
for quashing the information, the same should
have been averred in the information itself and
secondly, the privilege should be absolute, not
only qualified. Where, however, these
circumstances are not alleged in the information,
quashal is not proper as they should be raised
and proved as defenses. With more reason is it
true in the case of merely qualifiedly privileged
communications because such cases remain
actionable since the defamatory communication is
simply presumed to be not malicious, thereby
relieving the defendant of the burden of proving
good intention and justifiable motive. The burden
is on the prosecution to prove malice. Thus, even
if the qualifiedly privileged nature of the
communication is alleged in the information, it
cannot be quashed especially where prosecution
opposes the same so as not to deprive the latter
of its day in court, but prosecution can only
prove its case after trial on the merits.
In People v. Gomez we held, inter
alia:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

"The claim of the accused . . . that

the letter is privileged communication
is not a ground for a motion to quash.
It is a matter of defense which must be
proved after trial of the case on the
merits."68 (Citations
omitted)cralawred

Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in disregarding

petitioner's purported good faith. This should be a matter
of defense properly raised during trial.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated

July 29, 2013 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision
dated January 8, 2013 and Resolution dated July 10, 2013
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.
Brion, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

1
Rollo, pp. 3-22. The Petition was filed under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2
 Id. at 24-32. The Decision, docketed as CA-
G.R. CR No. 32514, was penned by Associate
Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q.
Bueser of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals,
Manila.
3
 Id. at 34-35. The Resolution was penned by
Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and
concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R.
Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser of the Fourth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4
 Id. at 31.
5
 Id. at 24.
6
 Id.
7
 Id.
8
 Id. at 28.
9
 Id. at 28-29.
10
 Id. at 25.
11
 Id.
12
 Id.
13
 Id.
14
 Id.
15
 Id.
16
 Id.
17
 Id.
18
 Id.
19
 Id.
20
 Id.
21
 Id. at 26.
22
 Id.
23
 Id.
24
 Id. at 26-27.chanrobleslaw
25
 Id. at 27-28.
26
 Id. at 29.
27
 Id. at 30-31.
28
 Id. at 31.
29
 Id. at 36-44.
30
 Id. at 34-35.
31
 Id. at 57-70, Desmond's Comment, and 76-87,
Office of the Solicitor General's Comment.
32
 Id. at 90-97.
33
 Id. at 99.
34
 Id. at 100.
33
 Id. at 104-116.
36
 Id. at 130-151.
37
 Id. at 139.
38
 Id. at 140.
39
 Id.
40
 505 Phil. 103 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.,
Second Division].
41
 Id. at 113.
42
 640 Phil. 620 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales,
Third Division].
43
 Id. at 640.
44
Rollo , pp. 15-16, Petition.
45
 Id.
46
 Id.
47
 Id. at 147.
48
 Id. at 145.
49
 Id. at 147.
50
 Id.
51
Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 619 Phil.
306, 321 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
52
 G.R. No. 160619, September 9, 2015
<http://scjudiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/
september2015/160619.pdf> [Per J. Jardeleza,
Third Division].
53
 Id. at 10, citing People v. Andrade, G.R. No.
187000, November 24, 2014
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2014/november2014/187000.pdf>
[Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
54
 Id. at 112.
55
 Id. at 113.
56
 178 Phil. 574 (1979) [Per J. Aquino, Second
Division].
57
 Id. at 640.
58
 500 Phil. 527 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez,
Second Division].
59
 Id. at 536.
60
 348 Phil. 190 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third
Division].
61
 Id. at 199-202.
62
 585 Phil. 337 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
Third Division].
63
 Id. at 361, citing Gozos v. Hon. Tac-An, 360
Phil. 453,464 (1998) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division].
64
Rollo, p. 145, Memorandum.
65
See J. Leonen, Dissenting and Concurring
Opinion in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
No. 203335, February 18, 2014, 716 SCRA 237, 602-
621 [Per J. Abad, En Bane], which proffered the
view that continued criminalization of libel,
especially in platforms using the internet
unqualifiedly produces a "chilling effect" that
stifles freedom of expression:

"The crime of libel in its 1930 version in the

Revised Penal Code was again reenacted through
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It simply
added the use of the internet as one of the means
to commit the criminal acts. The reenactment of
these archaic provisions is unconstitutional for
many reasons. At minimum, it failed to take into
consideration refinements in the interpretation
of the old law through decades of jurisprudence.
It now stands starkly in contrast with the
required constitutional protection of freedom of
expression.

. . . .

With the definite evolution of jurisprudence to

accommodate free speech values, it is clear that
the reenactment of the old text of libel is now
unconstitutional. Articles 353, 354, and 355 of
the Revised Penal Code — and by reference,
Section 4(c)4 of the law in question — are now
overbroad as it prescribes a definition and
presumption that have been repeatedly struck down
by this court for several decades.

. . . .

The effect on speech of the dangerously broad

provisions of the current law on libel is even
more palpable in the internet.

. . . .

The broad and simplistic formulation now in

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code essential
for the punishment of cyber libel can only cope
with these variations produced by the
technologies in the Internet by giving law
enforcers wide latitude to determine which acts
are defamatory. There are no judicially
determinable standards. The approach will allow
subjective case-by-case ad hoc determination.
There will be no real notice to the speaker or
writer. The speaker or writer will calibrate
speech not on the basis of what the law provides
but on who enforces it.

This is quintessentially the chilling effect of

this law.

The threat of being prosecuted for libel stifles

the dynamism of the conversations that take place
in cyberspace. These conversations can be loose
yet full of emotion. These can be analytical and
the product of painstaking deliberation. Other
 conversations can just be exponential
combinations of these forms that provide
canisters to evolving ideas as people from
different communities with varied identities and
cultures come together to test their messages.

Certainly, there will be a mix of the public and

the private; the serious and the not so serious.
But, this might be the kind of democratic spaces
needed by our society: a mishmash of emotion and
logic that may creatively spring solutions to
grave public issues in better and more
entertaining ways than a symposium of scholars.
Libel with its broad bright lines, thus, is an
anachronistic tool that may have had its uses in
older societies: a monkey wrench that will steal
inspiration from the democratic mob" (Id. at 50-
62).
66
 CONST., art. XI, sec. 1.
67
 G.R. No. 103618, May 20, 1994, 232 SCRA 460
[Per J. Romero, Third Division].
68
 Id. at 467-468.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 
ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

June-2016 Jurisprudence                 
· G.R. No. 175085, June 01, 2016 - TAN SIOK1 KUAN
AND PUTE CHING, Petitioners, v. FELICISIMO "BOY" HO,
RODOLFO C. RETURTA, VICENTE M. SALAS, AND LOLITA
MALONZO, Respondents.
· G.R. No. 211672, June 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN HAPPY
DOMINGO Y CARAG, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 204056, June 01, 2016 - GIL MACALINO, JR.,

TERESITA MACALINO, ELPIDIO MACALINO, PILAR
MACALINO, GILBERTO MACALINO, HERMILINA
MACALINO, EMMANUEL MACALINO, EDELINA MACALINO,
EDUARDO MACALINO, LEONARDO MACALINO,
EDLLANE** MACALINO, APOLLO MACALINO, MA. FE
MACALINO, AND GILDA MACALINO, Petitioners, v.
ARTEMIO PIS-AN, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211290, June 01, 2016 - OMBUDSMAN-

MINDANAO, Petitioner, v. LILING LANTO IBRAHIM,
PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, NIA-PIO, LANAO DEL NORTE,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 205061, June 08, 2016 - EMERTIA G. MALIXI,

Petitioner, v. MEXICALI PHILIPPINES AND/OR
FRANCESCA MABANTA, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208137, June 08, 2016 - MARIA CECILIA

OEBANDA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND/OR THE
OCCUPANTS AND EMPLOYEES OF VISAYAN FORUM
FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 203750, June 06, 2016 - JORGE B. NAVARRA,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONGKONG
AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 209146, June 08, 2016 - PROVINCE OF

ANTIQUE AND MUNICIPALITY OF CALUYA, Petitioners, v.
HON. RECTO A. CALABOCAL, JUDGE-DESIGNATE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, ROXAS, ORIENTAL
MINDORO, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, AND
MUNICIPALITY OF BULALACAO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 200180, June 06, 2016 - BENJAMIN H.

CABAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. MARIE JOSEPHINE CORDERO
SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 207811, June 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA MOLINA Y
CABRAL, Accused-Appellants.

· G.R. No. 212493, June 01, 2016 - GABRIEL YAP, SR.

DULY REPRESENTED BY GILBERT YAP AND ALSO IN HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY, GABRIEL YAP, JR., AND HYMAN
YAP, Petitioners, v. LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN
SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND
HONEYLET SIAO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 212504 - CEBU
SOUTH MEMORIAL GARDEN, INC., Petitioner, v. LETECIA
SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO,
SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 182537, June 01, 2016 - MACTAN-CEBU

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v.
RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016 - RAQUEL G. KHO,

Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
VERONICA B. KHO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 206419, June 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN DELA ROSA,
Accused-Appellant.
· G.R. No. 202047, June 08, 2016 - LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. NOEL B. PILI, MEDEL
I. LIRIO, RODERICK B. JAMON, VICTORINO A. MACHICA,
RONNIE C. VALORIA, VIRGILIO M. FLORES, RENATO C.
PALMA, ANGELITO V. GUINTO, RAMIRO M. FELICIANO,
ENRIQUE L. CIUBAL, ELMER P. TABIGAN, VENANCIO T.
MADRIA, MAXIMO M. VITANGCOL, RODOLFO L. PAGUIO,
ARNEL F. MAGSALIN, JULIANA N. DOLOR, NOEL C. CRUZ,
SANDY C. JARILLA, BERTITO I. SERVIDAD, ALAN R.
CORPUZ, ROBERT D. PABLO, ROBERT H. MONTEREY,
HENRY L. LIAO, ROLANDO C. CEBANICO, VELIENTE S.
FANTASTICO, MA. EMILIAN S. CRUZ, EDGARDO G.
GAMBAYAN, GERARDO M. RUMBAWA, DANTE D.
PALOMARA, MA. TERESA B. DE LOS REYES, JOSE ALLAN
S. PACIFICO, RESTITUTO R. MALAPO, EARL G. PONGCO,
LUCILO C. DEL MONTE, RUEL F. MAGBALANA, MARLYN V.
VILLANUEVA, JUDITH C. BANEZ, GERMAN N. DE LUNA,
FREDERICK B. DEL CORRO, CLODUALDO B. PASIOLAN,
ROLANDO I. NAVARRO, AND PACIANO J. VILLANUEVA,*,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 211026, June 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO B. SUEDAD,
Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 204441, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL KURT JOHN
BULAWAN Y ANDALES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 201834, June 01, 2016 - ANDRES L. DIZON,

Petitioner, v. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND
DOLE UK (LTD.), Respondents.

· G.R. No. 196962, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAN SONJACO Y STA.
ANA, Accused-Appellant.
· G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016 - VIRGINIA D.
CALIMAG, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SILVESTRA N.
MACAPAZ, REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO P. MACAPAZ,
JR., Respondents.

· G.R. No. 193374, June 08, 2016 - HEIRS OF THE LATE

GERRY* ECARMA, NAMELY: AVELINA SUIZA-ECARMA,
DENNIS ECARMA, JERRY LYN ECARMA PENA, ANTONIO
ECARMA AND NATALIA ECARMA SANGALANG, Petitioners,
v. COURT OF APPEALS AND RENATO A. ECARMA,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 175592, June 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDISON C.
MAGBITANG, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 174838, June 01, 2016 - STRONGHOLD

INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. PAMANA ISLAND
RESORT HOTEL AND MARINA CLUB, INC., Respondent.

· G.R. No. 185331, June 08, 2016 - SPOUSES

ABELARDO VALARAO AND FRANCISCA VALARAO,
Petitioners, v. MSC AND COMPANY, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 205097, June 08, 2016 - CORAZON D. ISON,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211212, June 08, 2016 - SUN LIFE OF

CANADA (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. MA. DAISY'S.
SIBYA, JESUS MANUEL S. SIBYA III, JAIME LUIS S.
SIBYA, AND THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ATTY. JESUS
SIBYA, JR., Respondents.
· G.R. No. 208646, June 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORETO SONIDO Y
CORONEL, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 207517, June 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RAUL AMARO Y CATUBAY
ALIAS "LALAKS," Appellant.

· G.R. No. 200081, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO T. CRUZ,
Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIANO OANDASAN,
JR., Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 214440, June 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX MENDEZ
RAFOLS, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016 - EMILIO S.

AGCOLICOL, JR., Petitioner, v. JERWIN CASIÑO,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 172352, June 08, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALFREDO HABABAG, SR.,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, CONSOLACION, AND
CHILDREN, NAMELY: MANUEL, SALVADOR, WILSON,
JIMMY, ALFREDO, JR., AND JUDITH, ALL SURNAMED
HABABAG, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 172387-88 -
ALFREDO HABABAG, SR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE,
CONSOLACION, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY: MANUEL,
SALVADOR, WILSON, JIMMY, ALFREDO, JR., AND JUDITH,
ALL SURNAMED HABABAG, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, Respondent.
· G.R. No. 215994, June 06, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,
Petitioner, v. ROLANDO B. FALLER, Respondent.

· A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016 - RONALDO C.

FACTURAN, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L.
BARCELONA, JR., Respondent.

· G.R. No. 208475, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL REBANUEL Y
NADERA, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 168749, June 06, 2016 - SUGARSTEEL

INDUSTRIAL, INC. AND MR. BEN YAPJOCO, Petitioners, v.
VICTOR ALBINA, VICENTE UY AND ALEX VELASQUEZ,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 160071, June 06, 2016 - ANDREW D. FYFE,

RICHARD T. NUTTALL, AND RICHARD J. WALD,
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

· G.R. No. 217943, June 06, 2016 - J. MELLIZA ESTATE

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, ATTY. RAFAEL S. VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v.
ROSENDO SIMOY, GREGORIO SIMOY AND CONSEJO
SIMOY, Respondents.

· G. R. No. 185169, June 15, 2016 - HEIRS OF

CATALINO DACANAY, HIS WIFE ERLINDA DACANAY,
THEIR CHILDREN AURORA D. CONSTANTINO AND
REYNALDO DACANAY; LOLITA DACANAY VDA. DE
PARASO; HEIRS OF SOLEDAD APOSTOL, NAMELY: HER
HUSBAND LEONARDO CAGUIOA, THEIR CHILDREN
AMALIA, DANILO, RONALD, MARLENE, ROBERT, ROLDAN,
THELMA AND TERESA, ALL SURNAMED CAGUIOA,
Petitioners, v. JUAN SIAPNO, JR., MARIO RILLON,
SPOUSES JOSE TAN AND LETICIA DY TAN, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 201016, June 22, 2016 - LEONCIA A.

YUMANG, Petitioner, v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK,
INC. (RPN 9), MIA A. CONCIO, LEONOR C. LINAO, IDA
BARRAMEDA AND LOURDES O. ANGELES, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 189401, June 15, 2016 - VIL-REY PLANNERS

AND BUILDERS, Petitioners, v. LEXBER, INC.,
Respondent.; G.R. NO. 189447 - LEXBER, INC.,
Petitioner, v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 203057, June 06, 2016 - BUREAU OF

INTERNAL REVENUE AS REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
MANILA HOME TEXTILE, INC, THELMA LEE AND SAMUEL
LE,E, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 204769, June 06, 2016 - MAGSAYSAY

MARITIME CORP., CSCS BMTERNATIONAL NV AND/OR
MARLON* RONO, Petitioners, v. RODEL A. CRUZ,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 203336, June 06, 2016 - SPOUSES GERARDO

AND CORAZON TRINIDAD, Petitioners, v. FAMA REALTY,
INC. AND FELIX ASSAD, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208524, June 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDINO
PERALTAJ MORILLO AND MICHAEL AMBAS Y REYES,
Accused, BERNARDINO PERALTA Y MORILLO, Accused-
Appellant.
· G.R. No. 209038, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD BACALAN
GABUYA AND RYANNEAL MENESES GIRON, Accused-
Appellants.

· G.R. No. 197393, June 15, 2016 - PHILIPPINE

SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. MANUEL P. BARRERA,
Respondent.

· A.C. No. 11246, June 14, 2016 - ARNOLD PACAO,

Complainant, v. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 181353, June 06, 2016 - HGL DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HENRY
G. LIM, Petitioner, v. HON. RAFAEL O. PENUELA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 13, CULASI, ANTIQUE AND SEMIRARA COAL
CORPORATION (NOW SEMIRARA MINING
CORPORATION), Respondents.

· G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016 - SOUTH COTABATO

COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J.
BENZONAN, Petitioners, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS,
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROLANDO
FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE, VINCE LAMBOC, FELIPE
GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS RUBIN, EDEL
RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO, AND EDGAR JOPSON,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 213919, June 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. VIRGILIO A. QUIM, Appellant.
· G.R. No. 203152, June 20, 2016 - GEORGIA ROYO
ADLAWAN, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS SURVIVING
SPOUSE OF ALFONSO V. ADLAWAN, Petitioner, v.
NICETAS I. JOAQUINO, FLORENCIA J. SON, EUSTOLIA J.
MATA, BEATRIZ J. SATIRA, TERESA J. BERMEJO,
CORAZON J. COGINA, MARIA J. NOVAL AND VISITACION
J. DELA TORRE, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 193075, June 20, 2016 - EMMANUEL REYES,

SR. AND MUTYA M. REYES, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF
DEOGRACIAS FORLALES, NAMELY: NAPOLEON FORLALES,
LITA HELEN FORLALES-FRADEJAS, JAIME FORLALES, JR.,
JULIUS FORLALES FORTUNA, HORACE FORLALES,
GALAHAD FORLALES, JR., INDEPENDENCE FORLALES-
FETALVERO, MELITON FORLALES, JR., MILAGROS V.
FORLALES AND MERCEDES FORLALES-BAUTISTA,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208146, June 08, 2016 - VIRGINIA DIO,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TIMOTHY
DESMOND, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208586, June 22, 2016 - HEIRS OF DATU

MAMALINDING MAGAYOONG, REPRESENTED BY DR.
MAIMONA MAGAYOONG-PANGARUNGAN WITH HER
SPOUSE DATU SA MARAWI RASID PANGARUNGAN, AND
DR. ANISHA* MAGAYOONG-MACABATO WITH HER
SPOUSE DATU KHALIQUZZAMAN MACABATO, Petitioners,
v. HEIRS OF CATAMANAN MAMA, REPRESENTED BY
HASAN MAMA, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 189516, June 08, 2016 - EDNA MABUGAY-

OTAMIAS, JEFFREN M. OTAMIAS AND MINOR JEMWEL M.
OTAMIAS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER EDNA
MABUGAY-OTAMIAS, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY COL. VIRGILIO O.
DOMINGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMANDING
OFFICER OF THE PENSION AND GRATUITY MANAGEMENT
CENTER (PGMC) OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 214122, June 08, 2016 - AUTOZENTRUM

ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES MIAMAR A.
BERNARDO AND GENARO F. BERNARDO, JR.,
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ASIAN
CARMAKERS CORPORATION, AND BAYERISHE MOTOREN
WERKE (BMW) A.G., Respondents.

· G.R. No. 195382, June 15, 2016 - ORION WATER

DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
CRISPIN Q. TRIA, ET AL., Petitioner, v. THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS),
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. APOLONIO "TOTONG"
AVILA Y ALECANTE, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 210936, June 28, 2016 - TEODORO B. CRUZ,

JR., MELCHOR M. ALONZO, AND WILFREDO P. ALDAY,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 196329, June 01, 2016 - PABLO B. ROMAN,

JR., AND ATTY. MATIAS V. DEFENSOR, AS OFFICERS OF
THE CAPITOL HILLS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, ATTY. FRANKLIN I. CUETO, ATTY.
EMMANUEL Y. ARTIZA AND MANUEL C. BALDEO, AS
MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE; JUSTINA
F. CALLANGAN, AS DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION
FINANCE DEPARTMENT; ATTY. NARCISO T. ATIENZA,
EUSEBIO A. ABAQUIN, ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS,
SR., ATTY. CLODUALDO ANTONIO R. DE JESUS, JR.,
ATTY. IRENEO T. AGUIRRE, JR., SUNDAY O. PINEDA,
PORFIRIO M. FLORES, AND ATTY. ZOSIMO PADRO, JR.,
Respondents.

· A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016 - JUDGE GREGORIO D.

PANTANOSAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ELLY L.
PAMATONG, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211604, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARYL POLONIO Y
TUANGCAY, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 203932, June 08, 2016 - PHILIPPINE

AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ENRIQUE LIGAN, EDUARDO
MAGDARAOG, JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER,
EMELITO SOCO, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR., LORENZO
BUTANAS, RAMEL BERNARDES, NELSON M. DULCE,
CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, ARTHUR M. CAPIN, ALLAN
BENTUZAL, AND JEFFREY LLENES, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 209344, June 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAIME BRIOSO ALIAS
TALAP-TALAP, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 206294, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CERILO "ILOY"
ILOGON, Accused-Appellant.

· A.C. No. 9871, June 29, 2016 - IN RE: A.M. NO. 04-7-
373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI,
CEBU] AND A.M. NO. 04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF
JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
NO. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004], PROSECUTOR
MARY ANN T. CASTRO-ROA, Respondent.
· G.R. No. 210673, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GILBERT
CABALLERO Y GARSOLA, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE MIRANDA,
JR. Y PAÑA @ "ERIKA" AND ALVIN ALGA Y MIRANDA @
"ALVIN," Accused-Appellants.

· G.R. No. 205871, June 27, 2016 - RUEL TUANO Y

HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 207231, June 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROGER GALAGATI Y GARDOCE,
Appellant.

· G.R. Nos. 183200-01, June 29, 2016 - PHILIPPINE

NATIONAL OIL COMPANY-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AND/OR PAUL AQUINO AND ESTER R.
GUERZON, Petitioners, v. AMELYN A. BUENVIAJE,
Respondent.; G.R. Nos. 183253 & 183257 - AMELYN A.
BUENVIAJE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL
COMPANY-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PAUL
A. AQUINO AND ESTER R. GUERZON, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 219468, June 08, 2016 - JOSE BURGOS, JR.,

Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ELADIO SJ. NAVAL AND ARLINA
B. NAVAL, AND AMALIA B. NAVAL, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 194664, June 15, 2016 - FLORITA LIAM,

Petitioner, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK,
Respondent.
· G.R. No. 194235, June 08, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY GREGORIO Y
AMAR @ "JAY," ROLANDO ESTRELLA Y RAYMUNDO @
"BONG," DANILO BERGONIA Y ALELENG @ "DANNY,"
EFREN GASCON Y DELOS SANTOS @ "EFREN," RICARDO
SALAZAR Y GO @ "ERIC," AND JOHN DOE, Accused-
Appellants.

· G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016 - FILOMENA

CABLING, Petitioner, v. RODRIGO DANGCALAN,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211065, June 15, 2016 - HEIRS OF JOSE

EXTREMADURA, REPRESENTED BY ELENA H.
EXTREMADURA, Petitioners, v. MANUEL EXTREMADURA
AND MARLON EXTREMADURA, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 190876, June 15, 2016 - YELLOW BUS LINE

EMPLOYEES UNION (YBLEU), Petitioner, v. YELLOW BUS
LINE, INC. (YBLI), Respondent.

· A.C. No. 8677, June 15, 2016 - MARITA CABAS,

Petitioner, v. ATTY. RIA NINA L. SUSUSCO AND CHIEF
CITY PROSECUTOR EMELIE FE DELOS SANTOS,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 196557, June 15, 2016 - GREGORIO

"TONGEE" BALAIS, JR., Petitioner, v. SE'LON BY AIMEE,
AMELITA REVILLA AND ALMA BELARMINO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 195224, June 15, 2016 - VIRGINIA JABALDE

Y JAMANDRON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
· G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. KEPCO ILIJAN
CORPORATION, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 189851, June 22, 2016 - INTEC CEBU INC.,

AKIHIKO KAMBAYASHI AND WATARU SATO, Petitioners,
v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ROWENA REYES, ROWENA
ODIONG, HYDEE AYUDA, TERESITA BERIDO, CRISTINA
LABAPIZ, GEMMA JUMAO-AS, SIGMARINGA BAROLO,
LIGAYA B. ANADON, DONALINE DELA TORRE, JOY P.
LOMOD, JACQUELINE A. FLORES, SUSAN T. ALIÑO,
ANALYN P. ABALLE, CAROLINE A. LABATOS, LENITH F.
ROMANO, LEONILA B. FLORES, CECILIA G. PAPELLERO,
AGNES C. CASIO, VIOLETA O. MATCHETE, CANDIDA I.
CRUJIDO, CLAUDIA B. CUTAMORA, ROSALIE R.
POLICIOS, GENELYN C. MUÑEZ, ALOME MIGUE, ELSIE
ALCOS, LYDIALYN B. GODINEZ AND MYRNA S. LOGAOS,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 214503, June 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICO ENRIQUEZ Y
CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 181369, June 22, 2016 - TALA REALTY

SERVICES CORP., INC., PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS
A. DUPASQUIER, DOLLY LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO
AND ELIZABETH H. PALMA, Petitioners, v. BANCO
FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 170966, June 22, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO LOOYUKO, DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF NOAH'S ARK
SUGAR HOLDINGS AND WILSON T. GO, Respondents.
· A.C. No. 9226 (Formerly CBD 06-1749), June 14, 2016
- MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C, ADVINCULA, Complainant, v.
ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 214473, June 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMETERIO MEDINA Y
DAMO, Accused-Appellant.

· G.R. No. 208393, June 15, 2016 - CITY OF TAGUIG,

Petitioner, v. CITY OF MAKATI, Respondent.

· A.C. No. 9574, June 21, 2016 - MYRNA M. DEVEZA,

Complainant, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO,
Respondent.

· A.M. No. P-16-3459 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4119-

P], June 21, 2016 - ATTY. JOSELITA C. MALIBAGO-
SANTOS, CLERK OF COURT VI, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANTIPOLO CITY,
RIZAL, Complainant, v. JUANITO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,
SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT [OCC],
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 200072, June 20, 2016 - PHILIP YU,

Petitioner, v. VIVECA LIM YU, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 183543, June 20, 2016 - NATIONAL

HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. MANILA SEEDLING
BANK FOUNDATION, INC., Respondent.

· A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-

2635-MTJ), June 13, 2016 - MOAMAR PANGANDAG,
Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE OTTOWA B. ABINAL,
8TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT IN MULONDO,
MAGUING, LUMBA-BAYABAO, AND TARAKA, LANAO DEL
SUR, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 154069, June 06, 2016 - INTERPORT

RESOURCES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES
SPECIALIST, INC., AND R.C. LEE SECURITIES INC.,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 193455, June 13, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GREGORIO
RAMORAN, NAMELY: DELFIN R. PINEDA, ESPERANZA
PINEDA MAGPALI, DIGNA PINEDA ARZADON, CARIDAD R.
PINEDA, IMELDA ZIAPNO, TERESITA PINEDA DELFIN,
ESTER R. PINEDA, FE Y. UZON, PACENCIA ERFE
VERSOZA, IMPRESSION V. CLEMENTE, ALL REPRESENTED
BY DELFIN R. PINEDA, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
Respondents.; SPOUSES ARNULFO R. VERSOZA AND
PRISCILLA M. VERSOZA; SPOUSES DOMINGO AND
DOMINGA GOMEZ; AND ERLINDA GOMEZ-OCAY, IN HER
BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF CARLITO, MEDELINA,
ANGELISTA, SILVERA, LOLITA, & ROMBERTO, ALL
SURNAMED GOMEZ, Intervenor-Respondents.

· G.R. No. 183794, June 13, 2016 - SPOUSES JAIME

AND MATILDE POON, Petitioners, v. PRIME SAVINGS
BANK REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION AS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 190644, June 13, 2016 - NDC TAGUM

FOUNDATION, INC., ANITA B. SOMOSO, AND LIDA U.
NATAVIO, Petitioners, v. EVELYN B. SUMAKOTE,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 208205, June 01, 2016 - ATTY. ROMEO G.

ROXAS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE
CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. No. 208212 -
REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 188829, June 13, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, HON. RAUL S. GONZALEZ, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, HON. ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION, HON. ARTHEL B. CAROÑONGAN, HON.
TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, HON. JOSE D. CABOCHAN,
AND HON. FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioners, v. DAVONN
MAURICE C. HARP, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 197122, June 15, 2016 - INGRID SALA

SANTAMARIA AND ASTRID SALA BOZA, Petitioners, v.
THOMAS CLEARY, Respondent.; G.R. No. 197161 -
KATHRYN GO-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CLEARY,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 - TERESITA TAN,

Petitioner, v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO, SIMON LORI
HOLDINGS, INC., PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, FORTUNATO G. PE, RAYMUNDO G. PE,
JOSE REVILLA REYES, JR., AND DEPUTY SHERIFF
ROMMEL IGNACIO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 214901, June 15, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. APOLONIO KHO,
REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: PERLA LUZ,
KRYPTON, KOSELL, KYRIN, AND KELVIN, ALL SURNAMED
KHO, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 211015, June 20, 2016 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC

POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, INC. (CEPALCO) AND
CEPALCO ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION (CESCO),
FORMERLY CEPALCO ENERGY SERVICES & TRADING
CORPORATION (CESTCO), Petitioners, v. CEPALCO
EMPLOYEE'S LABOR UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR
UNIONS-TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
(TUCP), Respondent.; G.R. No. 213835 - CAGAYAN
ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, INC. (CEPALCO)
AND CEPALCO ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION
(CESCO), FORMERLY CEPALCO ENERGY SERVICES &
TRADING CORPORATION (CESTCO), Petitioners, v.
CEPALCO EMPLOYEE'S LABOR UNION-ASSOCIATED
LABOR UNIONS-TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES (TUCP), Respondent.

· G.R. No. 215348, June 20, 2016 - ELDEFONSO G. DEL

ROSARIO AND JOSEFINO R. ORTIZ, Petitioners, v.
CRISTINA OCAMPO-FERRER, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 203527, June 27, 2016 - SPS. AURELIO

HITEROZA AND CYNTHIA HITEROZA, Petitioners, v.
CHARITO S. CRUZADA, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN,
CHRIST'S ACHIEVERS MONTESSORI, INC., AND CHRIST'S
ACHIEVERS MONTESSORI, INC., Respondents.

· G.R. No. 212960, June 08, 2016 - SAMAHANG

MANGGAGAWA SA GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC., JUANITA
TIU AND JOJI TIU, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 210565, June 28, 2016 - EMMANUEL D.

QUINTANAR, BENJAMIN O. DURANO, CECILIO C.
DELAVIN, RICARDO G GABORNI, ROMEL G GERARMAN,
JOEL JOHN P. AGUILAR, RAMIRO T. GAVIOLA, RESTITUTO
D. AGSALUD, MARTIN E. CELIS, PATRICIO L. ARIOS,
MICHAEL S. BELLO, LORENZO C. QUINLOG, JUNNE G.
BLAYA, SANTIAGO B. TOLENTINO, JR., NESTOR A.
MAGNAYE, ARNOLD S. POLVORIDO, ALLAN A. AGAPITO,
ARIEL E. BAUMBAD, JOSE T. LUTIVA, EDGARDO G.
TAPALLA, ROLDAN C. CADAYONA, REYNALDO V. ALBURO,
RUDY C. ULTRA, MARCELO R. CABILI, ARNOLD B.
ASIATEN, REYMUNDO R. MACABALLUG, JOEL R. DELEÑA,
DANILO T. OQUIÑO, GREG B. CAPARAS AND ROMEO T.
ESCARTIN, Petitioners, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS,
PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

· G.R. No. 191087, June 29, 2016 - DELIA L. BELITA,

SALVADOR ILARDE, JR., GENEVIEVE BELITA, MA. CHERYL
DAVA, BRAULIO LEDESMA, JR., FLORENCE B. OLSEN,
KATHY GERMENTIL, ROSITA ESTUART, ARDELIZA LIM,
ELSA RAFANAN, ERLINDA V. GAERLAN, PERLA
FERNANDEZ, DELBEN "NOY" BELITA AND JOSEPH
AVACILLA, Petitioners, v. ANTONIO S. SY, ROBERTO
CARONAN, WILFREDO CIRIACO, NORMA S. WONG,
SONIA C. BENERO, MARIA L. PINEDA AND CRISTINA V.
CARAMOL, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 204264, June 29, 2016 - JENNEFER FIGUERA,

AS SUBSTITUTED BY ENHANCE VISA SERVICES, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY MA. EDEN R. DUMONT, Petitioner, v.
MARIA REMEDIOS ANG, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 205544, June 29, 2016 - MUNICIPALITY OF

CORDOVA, PROVINCE OF CEBU; THE SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN OF CORDOVA; AND THE MAYOR OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA, Petitioners, v. PATHFINDER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TOPANGA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC),
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICENTE ABECINA AND MARIA
CLEOFE ABECINA, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 210761, June 28, 2016 - KILUSANG MAYO

UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER
LABOG; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-
PRESIDENTS, REDEN ALCANTARA AND ARNOLD DELA
CRUZ, CENTER FOR TRADE UNION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
(CTUHR), REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DAISY ARAGO, VIRGINIA FLORES AND VIOLETA
ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. HON. BENIGNO SIMEON C.
AQUINO III, AND PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE
CORPORATION (PHIC), Respondents; MIGRANTE
INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
GARRY MARTINEZ, CONNIE BRAGAS-REGALADO,
PARALUMAN CATUIRA, UNITED FILIPINOS IN HONGKONG
(UNIFIL-HK), AND SOLEDAD PILLAS, Petitioners-in-
Intervention.

· G.R. No. 188020, June 27, 2016 - REN TRANSPORT

CORP. AND/OR REYNALDO PAZCOGUIN III, Petitioners, v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND
DIVISION), SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA REN
TRANSPORT-ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR
ASSOCIATIONS (SMART-ADLO) REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT NESTOR FULMINAR, Respondents.; G.R. No.
188252 - SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA REN
TRANSPORT-ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR
ASSOCIATIONS (SMART-ADLO) REPRESENTED BY
NESTOR FULMINAR, Petitioner, v. REN TRANSPORT CORP.
AND/OR REYNALDO PAZCOGUIN III, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208759, June 22, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONE BARBERAN AND
DIONE DELOS SANTOS, Accused-Appellants.

· G.R. No. 209714, June 21, 2016 - RAPHAEL C.

FONTANILLA, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSIONER PROPER,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
· A.C. No. 10465, June 08, 2016 - SPOUSES LAMBERTO
V. EUSTAQUIO AND GLORIA J. EUSTAQUIO,
Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR R. NAVALES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 203458, June 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. QUIRINO BALMES Y CLEOFE,
Appellant.

· G.R. No. 203924, June 29, 2016 - ROGER CABUHAT

AND CONCHITA CABUHAT, Petitioners, v. DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
PERLA L. FAVILA, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211141, June 29, 2016 - HILARIO DASCO,

REYMIR PARAFINA, RICHARD PARAFINA, EDILBERTO
ANIA, MICHAEL ADANO, JAIME BOLO, RUBEN E. GULA,
ANTONIO CUADERNO AND JOVITO CATANGUI,
Petitioners, v. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES
INC/CENTURION SOLANO, MANAGER, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 211526, June 29, 2016 - PMI-FACULTY AND

EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner, v. PMI COLLEGES BOHOL,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 184666, June 27, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MEGA PACIFIC ESOLUTIONS,
INC., WILLY U. YU, BONNIE S. YU, ENRIQUE T.
TANSIPEK, ROSITA Y. TANSIPEK, PEDRO O. TAN,
JOHNSON W. FONG, BERNARD I. FONG, AND *LAURIANO
A. BARRIOS, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 208383, June 08, 2016 - FIRST MEGA

HOLDINGS CORP., Petitioner, v. GUIGUINTO WATER
DISTRICT, Respondent.
· G.R. No. 186050, June 21, 2016 - ARTHUR BALAO,
WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-
STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, Petitioners, v.
EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO
PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO,
GEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU,
LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI
CACHUELA, COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AFP-ISU
BASED IN BAGUIO CITY, PSS EUGENE MARTIN, AND
SEVERAL JOHN DOES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 186059 -
EDUARDO SECRETARY TEODORO, RONALDO SECRETARY
GONZALES, SECRETARY ERMITA, GILBERTO SECRETARY
PUNO, NORBERTO GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P/DGEN.
JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ.
GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, AND POL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE
MARTIN, Petitioners, v. ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON
JARDELEZA, AND BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, CAGUIOA, JJ.
JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID,
Respondents.**

· G.R. No. 203538, June 27, 2016 - ARTEX

DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, ATTY. MARISSA E. TIMONES, ERLINDA O.
MARTEJA, ELIMAR N. JOSE, AND ATTY. LUIS Y. DEL
MUNDO, JR., Respondents.

· G.R. No. 202830, June 20, 2016 - SPOUSES ADRIANO

SALISE AND NATIVIDAD PAGUDAR, SPOUSES TEODORO
VIRTUDAZO AND NECITAS SALISE, JEROME G.
DIOLANTO, SPOUSES EULALIO D. DAMASING AND
POTENCIANA LABIA, SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND
SIMPLICIA BABAYA-ON, SPOUSES RUFINO BUTIHIN AND
CECILIA CAGNO, SPOUSES EFITACIO G. PAMISA AND
VIRGELIA VIRTUDAZO, DELFIN B. SARINAS, SPOUSES
FELIPE C. VIRTUDAZO, JR. AND GRACE TUTO, SPOUSES
ANGEL BARBOSA AND FLORENCIA SALISE, SPOUSES
FRANKLIN AND LEONORA PAMISA, SPOUSES MARCELO
MANIQUE AND CECILIA CARBON, LARRY PAMISA,
SPOUSES ENRIQUE CARBON AND ERLINDA SOMO,
SPOUSES WILFREDO A. JUANILO AND MINDA VILLARMIA,
SPOUSES FELIX REQUILME AND CERINA SALVO,
SPOUSES CARLITO FABE AND EMELITA MANGGANA,
LUIBEN MAGTO, SPOUSES SERAFIN AND LILIA SURIGAO,
SPOUSES HILARIO BACABIS AND RETIFICACION DABLO,
SPOUSES REYNALDO S. SALUCOT AND ANECITA
DESCALLAR, SPOUSES HAGENIO PAUG AND EVELITA
VIRTUDAZO, SPOUSES MAXIMO BORREZ AND VILMA
SALISE, SPOUSES FELIMON V. SALVO, JR., EVA MACATOL
AND RITA V. SALVO, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD REGION X
ADJUDICATOR ABETO SALCEDO, JR. AND RICARDO
GACULA, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016 - ZAIDA R.

INOCENTE, Petitioner, v. ST. VINCENT FOUNDATION FOR
CHILDREN AND AGING, INC./VERONICA MENGUITO,
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 209384, June 27, 2016 - URBANO F.

ESTRELLA, Petitioner, v. PRISCILLA P. FRANCISCO,
Respondent.

· G.R. Nos. 185857-58, June 29, 2016 - TRIFONIA D.

GABUTAN, DECEASED, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HER
HEIRS, NAMELY: ERLINDA LLAMES, ELISA ASOK,
PRIMITIVO GABUTAN, VALENTINA YANE; BUNA D.
ACTUB, FELISIA TROCIO, CRISANTA D. UBAUB, AND
TIRSO DALONDONAN, DECEASED, HEREIN REPRESENTED
BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MADELYN D. REPOSAR AND
JERRY DALONDONAN, MARY JANE GILIG, ALLAN UBAUB,
AND SPOUSES NICOLAS & EVELYN DAILO, Petitioners, v.
DANTE D. NACALABAN, HELEN N. MAANDIG, SUSAN N.
SIAO, AND CAGAYAN CAPITOL COLLEGE, Respondents.;
G.R. NOS. 194314-15 - DANTE D. NACALABAN, HELEN N.
MAANDIG, AND SUSAN N. SIAO, AS HEIRS OF
BALDOMERA D. VDA. DE NACALABAN, Petitioners, v.
TRIFONIA D. GABUTAN, BUNA D. ACTUB, FELISIA D.
TROCIO, CRISANTA D. UBAUB, AND TIRSO
DALONDONAN, DECEASED, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MADELYN D. REPOSAR AND JERRY
DALONDONAN, MARY JANE GILIG, ALLAN UBAUB, AND
SPOUSES NICOLAS & EVELYN DAILO, CAGAYAN CAPITOL
COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ATTY.
CASIMIRO B. SUAREZ, JR., PRIVATE Respondent; HON.
LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE), HON.
PAUL L. HERNANDO (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE), HON. NINA
G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE), HON.
EDGARDO T. LLOREN (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE), HON.
MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE), AND HON.
JANE AURORA C. LANTION (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, ACTING
CHAIRMAN), COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY
(FORMER SPECIAL TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION), PUBLIC
Respondents.

· G.R. No. 209794, June 27, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE AMAGAN AND
AURORA AMAGAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE
NAME AND STYLE "A & J SEAFOODS AND MARINE
PRODUCTS," AND JOHN DOE, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 163157, June 27, 2016 - SPOUSES BERNABE

MERCADER, JR. AND LORNA JURADO MERCADER, OLIVER
MERCADER, GERALDINE MERCADER AND ESRAMAY
MERCADER, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JESUS BARDILAS
AND LETECIA GABUYA BARDILAS, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 215950, June 20, 2016 - TRIDHARMA

MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, AND THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

· G.R. No. 216452, June 20, 2016 - TING

TRUCKING/MARY VIOLAINE A. TING, Petitioner, v. JOHN
C. MAKILAN, Respondent.
· G.R. No. 214399, June 28, 2016 - ARMANDO N.
PUNCIA, Petitioner, v. TOYOTA SHAW/PASIG, INC.,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 166890, June 28, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. APOLONIO BAUTISTA, JR.,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 218240, June 28, 2016 - ENGR. PABLITO S.

PALUCA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GENERAL MANAGER
OF THE DIPOLOG CITY WATER DISTRICT, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 212186, June 29, 2016 - ARIEL LOPEZ,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 194065, June 20, 2016 - PHILIPPINE BANK

OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 213582, June 28, 2016 - NYMPHA S.

ODIAMAR,1 Petitioner, v. LINDA ODIAMAR VALENCIA,
Respondent.

· G.R. No. 211269, June 15, 2016 - RUBEN E. TIU,

Petitioner, v. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, ACTING
CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND
PAROLE, HON. FRANKLIN JESUS BUCAYU, DIRECTOR OF
THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, HON. SECRETARY LEILA
M. DE LIMA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
Respondents.
· G.R. No. 190506, June 13, 2016 - CORAL BAY NICKEL
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

· G.R. No. 206528, June 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE ASSET

GROWTH TWO, INC. (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK) AND PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioners, v. FASTECH SYNERGY
PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY FIRST ASIA SYSTEM
TECHNOLOGY, INC.), FASTECH MICROASSEMBLY & TEST,
INC., FASTECH ELECTRONIQUE, INC., AND FASTECH
PROPERTIES, INC., Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz