7/22/2019 [G.R. No.

G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…

| chanrobles.com™
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > July 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011]
MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGORIO P.
ROGELIO, RESPONDENT. :

Search

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011]
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS.
GREGORIO P. ROGELIO, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are
resolved in favor of the laborer.

We re-affirm this principle, as we uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the
uniform finding that there existed no employment relationship between the petitioners, as employers,
and the respondent, as employee, made by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the
Labor Arbiter (LA).

Petitioners Masing and Sons Development Corporation (MSDC) and Crispin Chan assail the October 24,
2003 decision, [1] whereby the CA reversed the decision dated January 28, 2000 of the NLRC that
affirmed the decision of the LA (dismissing the claim of the respondent for retirement benefits on the
ground that he had not been employed by the petitioners but by another employer).

Antecedents

On May 19, 1997, respondent Gregorio P. Rogelio (Rogelio) brought against Chan a complaint for
retirement pay pursuant to Republic Act No. 7641, [2] in relation to Article 287 of the Labor Code, holiday
and rest days premium pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, cost of living allowances (COLA),
underpayment of wages, and attorney's fees. On January 20, 1998, Rogelio amended his complaint to
include MSDC as a co-respondent. His version follows.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. Rogelio was first employed in 1949 by Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, MSDC's predecessor, which engaged in the
buying and selling of copra in Ibajay, Aklan, with its main office being in Kalibo, Aklan. Masing Chan
owned and managed Pan Phil. Copra Dealer, and the Branch Manager in Ibajay was a certain So Na. In
1965, Masing Chan changed the business name of Pan Phil. Copra Dealer to Yao Mun Tek, and appointed
Jose Conanan Yap Branch Manager in Ibajay. In the 1970s, the business name of Yao Mun Tek was
changed to Aklan Lumber and General Merchandise, and Leon Chan became the Branch Manager in
Ibajay. Finally, in 1984, Masing Chan adopted the business name of Masing and Sons Development
Corporation (MSDC), appointing Wynne or Wayne Lim (Lim) as the Branch Manager in Ibajay. Crispin
Chan replaced his father, Masing Chan, in 1990 as the manager of the entire business.

In all that time, Rogelio worked as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch, along with twelve other employees. In
January 1974, Rogelio was reported for Social Security System (SSS) coverage. After paying
contributions to the SSS for more than 10 years, he became entitled to receive retirement benefits from
the SSS. Thus, in 1991, he availed himself of the SSS retirement benefits, and in order to facilitate the
grant of such benefits, he entered into an internal arrangement with Chan and MSDC to the effect that
MSDC would issue a certification of his separation from employment notwithstanding that he would
continue working as a laborer in the Ibajay Branch.

The certification reads as follows: [3]

ChanRobles Intellectual Property CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN - COPRA DEALER

Division IBAJAY, AKLAN

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 1/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
August 10, 1991

CERTIFICATION OF SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT

To whom it may concern:

This is to certify that my employee, GREGORIO P. ROGELIO bearing SSS ID No. 07-
0495213-7 who was first covered effective January, 1974 up to June 30, 1989 inclusive, is
now officially separated from my employ effective the 1st of July, 1989.

Please be guided accordingly.

(SGD.) CRISPIN AMIGO CHAN

Proprietor
SSS ID No. 07-0595800-4

On March 17, 1997, Rogelio was paid his last salary. Lim, then the Ibajay Branch Manager, informed
Rogelio that he was deemed retired as of that date. Chan confirmed to Rogelio that he had already
reached the compulsory retirement age when he went to the main office in Kalibo to verify his status.
Rogelio was then 67 years old.

Considering that Rogelio was supposedly receiving a daily salary of P70.00 until 1997, but did not receive
any 13th month pay, service incentive leave, premium pay for holidays and rest days and COLA, and
even any retirement benefit from MSDC upon his retirement in March 1997, he commenced his claim for
such pay and benefits.

In substantiation, Rogelio submitted the January 19, 1998 affidavits of his co-workers, namely: Domingo
Guevarra, [4] Juanito Palomata, [5] and Ambrosio Señeres, [6] whereby they each declared under oath
that Rogelio had already been working at the Ibajay Branch by the time that MSDC's predecessor had
hired them in the 1950s to work in that branch; and that MSDC and Chan had continuously employed
them until their own retirements, that is, Guevarra in 1994, and Palomata and Señeres in 1997. They
thereby corroborated the history of MSDC and the names of the various Branch Managers as narrated by
Rogelio, and confirmed that like Rogelio, they did not receive any retirement benefits from Chan and
MSDC upon their retirement.

July-2011 Jurisprudence                  In their defense, MSDC and Chan denied having engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, insisting that they
did not ever register in such business in any government agency. They asserted that Lim had not been
[G.R. No. 181035 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE
their agent or employee, because he had been an independent copra buyer. They averred, however, that
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL DION,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Rogelio was their former employee, hired on January 3, 1977 and retired on June 30, 1989; [7] and that
Rogelio was thereafter employed by Lim starting from July 1, 1989 until the filing of the complaint.
[G.R. No. 176061 : July 04, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BINGKY CAMPOS AND MSDC and Chan submitted the affidavit of Lim, whereby Lim stated that Rogelio was one of his
DANNY "BOY" ACABO, APPELLANTS. employees from 1989 until the termination of his services. [8] They also submitted SSS Form R-1A, Lim's
SSS Report of Employee-Members (showing that Rogelio and Palomata were reported as Lim's
[A.M. No. 2011-04-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: GROSS
VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW ON THE
employees); [9] Lim's application for registration as copra buyer; [10] Chan's affidavit; [11] and the
PROHIBITION AGAINST DUAL EMPLOYMENT AND affidavit of Guevarra [12] and Señeres, [13] whereby said affiants denied having executed or signed the
DOUBLE COMPENSATION IN THE GOVERNMENT January 19, 1998 affidavits submitted by Rogelio.
SERVICE COMMITTED BY MR. EDUARDO V. ESCALA,
SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY In his affidavit, Guevarra recanted the statement attributed to him that he had been employed by Chan
DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. and MSDC, and declared that he had been an employee of Lim. Likewise, Guevarra's daughter executed
an affidavit, [14] averring that his father had been an employee of Lim and that his father had not signed
[G.R. No. 183711 : July 05, 2011] EDITA T.
the affidavit dated January 19, 1998.
BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON,
JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. On April 5, 1999, the LA dismissed the complaint against Chan and MSDC, ruling thus:
JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL.
NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO,
DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, From said evidence, it is our considered view that there exists no employer-employee
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183712] EDITA T. BURGOS, relationship between the parties effective July 1, 1989 up to the date of the filing of the
PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL instant complaint complainant was an employee of Wynne O. Lim. Hence, his claim for
ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. retirement should have been filed against the latter for he admitted that he was the
ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, employer of herein complainant in his sworn statement dated June 9, 1998.
LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, LT. COL. NOEL
CLEMENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 183713] EDITA Complainant's claim for retirement benefits against herein respondents under RA No. 7641
T. BURGOS, PETITIONER, VS. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE has been barred by prescription considering the fact that it partakes of the nature of a
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN.
money claim which prescribed after the lapse of three years after its accrual.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., COMMANDING GENERAL
OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER
YANO; CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,
The rest of the claims are also dismissed for the same accrued during complainant's
DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR., employment with Wynne O. Lim.
RESPONDENTS.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
[A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC : July 05, 2011] RE: BREWING
CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS IN THE SO ORDERED. [15]
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [A.C. NO.
8292] ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M.
MARAMBA AND NASSER MAROHOMSALIC, Rogelio appealed, but the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA on January 28, 2000, observing that
COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, there could be no double retirement in the private sector; that with the double retirement, Rogelio would
ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, be thereby enriching himself at the expense of the Government; and that having retired in 1991, Rogelio
JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON AND RAYMUND JORGE A.
could not avail himself of the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 entitled An Act Amending Article 287
MERCADO, RESPONDENTS.
of Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The Labor Code Of The Philippines, By
[G.R. No. 171101 : July 05, 2011] HACIENDA Providing for Retirement Pay to Qualified Private Sector Employees in the Absence Of Any Retirement
LUISITA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA Plan in the Establishment, which took effect only on January 7, 1993. [16]
INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, The NLRC denied Rogelio's motion for reconsideration.
PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. PRESIDENTIAL
AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER Ruling of the CA
PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID
Rogelio commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, charging the NLRC with grave abuse of
NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL
discretion in denying to him the benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, and in rejecting his money claims
MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA [1] AND HIS
SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA,
on the ground of prescription.
INC. AND WINDSOR ANDAYA, RESPONDENTS.
On October 24, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision, [17] holding that Rogelio had substantially
[G. R. No. 190795 : July 06, 2011] NATIONAL established that he had been an employee of Chan and MSDC, and that the benefits under Republic Act
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICIY CONSUMERS FOR No. 7641 were apart from the retirement benefits that a qualified employee could claim under the Social
REFORMS, INC. (NASECORE), REPRESENTED BY Security Law, conformably with the ruling in Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 110861, November
PETRONILO ILAGAN; FEDERATION OF VILLAGE 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 105).
ASSOCIATIONS (FOVA), REPRESENTED BY
SIEFRIEDO VELOSO; AND FEDERATION OF LAS
The CA decreed:
PIÑAS VILLAGE (FOLVA), REPRESENTED BY
BONIFACIO DAZO, PETITIONERS, VS. ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) AND MANILA
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the public respondent NLRC is hereby
VACATED and SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 2/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
p p
ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. (MERALCO), computation of the retirement benefits of the petitioner based on Article 287 of the Labor
RESPONDENTS. Code, as amended, to be pegged at the minimum wage prevailing in Ibajay, Aklan as of
March 17, 1997, and attorney's fees based on the same. Without costs.
[G.R. No. 192235 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO LAYLO Y
SO ORDERED.
CEPRES, APPELLANT.

[G.R. No. 169196 : July 06, 2011] PETRA C.

Chan and MSDC's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
MARTINEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL
MANAGER, CLAVERIA AGRI-BASED MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FILOMENA L. Issues
VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 169198]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. In this appeal, Chan and MSDC contend that the CA erred: (a) in taking cognizance of Rogelio's petition
FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT. for certiorari despite the decision of the NLRC having become final and executory almost two months
before the petition was filed; (b) in concluding that Rogelio had remained their employee from July 6,
[G.R. No. 184253 : July 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF 1989 up to March 17, 1997; and (c) in awarding retirement benefits and attorney's fees to Rogelio.
THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE PHILIPPINE NAVY,
REPRESENTED BY CAPT. RUFO R. VILLANUEVA, Ruling
SUBSTITUTED BY CAPT. PANCRACIO O. ALFONSO,
AND NOW BY CAPT. BENEDICTO G. SANCEDA PN,
The petition for review is barren of merit.
PETITIONER, VS. CPO MAGDALENO PERALTA PN
(RET.), CPO ROMEO ESTALLO PN (RET.), CPO
ERNESTO RAQUION PN (RET.), MSGT SALVADOR
I
RAGAS PM (RET.), MSGT DOMINGO MALACAT PM Certiorari was timely commenced in the CA
(RET.), MSGT CONSTANTINO CANONIGO PM (RET.),
AND AMELIA MANGUBAT, RESPONDENTS. MSGT Anent the first error, the Court finds that the CA did not err in taking cognizance of the petition for
ALFREDO BANTOG PM (RET.), MSGT RODOLFO certiorari of Rogelio.
VELASCO PM (RET.), AND NAVY ENLISTEDMEN
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT- Based on the records, Rogelio received the NLRC's denial of his motion for reconsideration on January 16,
INTERVENORS. 2003. He then had 60 days from January 16, 2003, or until March 17, 2003, within which to file his
petition for certiorari. It is without doubt, therefore, that his filing was timely considering that the CA
[G.R. No. 175926 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE received his petition for certiorari at 2:44 o'clock in the afternoon of March 17, 2003.
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RESTITUTO
CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA,
The petitioners' insistence, that the issuance of the entry of judgment with respect to the NLRC's decision
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
precluded Rogelio from filing a petition for certiorari, was unwarranted. It ought to be without debate
[G.R. No. 192816 : July 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE that the finality of the NLRC's decision was of no consequence in the consideration of whether or not he
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOEL GASPAR Y could bring a special civil action for certiorari within the period of 60 days for doing so under Section 4,
WILSON, APPELLANT. Rule 65, Rules of Court, simply because the question being thereby raised was jurisdictional.

[G.R. No. 175457 : July 06, 2011] RUPERTO A. II

AMBIL, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND Respondent remained the petitioners'
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. employee despite his supposed separation
NO. 175482] VS. ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR.,
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Did Rogelio remain the employee of the petitioners from July 6, 1989 up to March 17, 1997?
RESPONDENT.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the
[G.R. No. 167284 : July 06, 2011] THE ESTATE OF
SOLEDAD MANINANG AND THE LAW FIRM OF respondent in that period was essentially a question of fact.[18] In dealing with such question, substantial
QUISUMBING TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE evidence - that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES a conclusion[19] - is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence
SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA* AND AGUSTIN of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted,
LADANGA,** AND BERNARDO ASENETA, [20] a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.
RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 160138 : July 13, 2011] AUTOMOTIVE Generally, the Court does not review errors that raise factual questions, primarily because the Court is
ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC. (AER), ANTONIO T. not a trier of facts. However, where, like now, there is a conflict between the factual findings of the Labor
[21]
INDUCIL, LOURDES T. INDUCIL, JOCELYN T. INDUCIL Arbiter and the NLRC, on the one hand, and those of the CA, on the other hand, it is proper, in the
AND MA. CONCEPCION I. DONATO, PETITIONERS, VS. exercise of our equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the
PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.
AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN,
RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA,
ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO MAINIT, JR.,
The CA delved on and resolved the issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, the petitioners and the respondent thusly:
CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA,
CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. PAPA,
WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL As to the factual issue, the petitioner's evidence consists of his own statements and those
GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, of his alleged co-worker from 1950 until 1997, Juanito Palomata, who unlike his former co-
JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, workers Domingo Guevarra and Ambrosio Señeres, did not disown the "Sinumpaang
JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Salaysay" he executed, in corroboration of petitioner's allegations; and the Certification
NO. 160192] PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA dated August 10, 1991 stating that petitioner was first placed under coverage of the SSS
MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E. in January 1974 to June 30, 1989 and was separated from service effective July 1, 1989, a
AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO II, EDUARDO S. certification executed by respondent Crispin Amigo Chan which, petitioner maintains, was
BRIZUELA, ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO only intended for his application for retirement benefits with the SSS.
MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B. MADAMBA, DANILO D.
QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO, ROGER V.
Private respondents' evidence, on the other hand, consisted of respondent Crispin Amigo
BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO
P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO,
Chan's counter statements as well as documentary evidence consisting of (1) Wayne Lim's
RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V. Affidavit which petitioner acknowledged in his Reply dated July 11, 1998, par. 8, admitting
LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., CRISANTO to being the employer of petitioner from July 1, 1989 until the filing of the complaint; (2)
LUMBAO, JR., AND RENATO SARABUNO, Certification dated October 22, 1991 showing petitioner's employment with respondents to
PETITIONERS, VS. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE have been between January 3, 1977 until July 1, 1989; (3) Affidavits of Guevarra and
REBUILDERS, INC., AND ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, Señeres disowning their signatures in the affidavits submitted in evidence by the
RESPONDENTS. petitioner; (4) SSS report executed by Wayne Lim of his initial list of employees as of July
1, 1989 which includes the petitioner. On appeal, the respondents further submitted
[G.R. No. 160088 : July 13, 2011] AGUSTIN P. documentary evidence showing that Wayne Lim registered his business name on July 11,
DELA TORRE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE 1989 and apparently went into business buying copra.
COURT OF APPEALS, CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION,
RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, PHILIPPINE TRIGON
At this point, we should note the following factual discrepancies in the evidence
SHIPYARD CORPORATION, AND ROLAND G. DELA
TORRE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 160565]
on hand: First, the respondents issued certificates stating the commencement of
PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION AND petitioner's employment on different dates, i.e. January 1974 and January 1977,
ROLAND G. DELA TORRE, PETITIONERS, VS. although the earlier date referred only to the period when petitioner was first
CRISOSTOMO G. CONCEPCION, AGUSTIN DELA TORRE placed under the coverage of the SSS, which need not necessarily refer to the
AND RAMON "BOY" LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS. commencement of his employment. Secondly, while respondent Crispin Amigo
Chan denied having ever engaged in copra buying in Ibajay, the certificates he
[G.R. No. 193003 : July 13, 2011] FRANCISCO issued both dated in 1991 state otherwise, for he declared himself as a "copra
IMSON Y ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE dealer" with address in Ibajay. Then there is the statement of the petitioner that
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. Wayne Lim was the respondents' manager in their branch office in Ibajay since
1984, a statement that respondents failed to disavow. Instead, respondents
[G.R. No. 185440 : July 13, 2011] VICELET
insisted on their non sequitur argument that they had never engaged in copra
LALICON AND VICELEN LALICON, PETITIONERS, VS.
buying activities in Ibajay, and that Wayne Lim was in business all by himself in
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.
regard to such activity.
[G.R. No. 186467 : July 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME The denial on respondents' part of their copra buying activities in Ibajay begs the obvious
GATLABAYAN Y BATARA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. question: What were petitioner and his witness Juanito Palomata then doing for
respondents as laborers in Ibajay prior to July 1, 1989? Indeed, what did petitioner do for
[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2284 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. the respondents as the latter's laborer prior to July 1, 1989, which was different from what
09-3304-RTJ] : July 13, 2011] SPOUSES SUR AND he did after said date? The records showed that he continued doing the same job, i.e. as
RITA VILLA AND LETICIA GOREMBALEM laborer and trusted employee tasked with the responsibility of getting money from the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 3/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
VALENZUELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. PRESIDING Kalibo office of respondents which was used to buy copra and pay the employees' salaries.
JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/ He did not only continue doing the same thing but he apparently did the same at or from
LEGAL RESEARCHER VIRGINIA M. BARTOLOME AND the same place, i.e. the bodega in Ibajay, which his co-worker Palomata believed to belong
SHERIFF IV CRISPIN S. CALSENIA, JR., ALL OF THE to the respondent Masing & Sons. Since respondents admitted to employing petitioner
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, SURALLAH,
from 1977 to 1989, we have to conclude that, indeed, the bodega in Ibajay was owned by
SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENTS.
respondents at least prior to July 1, 1989 since petitioner had consistently stated that he
[A.M. No. P-11-2945 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 11-
worked for the respondents continuously in their branch office in Ibajay under different
3590-P] : July 13, 2011] RE: LEAVE DIVISION, managers and nowhere else.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. We believe that the respondents' strongest evidence in regard to the alleged
FRANCISCO A. PUA, JR., CLERK OF COURT V, separation of petitioner from service effective July 1, 1989 would be the affidavit
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, LUCENA CITY, of Wayne Lim, owning to being the employer of petitioner since July 1, 1989 and
RESPONDENT. the SSS report that he executed listing petitioner as one of his employees since
said date. But in light of the incontrovertible physical reality that petitioner and
[G.R. No. 175091 : July 13, 2011] P/CHIEF his co-workers did go to work day in and day out for such a long period of time,
INSPECTOR FERNANDO BILLEDO, SPO3 RODRIGO doing the same thing and in the same place, without apparent discontinuity,
DOMINGO, PO3 JORGE LOPEZ, FERDINAND CRUZ,
except on paper, these documents cannot be taken at their face value. We note
AND MARIANO CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS.
that Wayne Lim apparently inherited, at least on paper, ten (10) employees of
WILHELMINA WAGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BRANCH III, PASAY
respondent Crispin Amigo Chan, including petitioner, all on the same day, i.e. on
CITY, PUBLIC RESPONDENT. ALBERTO MINA, NILO July 1, 1989. We note, too, that while there exists an initial report of employees
JAY MINA AND FERDINAND CAASI, PRIVATE to the SSS by Wayne Lim, no other document apart from his affidavit and
RESPONDENTS. business registration was offered by respondents to bolster their contention,
irrespective of the fact that Wayne Lim was not a party respondent. What were
[A.M. No. P-11-2946 [Formerly A.M. No. 11-5-52- the circumstances underlying such alleged mass transfer of employment?
MTCC] : July 13, 2011] RE: DROPPING FROM THE Unfortunately, the evidence for the respondents does not provide us with ready
ROLLS OF CORNELIO RENIETTE CABRERA, UTILITY answers. We could conclude that respondents sold their business in Ibajay and
WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, assets to Wayne Lim on July 1, 1989; however, as pointed out above, respondent
BRANCH 1, LIPA CITY. Crispin Amigo Chan himself said that he was a "copra dealer" from Ibajay in
August and October of 1991. Whether or not he was registered as a copra buyer
[G.R. No. 165487 : July 13, 2011] COUNTRY
is immaterial, given that he declared himself a "copra dealer" and had apparently
BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
VS. ANTONIO LAGMAN, RESPONDENT.
engaged in the activity of buying copra, as shown precisely by the employment of
petitioner and Palomata. If Wayne Lim, from being the respondents' manager in
[G.R. No. 153982 : July 18, 2011] SAN MIGUEL Ibajay became an independent businessman and took over the respondents'
PROPERTIES PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. business in Ibajay along with all their employees, why did not the respondents'
GWENDELLYN ROSE S. GUCABAN, RESPONDENT. simply state that fact for the record? More importantly, why did the petitioner
and Palomata continue believing that Wayne Lim was only the respondents'
[G.R. No. 116121 : July 18, 2011] THE HEIRS OF manager? Given the long employment of petitioner with the respondents, was it
THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., REPRESENTED BY possible for him and his witness to make such mistake? We do not think so. In
RUBEN REINOSO JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF case of doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of labor, in favor of the safety and
APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, AND decent living for the laborer as mandated by Article 1702 of the Civil Code. The
FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE
CORPORATION,** RESPONDENT. reality of the petitioner's toil speaks louder than words. xxx [22]

[G.R. No. 163551 : July 18, 2011] DATU KIRAM

SAMPACO, SUBSTITUTED BY HADJI SORAYA S. We agree with the CA's factual findings, because they were based on the evidence and records of the
MACABANDO, PETITIONER, VS. HADJI SERAD case submitted before the LA. The CA essentially complied with the guidepost that the substantiality of
MINGCA LANTUD, RESPONDENT. evidence depends on both its quantitative and its qualitative aspects.[23] Indeed, the records
substantially established that Chan and MSDC had employed Rogelio until 1997. In contrast, Chan and
[G.R. No. 163653 : July 19, 2011] COMMISSIONER MSDC failed to adduce credible substantiation of their averment that Rogelio had been Lim's employee
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST from July 1989 until 1997. Credible proof that could outweigh the showing by Rogelio to the contrary was
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. demanded of Chan and MSDC to establish the veracity of their allegation, for their mere allegation of
NO. 167689] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST
Rogelio's employment under Lim did not constitute evidence, [24] but they did not submit such proof,
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. sadly failing to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation. [25] In this regard, as
we pointed out at the start, the doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the
[G.R. No. 193007 : July 19, 2011] RENATO V. DIAZ laborer in any controversy between a laborer and his master.
AND AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL, PETITIONERS, VS. THE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER III
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS. Respondent entitled to retirement benefits
from the petitioners
[G.R. No. 187246 : July 20, 2011] EDWIN TABAO Y
PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, provides:
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 169594 : July 20, 2011] BIENVENIDO

BARRIENTOS, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO RAPAL,
Article 287. Retirement. - Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age
RESPONDENT. established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment
contract.
[G.R. No. 193723 : July 20, 2011] GENERAL
MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as
LIBRADO RAMOS AND REMEDIOS RAMOS, he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and
RESPONDENTS. other agreements; Provided, however, That an employee's retirement benefits under any
collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.
G.R. No. 181919 : July 20, 2011] JONES
INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, EDWARD G. CUE,
benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age
PETITIONER, VS. BELLA AGCAOILI-BARIT,
of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby
RESPONDENT.
declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in
[G.R. No. 166863 : July 20, 2011] GOVERNMENT the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. JUM equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a
ANGEL, RESPONDENT. fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.

[G.R. No. 192760 : July 20, 2011] JOJIT Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month
GARINGARAO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive
leaves.
[G.R. No. 167246 : July 20, 2011] GEORGE
LEONARD S. UMALE, PETITIONER, VS. CANOGA PARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten
(10) employees or workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision.
[G.R. No. 164050 : July 20, 2011] MERCURY DRUG
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions
INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. provided under Article 288 of this Code.

[G.R. No. 186227 : July 20, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLEN Was Rogelio entitled to the retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by
UDTOJAN MANTALABA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Republic Act No. 7641?

[A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. The CA held so in its decision, to wit:
08-2034-MTJ] : July 25, 2011] ATTY. CONRADO B.
GANDEZA, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA
CLARITA C. TABIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL Having reached the conclusion that petitioner was an employee of the respondents from
TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 4, BAGUIO CITY.
1950 to March 17, 1997, and considering his uncontroverted allegation that in the Ibajay
RESPONDENT.
branch office where he was assigned, respondents employed no less than 12 workers at
[G.R. No. 173259 : July 25, 2011] PHILIPPINE
said later date, thus affording private respondents no relief from the duty of providing
NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. F.F. CRUZ AND retirement benefits to their employees, we see no reason why petitioner should not be

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 4/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
CO., INC. RESPONDENT. entitled to the retirement benefits as provided for under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as
amended. The beneficent provisions of said law, as applied in Oro Enterprises Inc. v.
[G.R. No. 165777 : July 25, 2011] CEFERINA DE NLRC, is apart from the retirement benefits that can be claimed by a qualified employee
UNGRIA [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, under the social security law. Attorney's fees are also granted to the petitioner. But the
REPRESENTED BY LOLITA UNGRIA SAN JUAN-JAVIER, monetary benefits claimed by petitioner cannot be granted on the basis of the evidence at
AND RHODORA R. PELOMIDA AS THEIR ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT hand. [26]
OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 35,
ROSARIO DIDELES VDA. DE CASTOR, NEPTHALIE We concur with the CA's holding. The third paragraph of the aforequoted provision of the Labor Code
CASTOR ITUCAS, FEROLYN CASTOR FACURIB, entitled Rogelio to retirement benefits as a necessary consequence of the finding that Rogelio was an
RACHEL DE CASTOR, LEA CASTOR DOLLOLOSA, AND employee of MSDC and Chan. Indeed, there should be little, if any, doubt that the benefits under
ROSALIE CASTOR BENEDICTO, RESPONDENTS. Republic Act No. 7641, which was enacted as a labor protection measure and as a curative statute to
respond, in part at least, to the financial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following
[G.R. No. 152695 : July 25, 2011] VICTORIA their life of labor, can be extended not only from the date of its enactment but retroactively to the time
CLARAVALL, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, LORETO
the employment contracts started. [27]
CLARAVALL, PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO LIM,
ROBERTO LIM, AND ROGELIO LIM, RESPONDENTS.
WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and affirms the decision
[G.R. No. 151911 : July 25, 2011] EDGAR PAYUMO, promulgated on October 24, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No.75983.
REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO,
APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE SO ORDERED.
OMBUDSMAN, AND OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, DOMICIANO CABIGAO, NESTOR Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
DOMACENA, ROLANDO DOBLADO, ERNESTO
PAMPUAN, EDGARDO PRADO, ROMEO DOMINICO, Endnotes:
RAMON GARCIA, AND CARLOS PACHECO,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 154535] NESTOR
[1] Rollo, pp. 111-121; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (retired), with
DOMACENA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia (later Presiding Justice of the CA and a Member of the
AND EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, Court) and Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine (retired), concurring.
CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND
EXEQUIEL BONDE, RESPONDENTS. [2] Approved on December 9, 1992 and effective on January 7, 1993.

[A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC : July 26, 2011] RE:

[3] CA rollo, p. 48.
APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE AND TRAVEL
ABROAD OF PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCISCO P.
RABANG III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, [4] Id., pp. 44-45.
COTABATO CITY
[5] Id.
[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2261 (Formerly oca ipi No. 10-
3386- RTJ) : July 26, 2011] ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D.
[6] Id., pp. 46-47.
FERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANGELES S.
VASQUEZ, RESPONDENT.
[7] Id., p. 35.
[G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND
SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN [8] Id., p. 38.
CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGORIO P. ROGELIO,
RESPONDENT.
[9] Id., p. 36.

[G.R. No. 175485 : July 27, 2011] CASIMIRO

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. [10] Id., p. 37.
RENATO L. MATEO, RESPONDENT.
[11] Id., pp. 39-40.
[G.R. No. 175343 : July 27, 2011] LORETO LUGA
(DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY CELERINA LUGA - [12] Id., p. 51.
DECEASED (WIFE) AND CHILDREN NAMELY:
PURIFICACION LUGA-BIONG, ELIZABETH LUGA-
CABAÑA, ROSALIE LUGA-TANUTAN, LEDIA LUGA-GUY [13] Id.
AB, MARITESS LUGA-GRAVINO, NESTOR LUGA AND
DAVID LUGA. PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ELENA AND [14] Id., p. 52.
ROGELIO ARCIAGA, RESPONDENTS.
[15] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[G.R. No. 186417 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE
MIRANDILLA, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [16] Id., pp. 56-61.

[G. R. No. 172699 : July 27, 2011] ELECTROMAT [17] Supra, note 1.
MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIRIACO LAGUNZAD, IN HIS
[18] Lopez v. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 56, 64; Manila
CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, G.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 53, 58-59.
EMPLOYMENT; AND HON. HANS LEO J. CACDAC, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR [19] Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People's Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.)
RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009,
EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N 587 SCRA 724, 753.
NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA NG
ELECTROMAT-WASTO, PRIVATE RESPONDENT. [20] Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98368, December 15, 1993, 228

[G.R. No. 164679 : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF THE SCRA 473, 478.
OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ULDARICO P.
ANDUTAN, JR., RESPONDENT. [21] Lopez v. Bodega City, supra, p. 65; Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena, supra, p.
58; Tiu v. Pasaol, Sr., G.R. No. 139876, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 312, 319.
[A.M. NO. P-11-2944 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 10-
3342-P) : July 27, 2011] CAROL A. ABADIANO, [22] Rollo, pp.117-119.
CLEOFE ABADIANO-BONACHITA, RYAN M. ABADIANO
AND CHERRY MAE M. ABADIANO, COMPLAINANTS,
[23] Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance
VS. GENEROSO B. REGALADO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT. Co., Ltd., G.R. No.L-25291, March 10, 1977, 76 SCRA 50.

[G.R. No. 163252 : July 27, 2011] ABOSTA [24] Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997,
SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. 272 SCRA 793, 801; P.T. Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91622, April 6,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST
1993, 221 SCRA 19, 25.
DIVISION) AND ARNULFO R. FLORES, RESPONDENTS.
[25] Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996, 256
[G.R. No. 159101 : July 27, 2011] SPS. GONZALO T.
DELA ROSA & CRISTETA DELA ROSA, PETITIONERS, SCRA 84, 89.
VS. HEIRS OF JUAN VALDEZ AND SPOUSES
POTENCIANO MALVAR AND LOURDES MALVAR, [26] Rollo, p. 120.
RESPONDENTS.
[27]
Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 110861,
[G.R. No. 175291 : July 27, 2011] THE HEIRS OF
NICOLAS S. CABIGAS, NAMELY: LOLITA ZABATE
November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 105, 112.
CABIGAS, ANECITA C. CANQUE, DIOSCORO CABIGAS,
FIDEL CABIGAS, AND RUFINO CABIGAS,
PETITIONERS, VS. MELBA L. LIMBACO, LINDA L.
LOGARTA, RAMON C. LOGARTA, HENRY D. SEE,
FREDDIE S. GO, BENEDICT Y. QUE, AWG
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETROSA Back to Home | Back to Main

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 5/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND UNIVERSITY OF
CEBU BANILAD, INC., RESPONDENTS.
QUICK SEARCH
[A.M. No. P-11-2888 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.
09-3252-P) : July 27, 2011] GOLDEN SUN FINANCE
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY RACHELLE L.
MARMITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RICARDO R. ALBANO,
SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC), 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
BRANCH 62, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

[A.M. No. P-10-2852 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
09-3270-P) : July 27, 2011] OFFICE OF 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. LEDA O. URI, 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
ALAMINOS, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
[G.R. No. 178941 : July 27, 2011] JOSE ANSELMO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
I. CADIZ, LEONARD S. DE VERA, ROMULO A. RIVERA,
DANTE G. ILAYA, PURA ANGELICA Y. SANTIAGO, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
ROSARIO T. SETIAS-REYES, JOSE VICENTE B. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
SALAZAR, MANUEL M. MONZON, IMMANUEL L.
SODUSTA, CARLOS L. VALDEZ, JR., AND LYDIA A. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
NAVARRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 48, RTC-PUERTO PRINCESA
AND GLENN C. GACOTT, RESPONDENTS. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
[G.R. No. 164356 : July 27, 2011] HEIRS OF
MARGARITO PABAUS, NAMELY, FELICIANA P. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MASACOTE, MERLINDA P. CAILING, MAGUINDA P.
ARCLETA, ADELAIDA PABAUS, RAUL MORGADO AND
LEOPOLDO MORGADO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF
AMANDA YUTIAMCO, NAMELY, JOSEFINA TAN, AND
MOISES, VIRGINIA, ROGELIO, ERLINDA, ANA AND
ERNESTO,
RESPONDENTS.
ALL SURNAMED YUTIAMCO,
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
[G.R. No. 168251 : July 27, 2011] JESUS M.
MONTEMAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE D.
MILLORA, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 171868 : July 27, 2011] SPOUSES

FRANCISCO D. YAP AND WHELMA S. YAP,
PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND
NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO
AND REMEDIOS L. MAXINO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF
NEGROS ORIENTAL AND DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK,
INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171991] DUMAGUETE
RURAL BANK, INC. (DRBI) HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
MR. WILLIAM D.S. DICHOSO, PETITIONERS, VS.
SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. AND NATIVIDAD CHIU DY,
SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO AND REMEDIOS
MAXINO, AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP AND
WHELMA S. YAP, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 172506 : July 27, 2011] JERRY MAPILI,

PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES,
INC./NATIVIDAD NISCE, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 182042 : July 27, 2011] THUNDER

SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY/ LOURDES
M. LASALA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL FOOD
AUTHORITY (REGION I) AND NFA REGIONAL BIDS
AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (REGION I),
RESPONDENTS.

[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-

2498- RTJ) : July 27, 2011] NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
CYRIL DEL CALLAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE
SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY,
RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 180390 : July 27, 2011] PRUDENTIAL

BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 168105 : July 27, 2011] LAND BANK OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEVERINO
LISTANA, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 156686 : July 27, 2011] NEW SUN

VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY,
BARANGAY SUN VALLEY, PARAÑAQUE CITY,
ROBERTO GUEVARRA IN HIS CAPACITY AS PUNONG
BARANGAY AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG
BARANGAY, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 182551 : July 27, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSENDO
REBUCAN Y LAMSIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

[G.R. No. 153809 : July 27, 2011] ELOISA L.

TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA,
MUNICIPAL MAYOR, DOMINGO C. FLORES,
MUNICIPAL BUDGET OFFICER, ALICIA L. OLIMPO,
MUNICIPAL TREASURER, ANNALIZA L. BARABAT,
MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTANT, AMADOR B. ALUNIA,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, NENITA L. ERNACIO,
MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURIST, AMELIA C. SAMSON,
HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER IV, EDWIN E.
TOLENTINO, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER IV,
DOMINGO R. TENEDERO AND ROEL Z. MANARIN,
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB) MEMBERS, ALL FROM
CARMONA, CAVITE, RESPONDENTS.

[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2285 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.

10-3472-RTJ : July 27, 2011] MAYOR MACARIO T.
HUMOL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HILARION P.
CLAPIS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 6/7
7/22/2019 [G.R. No. 161787 : July 27, 2011] MASING AND SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CRISPIN CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GREGOR…
11th JUDICIAL REGION, NABUNTURAN, COMPOSTELA
VALLEY PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

 
Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011julydecisions.php?id=624 7/7