Grammar and Spelling Checker

Check your grammar, spelling, and punctuation instantly with Grammarly

Grammarly OPEN

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

October 2014 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Search Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > October 2014 Decisions > G.R. No.
203254, October 08, 2014 - DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,
Respondent.:
ChanRobles Professional Review,
Inc.
 G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014 - DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A.
ILAGAN, Respondent.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014

DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN, Respondent.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
DEC ISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated August 30,
2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 (RTC) in SP No. 12-71527, which
extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of respondent Police Superintendent
Neri A. Ilagan (Ilagan).

The Facts

In his Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data3 dated June 22, 2012, Ilagan alleged that
he and petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) were former common law partners. Sometime in July
2011, he visited Lee at the latter’s condominium, rested for a while and thereafter,proceeded to

ChanRobles CPA Review Online his office. Upon arrival, Ilagan noticed that his digital camera was missing.4 On August 23,
2011, Lee confronted Ilagan at the latter’s office regarding a purported sex video (subject
video) she discovered from the aforesaid camera involving Ilagan and another woman. Ilagan

denied the video and demanded Lee to return the camera, but to no avail.5 During the
confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall inside his office and walked

away.6 Subsequently, Lee utilized the said video as evidence in filing various complaints against

Ilagan, namely: (a) a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262,7 otherwise known
as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,” before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Makati; and (b) an administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the

National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).8 Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing the
subject video and threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM
and uploading it to the internet violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, and privacy
 but also that of the other woman, and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his favor is

warranted.9

Finding the petition prima facie meritorious, the RTC issued a Writ of Habeas Data10 dated
June 25, 2012, directing Lee to appear before the court a quo, and to produce Ilagan’s digital
camera, as well as the negative and/or original of the subject video and copies thereof, and to
file a verified written return within five (5) working days from date of receipt thereof.

In her Verified Return11 dated July 2, 2012, Lee admitted that she indeed kept the memory card
of the digital camera and reproduced the aforesaid video but averred that she only did so to
utilize the same as evidence in the cases she filed against Ilagan. She also admitted that her
relationship with Ilagan started sometime in 2003 and ended under disturbing circumstances in

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series August 2011, and that she only happened to discover the subject video when Ilagan left his
camera in her condominium. Accordingly, Lee contended that Ilagan’s petition for the issuance
of the writ of habeas data should be dismissed because: (a) its filing was only aimed at
suppressing the evidence against Ilagan in the cases she filed; and (b) she is not engaged in

the gathering, collecting, or storing of data regarding the person of Ilagan.12

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision13 dated August 30, 2012, the RTC granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data
in Ilagan’s favor, and accordingly, ordered the implementing officer to turn-over copies of the

subject video to him, and enjoined Lee from further reproducing the same.14

The RTC did not give credence to Lee’s defense that she is not engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data regarding the person of Ilagan, finding that her acts of reproducing
the subject video and showing it to other people, i.e., the NAPOLCOM officers, violated the
latter’s right to privacy in life and caused him to suffer humiliation and mental anguish. In this
relation, the RTC opined that Lee’s use of the subject video as evidence in the various cases
she filed against Ilagan is not enough justification for its reproduction. Nevertheless, the RTC
clarified that it is only ruling on the return of the aforesaid video and not on its admissibility

before other tribunals.15

Dissatisfied, Lee filed this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

SPONSORED SEARCHES

lee v ilagan 2014 The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the RTC correctly extended the
privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of Ilagan.
lee vs ilagan gr 203254 oct 8 2014
The Court’s Ruling
neri ilagan

lee vs ilagan case The petition is meritorious.

joy vs margate A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (Habeas Data Rule), was
conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available remedies, to address the
SPONSORED SEARCHES
extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances.16 It was
lee vs ilagan gr 203254 oct 8 2014 conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to

informational privacy of individuals,17 which is defined as “the right to control the collection,
lee vs ilagan case
maintenance, use, and dissemination of data about oneself.”18
supreme court decisions
As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data now stands as “a
court cases in 2014 remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated
or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
ang lee
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
SPONSORED SEARCHES
Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas Data
lee vs ilagan gr 203254 oct 8 2014
Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner
the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty
lee vs ilagan case
or security of the aggrieved party.” In other words, the petition must adequately show that
supreme court decisions there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,

liberty or security on the other .19 Corollarily, the allegations in the petition must be
court cases in 2014
supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the right to

how to draft a petition privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.20 In this relation, it bears pointing out that the
writ of habeas data will not issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when

the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague and doubtful.21

October-2014 Jurisprudence In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to
privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction
and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 (Formerly in the suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be
A.M. No. 00-2-86-RTC), October 07, uploaded in the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection between
2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. speculate or contrive versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing
EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR, jurisprudence on the matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so
CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent. much so that a failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as
in this case.
A.C. No. 7919, October 08, 2014 -
DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN, In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the petition would equally be
Complainant, v. ATTY. CASAN dismissible due to the inadequacy of the evidence presented. As the records show, all that
MACABANDING, Respondent. Ilagan submitted in support of his petition was his self-serving testimony which hardly meets
the substantial evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. This is because
A.M. No. P-14-3246 [Formerly A.M. nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually proceeded to commit any overt act towards the
OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3580-P], October end of violating Ilagan’s right to privacy in life, liberty or security. Nor would anything on record
15, 2014 - ATTY. RICO PAOLO R. even lead a reasonable mind to conclude22 that Lee was going to use the subject video in order
QUICHO, REPRESENTING BANK OF to achieve unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the public so as to ruin Ilagan’s
COMMERCE, Complainant, v. reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear in her testimony that the only reason why she
BIENVENIDO S. REYES, JR. , SHERIFF reproduced the subject video was to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and
IV, BRANCH 98, REGIONAL TRIAL
administrative cases that she filed against Ilagan.23 Hence, due to the insufficiency of the
COURT, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.
allegations as well as the glaring absence of substantial evidence, the Court finds it proper to
reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss the habeas data petition.
G.R. No. 205821, October 01,
2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the Regional
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRY DELA
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 in SP No. 12-71527is hereby REVERSED and SET
CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data filed by respondent
Appellant.
P/Supt. Neri A. Ilagan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

G.R. No. 188753, October 01,

SO ORDERED.
2014 - AM-PHIL FOOD CONCEPTS,
INC., Petitioner, v. PAOLO JESUS T.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.
PADILLA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 198528, October 13,

2014 - MAGSAYSAY MITSUI OSK Endnotes:
MARINE, INC. AND/OR MOL TANKSHIP
MANAGEMENT (ASIA) PTE LTD., 1 Rollo, pp. 3-37.
Petitioners, v. JUANITO G.
BENGSON,* Respondent. 2 Id. at 38-41. Penned by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
 A.M. No. P-14-3217 (Formerly OCA 3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 6-11.
IPI NO. 14-4252-RTJ), October 08,
2014 - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER, 4 Id. at 7.
Complainant, v. JUDGE CORAZON D.
SOLUREN, PRESIDING JUDGE, AND
5 Id. at 7. See also rollo, p. 38.
RABINDRANATH A. TUZON, LEGAL
RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF BRANCH
6 See records, Vol. I, p. 26.
91, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BALER,
AURORA, Respondents.
7 Entitled “AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,

G.R. No. 196005, October 01, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”

Appellee, v. CHARLIE FIELDAD, RYAN

8 Records, Vol. I, p. 7; rollo, p. 38.
CORNISTA, AND EDGAR PIMENTEL,
Appellants.
9 Records, Vol. I, pp. 8-9; rollo, p. 38.
G.R. No. 189358, October 08,
2014 - CENTENNIAL GUARANTEE 10 Records, Vol. I, p. 24; rollo, p. 50.
ASSURANCE CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL MOTORS 11 Records, Vol. I, pp. 26-29.
CORPORATION, RODRIGO T. JANEO,
JR., GERARDO GELLE, NISSAN
12 See id.; rollo, p. 38.
CAGAYAN DE ORO DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., JEFFERSON U. ROLIDA, AND
13 Rollo, pp. 38-41.
PETER YAP, Respondents.

14 Id. at 41.
G.R. No. 198636, October 08,
2014 - ESPERANZA C. CARINAN,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GAVINO 15 See id. at 40-41.
CUETO AND CARMELITA CUETO,
Respondents. 16 Manila Electric Company v. Lim, G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA
195, 202.
G.R. No. 183272, October 15,
2014 - SUN LIFE OF CANADA 17 Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA
(PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v.
211, 239.
SANDRA TAN KIT AND THE ESTATE
OF THE DECEASED NORBERTO TAN
18 See footnote 62 of Ople v. Torres, 354 Phil. 948, 979 (1998), citing Hancock, G.,
KIT, Respondents.
 “California’s Privacy Act: Controlling Government’s Use of Information?” 32
G.R. No. 198878, October 15, Stanford Law Review No. 5, p. 1001 (May 1980).
2014 - RESIDENTS OF LOWER ATAB
& TEACHERS’ VILLAGE, STO. TOMAS 19 Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 385, 400.
PROPER BARANGAY, BAGUIO CITY,
REPRESENTED BY BEATRICE T. 20 Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 17, at 239-240.
PULAS, CRISTINA A. LAPPAO.
MICHAEL MADIGUID, FLORENCIO
21 See Manila Electric Company v. Lim, supra note 16, at 202-203, citing Castillo v.
MABUDYANG AND FERNANDO
Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 628, 636-637.
DOSALIN, Petitioners, v. STA.
MONICA INDUSTRIAL &
22 “Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a
Respondent.
mere scintilla of evidence.” (Miro v. Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532
and 172544-45, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 371, 388.)
G.R. No. 185745, October 15,
2014 - SPOUSES DOMINADOR
23 See records, Vol. II, pp. 259-265 and 272-275.
MARCOS AND GLORIA MARCOS,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO
BANGI AND GENOVEVA DICCION,
REPRESENTED BY NOLITO SABIANO,
Respondents.
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 193650, October 08,
2014 - GEORGE PHILIP P. PALILEO
AND JOSE DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners,
v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 190161, October 13,

2014 - ANITA N. CANUEL, FOR
HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER
MINOR CHILDREN, NAMELY:
CHARMAINE, CHARLENE, AND CHARL
SMITH, ALL SURNAMED CANUEL,
Petitioners, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME
CORPORATION, EDUARDO U.
MANESE, AND KOTANI
SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 176492, October 20,

2014 - MARIETTA N. BARRIDO,
Petitioner, v. LEONARDO V. NONATO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 197228, October 08,

2014 - DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY HON.
ANSELMO G. ADRIANO, ACTING
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUE
REGION NO. 8, MAKATI CITY,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 197380, October 08,

2014 - ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS,*
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN
FACT, NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners,
v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-
GRAN** AND REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF MARIKINA CITY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191225, October 13,

2014 - ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 203583, October 13,

2014 - LEONORA B. RIMANDO,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES WINSTON AND
ELENITA ALDABA AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 187240, October 15,
2014 - CARLOS A. LORIA, Petitioner,
v. LUDOLFO P. MUÑOZ, JR.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 204800, October 14,

2014 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ATTY.
JOSEPHINE A. TILAN, REGIONAL
CLUSTER DIRECTOR AND MR.
ROBERTO G. PADILLA, STATE
AUDITOR IV, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191838, October 20,

2014 - YKR CORPORATION, MA.
TERESA J. YULO-GOMEZ, JOSE
ENRIQUE J. YULO, MA. ANTONIA J.
YULO-LOYZAGA, JOSE MANUEL J.
YULO, MA. CARMEN J. YULO AND
JOSE MARIA J. YULO, Petitioners, v.
PHILIPPINE AGRI-BUSINESS CENTER
CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R.
No. 191863 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
AGRI-BUSINESS CENTER
CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192518, October 15,

2014 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
TELEPHONE COMPANY AND/OR
ERNANI TUMIMBANG, Petitioners, v.
HENRY ESTRANERO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 194884, October 22,

2014 - IMASEN PHILIPPINE
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. RAMONCHITO T. ALCON
AND JOANN S. PAPA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 186223, October 01,

2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND
REFINING CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 191101, October 01,

2014 - SPOUSES MARIO OCAMPO
AND CARMELITA F. OCAMPO,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO
U. DIONISIO, REPRESENTED BY
ARTEMIO SJ. DIONISIO,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3271 [formerly OCA

IPI No. 11-3640-P], October 22, 2014
- ATTY. ALAN A. TAN, Complainant, v.
ELMER S. AZCUETA, PROCESS
SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 188066, October 22,

2014 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA E. CABEROY,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 192150, October 01,

2014 - FEDERICO SABAY, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 195832, October 01,

2014 - FORMERLY INC
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED
(NOW INC NAVIGATION CO.
PHILIPPINES, INC.), REYNALDO M.
RAMIREZ AND/OR INTERORIENT
NAVIGATION CO., LTD./LIMASSOL,
CYPRUS, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN I.
ROSALES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 191034, October 01,

2014 - AGILE MARITIME RESOURCES
INC., ATTY. IMELDA LIM BARCELONA
AND PRONAV SHIP MANAGEMENT,
INC., Petitioners, v. APOLINARIO N.
SIADOR, Respondent.

A.M. NO. P-09-2691 (FORMERLY

A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-3040-P),
October 13, 2014 - IRENEO GARCIA,
RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY,
Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT IV
ATTY. MONALISA A. BUENCAMINO,
RECORDS OFFICER II JOVITA P.
FLORES AND PROCESS SERVER
SALVADOR F. TORIAGA, ALL OF
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.; A.M.
No. P-09-2687 (Formerly A.M. OCA
IPI No. 09-3093-P) - EXECUTIVE
JUDGE MARIAM G. BIEN,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 53, CALOOCAN CITY,
Complainant, v. IRENEO GARCIA,
RECORDS OFFICER I AND SALVADOR
F. TORIAGA, PROCESS SERVER,
BOTH OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, CALOOCAN CITY,
Respondents.; A.M. NO. P-14-3247
(FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-
3238-P) - CLERK OF COURT IV ATTY.
MONALISA A. BUENCAMINO,
RECORDS OFFICER II JOVITA P.
FLORES, AND PROCESS SERVER
SALVADOR F. TORIAGA OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
CALOOCAN CITY, Complainants, v.
IRENEO GARCIA AND UTILITY
WORKER I HONEYLEE VARGAS
GATBUNTON-GUEVARRA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 192573, October 22,

2014 - RICARDO N. AZUELO,
Petitioner, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 192026, October 01,

2014 - AUTOMAT REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LITO
CECILIA AND LEONOR LIM,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MARCIANO
DELA CRUZ, SR. AND OFELIA DELA
CRUZ, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3252 [Formerly OCA

IPI No. 08-2960-P], October 14, 2014
- JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL H. ALANO,
Complainant, v. PADMA L. SAHI,
COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MALUSO,
BASILAN, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 172505, October 01,
2014 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA,
Petitioner, v. FERRO CHEMICALS,
INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 174938, October 01,

2014 - GERARDO LANUZA, JR. AND
ANTONIO O. OLBES, Petitioners, v. BF
CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA
PROPERTIES, INC., ALFREDO C.
RAMOS, RUFO B. COLAYCO, MAXIMO
G. LICAUCO III, AND BENJAMIN C.
RAMOS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 206234, October 22,

2014 - HEIRS OF JULIO
SOBREMONTE AND FELIPA LABAPIS
SOBREMONTE, NAMELY, MARIA
LOURDES SOBREMONTE DE NORBE,
DIOSCORA SOBREMONTE DE
BUSLON, NESTOR L. SOBREMONTE,
AVELINA SOBREMONTE DE
DELIGERO, HELEN SOBREMONTE DE
CABASE, LAURA SOBREMONTE DE
DAGOY AND RODULFO LABAPIS
REPOLLO, ALL REPRESENTED BY
AVELINA SOBREMONTE DELIGERO
AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
HONORABLE VIRGILIO REYES, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
AND FELICIANO TAPIL, MARCELO
BAYNO, VICENTE BAYNO, ROMUALDO
DIAPANA, HILARIO RECTA, NEMESIA
RECTA, POLICARPIO RECTA, AMPARO
R. DIAPANA, BASILIO SAYSON
BUENAVENTURA BAYNO AND
BASILIO BAFLOR, Respondent.

G.R. No. 163654, October 08,

2014 - BPI EXPRESS CARD
CORPORATION,* Petitioner, v. MA.
ANTONIA R. ARMOVIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 164277, October 08,

2014 - FE U. QUIJANO, Petitioner, v.
ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 183700, October 13,

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLITO ANDAYA
Y REANO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 169568, October 22,

2014 - ROLANDO ROBLES,
REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CLARA C.
ESPIRITU, Petitioner, v. FERNANDO
FIDEL YAPCINCO, PATROCINIO B.
YAPCINCO, MARIA CORAZON B.
YAPCINCO, AND MARIA ASUNCION B.
YAPCINCO-FRONDA, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3278 [Formerly A.M.

OCA IPI No. 09-3222-P], October 21,
2014 - CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
NAVAL, BILIRAN, Complainants, v.
FLORANTE F. RALAR, COURT
STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 37, CAIBIRAN,
BILIRAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200857, October 22,

2014 - FVR SKILLS AND SERVICES
EXPONENTS, INC. (SKILLEX),
FULGENCIO V. RANA AND MONINA R.
BURGOS, Petitioners, v. JOVERT
SEVA, JOSUEL V. VALENCERINA,
JANET ALCAZAR, ANGELITO AMPARO,
BENJAMIN ANAEN, JR., JOHN HILBERT
BARBA, BONIFACIO BATANG, JR.,
VALERIANO BINGCO, JR., RONALD
CASTRO, MARLON CONSORTE,
ROLANDO CORNELIO, EDITO
CULDORA, RUEL DUNCIL, MERV1N
FLORES, LORD GALISIM, SOTERO
GARCIA, JR., REY GONZALES, DANTE
ISIP, RYAN ISMEN, JOEL JUNIO,
CARLITO LATOJA, ZALDY MARRA,
MICHAEL PANTANO, GLENN PILOTON,
NORELDO QUIRANTE, ROEL RANCE,
RENANTE ROSARIO AND LEONARDA
TANAEL, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-09-2673 (A.M. OCA IPI

No. 00-857-P), October 21, 2014 -
FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR, Petitioner, v.
PAUL M. RESURRECCION AND
MARICAR M. EUGENIO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 166441, October 08,

2014 - NORBERTO CRUZ Y
BARTOLOME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 175507, October 08,

2014 - RAMON CHING AND PO WING
PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v.
JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG,
MERCEDES IGNE1 AND LUCINA
SANTOS, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 183421, October 22,
2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. AICHI
FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208169, October 08,

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD
ADRIANO Y SALES, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 204964, October 15,

2014 - REMIGIO D. ESPIRITU AND
NOELAGUSTIN, Petitioners, v.
LUTGARDA TORRES DEL ROSARIO
REPRESENTED BY SYLVIA R.
ASPERILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 190021, October 22,

2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BURMEISTER
AND WAIN SCANDINAVIAN
CONTRACTOR MINDANAO, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 173988, October 08,

2014 - FELINA ROSALDES, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 200454, October 22,

2014 - HOLY TRINITY REALTY &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ,
LORENZO MANALAYSAY, RICARDO
MARCELO, JR. AND LEONCIO DE
GUZMAN, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 191090, October 13,
2014 - EXTRAORDINARY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. HERMINIA F. SAMSON-
BICO AND ELY B. FLESTADO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 160107, October 22,

2014 - SPOUSES JAIME SEBASTIAN
AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN,
Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY BANK, INC.,
CARMELITA ITAPO AND BENJAMIN
HAO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 187702, October 22,

2014 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
OMICO CORPORATION, EMILIO S.
TENG AND TOMMY KIN HING TIA,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 189014 -
ASTRA SECURITIES CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. OMICO CORPORATION,
EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN
HING TIA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 166414, October 22,

2014 - GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR.
FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners, v.
HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR.
VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR.,
(AS PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN,
BULACAN, BR. 1) AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 187581, October 20,
2014 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v.
BASIC POLYPRINTERS AND
PACKAGING CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 197442, October 22,

2014 - MAJESTIC FINANCE AND
INVESTMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v.
JOSE D. TITO, Respondent.;
CORNELIO MENDOZA AND PAULINA
CRUZ, Petitioners-Intervenors, v.
JOSE NAZAL AND ROSITA NAZAL,
Respondents-Intervenors.

G.R. No. 167225, October 22,

2014 - RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK,
INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MAXIMO
R. AMURAO III, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192912, October 03,

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMOCRITO
PARAS, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 205249, October 15,

2014 - SPOUSES BENEDICT AND
SANDRA MANUEL, Petitioners, v.
RAMON ONG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208976, October 13,

2014 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v.
LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR.
Respondent.
 G.R. No. 207629, October 22,
2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL VILLALBA
Y DURAN AND RANDY VILLALBA Y
SARCO, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 181760, October 14,

2014 - ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA,
JR., MNSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL
OFFICE NO. XVI, CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, AUTONOMOUS REGION
IN MUSLIM MINDANAO, COTABATO
CITY, Petitioner, v. DR. SANGCAD D.
BENITO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 196315, October 22,

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO
CATAYTAY Y SILVANO, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 201565, October 13,

2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EX-MAYOR
CARLOS ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR
REINARIO “REY” ESTONILO,
EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A.
“EDEL ESTONILO,” EUTIQUIANO
ITCOBANES A.K.A. “NONONG
ITCOBANES,” NONOY ESTONILO-AT
LARGE, TITING BOOC-AT LARGE,
GALI ITCOBANES-AT LARGE,
ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM
A.K.A. “NEGRO MATERDAM,” AND
CALVIN DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “BULLDOG
DELA CRUZ,” Accused, - EX-MAYOR
CARLOS ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR
REINARIO “REY” ESTONILO,
EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A.
“EDEL ESTONILO,” EUTIQUIANO
ITCOBANES A.K.A. “NONONG
ITCOBANES,” AND CALVIN DELA
CRUZ A.K.A. “BULLDOG DELA CRUZ,”
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 187061, October 08,

2014 - CELERINA J. SANTOS,
Petitioner, v. RICARDO T. SANTOS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 188801, October 15,

2014 - ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND
JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M.
CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO
M. CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M.
CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSE MARIA
JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA
MARIA REGINA GREGORIO,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3237 [Formerly OCA

IPI No. 09-3256-P], October 21, 2014
- JEAN PAUL V. GILLERA, SUZETTE P.
GILLERA, ATTY. JILLINA M.
GERODIAS, AND IBARRA BARCEBAL,
Complainants, v. MARIA CONSUELO
JOIE A. LEONEN, AND FAJARDO,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 177332, October 01,

2014 - NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CITY OF
CABANATUAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CITY MAYOR, HON. HONORATO
PEREZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 188487, October 22,

2014 - VAN D. LUSPO, Petitioner, v,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 188541 -
SUPT. ARTURO H. MONTANO AND
MARGARITA B. TUGAOEN, Petitioners,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 188556 -
C/INSP. SALVADOR C. DURAN, SR.,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203254, October 08,

2014 - DR. JOY MARGATE LEE,
Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 164686, October 22,

2014 - FOREST HILLS GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v.
GARDPRO, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 173548, October 15,

2014 - ONOFRE ANDRES,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS,
NAMELY: FERDINAND, ROSALINA,
ERIBERTO, FROILAN, MA. CLEOFE,
NELSON, GERMAN, GLORIA,
ALEXANDER, MAY, ABRAHAM, AND
AFRICA, ALL SURNAMED ANDRES,
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 176935-36, October 20,

2014 - ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY,
JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ (PRESIDENT),
ISAIAS Q. VIDUA (VICE-PRESIDENT),
VICENTE M . BARRETO (SECRETARY),
JOSE M. SANTIAGO (TREASURER),
JOSE NASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN D.
FERNANDEZ AND HONORIO L. DILAG,
JR. (MEMBERS), Petitioners, v.
CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA),
REPRESENTED BY DOMINADOR
GALLARDO, DAVID ESPOSO,
CRISTITA DORADO, EDWIN CORPUZ,
E. ROGER DOROPAN, JOSEFINA
RAMIREZ, FERNANDO BOGNOT, JR.,
CARMELITA DE GUZMAN, MAXIMO DE
LOS SANTOS, AURELIO FASTIDIO,
BUENAVENTURA CELIS, ROBERTO
LADRILLO, CORAZON ACAYAN,
CARLITO CARREON, EDUARDO
GARCIA, MARCIAL VILORIA, FILETO
DE LEON AND MANUEL LEANDER,
Respondents; ZAMBALES II
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ (PRESIDENT),
ISAIAS Q. VIDUA (VICE-PRESIDENT),
VICENTE M . BARRETO (SECRETARY),
JOSE M. SANTIAGO (TREASURER),
JOSE NASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN D.
FERNANDEZ AND HONORIO L. DILAG,
JR. (MEMBERS), Petitioners, v.
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION
ADMINISTRATION (NEA) NEA-OFFICE
OF THE ADMINISRATIVE COMMITTEE,
ENGR. PAULINO T. LOPEZ AND
CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA),
Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz