Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence Contact Us

June 2021 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review Philippine Supreme Court
Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2021 > June 2021 Decisions
> G.R. No. 219506 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, ISABELA, REPRESENTED
BY MUNICIPAL MAYOR CRISPINA R. AGCAOILI, M.D., AND ATTY. ALFREDO S.
REMIGIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE MUNICIPAL LEGAL OFFICER, Petitioners,
v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent. :
 G.R. No. 219506 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, ISABELA, REPRESENTED
BY MUNICIPAL MAYOR CRISPINA R. AGCAOILI, M.D., AND ATTY. ALFREDO S.
REMIGIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE MUNICIPAL LEGAL OFFICER, Petitioners,
v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent.

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 219506, June 23, 2021

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, ISABELA, REPRESENTED BY

MUNICIPAL MAYOR CRISPINA R. AGCAOILI, M.D., AND ATTY.
ALFREDO S. REMIGIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE MUNICIPAL LEGAL
OFFICER, Petitioners, v. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Respondent.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J.:

This Court, despite its vast powers, will not review the wisdom or propriety of
governmental policies, but will strike them down only on either of these two
(2) grounds: (1) unconstitutionality or illegality and/or (2) grave abuse of
discretion. The courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to
legislative enactments including municipal ordinances. This presumption may
be set aside only when invalidity or unreasonableness appears on the face of
 the ordinance, or is established by proper evidence. Through this case, the
Court reiterates that the burden to establish the law's invalidity rests upon
June-2021 Jurisprudence the party challenging the same. Without dismantling the presumption of
validity, the Court will not interfere with legislative acts and will respect the
judgment of the local authorities as regards their ordinances.
G.R. No. 200658 - SALVACION
The Case
A. LAMADRID, Petitioner, v.
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) seeks to reverse and set
LIMITED AND VIVIAN LO,
aside the Decision dated 13 February 20152 and the Resolution dated 18
Respondents.
June 20153 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136173. The CA

G.R. No. 231902 - DENNIS in its Decision affirmed the Order dated 08 May 20144 of Branch 19, Regional

OLIVER CASTRONUEVO LUNA, Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela in SCA Case No. 20-541.
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Antecedents
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
On 27 June 2005, petitioner Municipality of San Mateo, Isabela (petitioner)
G.R. No. 207418 - ROSELLA enacted Ordinance No. 2005-491 (subject Ordinance) entitled, "An Ordinance
BARLIN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF imposing Regulatory Fee known as Annual Antenna/Tower Fee for the
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Operation if All Citizens Ban (CB), Very High Frequency (VHF), Ultra High
Frequency (UHF) and Cellular Sites/Relay Stations Within the Municipality"
G.R. No. 206667 - GUILLERMA pursuant to its power under Section 186 of Republic Act No. (RA) 71605 or
S. SILVA, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA the Local Government Code of 1991(LGC) to levy other taxes, fees or
S. LO, Respondent.
charges within its jurisdiction.6

G.R. No. 248306 - REPUBLIC Pursuant to the subject Ordinance, an annual fee is imposed for the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, operation of antenna cell sites/relay stations, which include: (1) antenna
v. SCIENCE PARK OF THE tower. base for citizen's band radio (Php10,000.00); (2) antenna mast
PHILIPPINES, INC., REP. BY ITS base/tower for ultra high frequency/very high frequency discs for
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT transmitters and receivers (Php50,000.000); and (3) tower sites for cell
AND GEN. MANAGER, MR. site/relay station (Php200,000.00).7
RICHARD ALBERT I. OSMOND, Petitioner conducted public and committee hearings in relation to the subject
Respondents. ordinance on 09 May 2005, for which the Santiago City Branch of respondent
Smart Communications, Inc. (SCI) was duly notified. Upon conclusion of the
G.R. No. 252467 - FRANK hearing, the Committee on Rules and Amendments and Ways and Means
COLMENAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS recommended the adoption of the subject Ordinance in its Report addressed
AN HEIR OF THE LATE to the Sangguniang Bayan of petitioner.8
FRANCISCO COLMENAR,
Petitioner, v. APOLLO A. The subject ordinance was then adopted and published in the 18-24 July

COLMENAR, JEANNIE COLMENAR 2005 issue of City Star, a newspaper of local circulation within Region 2, in

MENDOZA, VICTORIA JET accordance with Section 188 of the LGC. The same was thereafter forwarded

COLMENAR, PHILIPPINE ESTATES to the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Isabela for validation and

CORPORATION, AMAIA LAND was thus validated on 21 November 2006.9

CORPORATION, CRISANTA
After the subject Ordinance came into effect, Notices of Assessment were
REALTY DEVELOPMENT
sent to SCI and other affected businesses in the municipality. SCI was
CORPORATION, PROPERTY
required to pay the tower fee of Php200,000.00 per year. Despite the receipt
COMPANY OF FRIENDS, AND THE
of said notices, SCI failed to pay the assessed fees. SCI was then sent
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE
demand letters dated 14 July 2010, 31 July 2010 and 23 February 2011 for
PROVINCE OF CAVITE,
the collection of the unpaid fees.10 The SCI, however, filed a Petition for
Respondents.
Certiorari with application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC-Branch 19 on 13 July 2011 assailing
G.R. No. 246284 - PEOPLE OF
the validity of the subject ordinance. The case was thereafter raffled to RTC-
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANDANAR Y Branch 20.11

SIENDO ALIAS "KOKAK" AND

On 16 October 2012, the RTC-Branch 20 issued a TRO, but eventually, it
MARY JANE GARBO Y
dismissed the petition in its Order dated 14 June 2013 for SCI's failure to
MARIPOSQUE, Accused-
exhaust the administrative remedies provided by law.12 SCI filed a Motion for
Appellants.
Reconsideration and a Motion to Inhibit on 22 July 2013 which was granted.

G.R. No. 247702 - ANTONIO D. Thereafter, the petition was transferred to RTC-Branch 19.13

ORLANES, Petitioner, v. STELLA

An Order was issued by RTC-Branch 19 on 08 May 2014 granting SCI's
MARRIS SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC.,
petition and declaring the subject Ordinance as null and void.14 It ruled that
FAIRPORT SHIPPING CO., LTD., exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with since the only
AND/OR DANILO NAVARRO, issue to be resolved is a purely legal one. However, while petitioner may
Respondents. indeed impose the instant regulatory fee, the RTC-Branch 19 pronounced the
amount as arbitrary because there was no explanation as to its
G.R. No. 248401 - PHILIPPINE composition.15
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION AND ATTY. LUIS F. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.

SISON, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL

Ruling of the CA
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ELIZABETH N. LOPEZ-DE LEON, On 13 February 2015,16 the CA denied the appeal, viz:
JANICE DAY E. ALEJANDRINO,
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is
SABINO B. BASSIG, CRISANTO D.
hereby DENIED. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan
CALIMAG, GEMMA C. CORDERO,
City, Isabela, Branch 20, dated May 8, 2014 in SCA Case No. 20-
JAIME C. DELA CRUZ, ROSALYN
541 which declared as null and void Municipal Ordinance No.
S. DELIVIOS, FELIX M. ERECE,
2005-491 is hereby AFFIRMED.
JR., DEMOSTHENES F.
FAMINIANO, LOIDA G.
SO ORDERED.17
HERNANDEZ, ALMA S. HUGO,
RONALD E. JAVIER, MARK D. In denying the appeal, the CA held that: (1) the subject Ordinance is a tax
LAGO, ALVIN NICOL D. measure and not a regulatory fee; (2) non-exhaustion of administrative
LIBONGCO, FREDERICK CHARLES remedies is excused since the issues pertain exclusively to legal questions,
Y. LIM, VIRGINIA G. MADRONA, and (3) the tax which petitioner seeks to impose is unjust, excessive and
ANTONIO C. MANLAWE, FLERIDA confiscatory.18
A. MEJORADA, RENATO M.
The CA ruled that the rates provided in the subject ordinance do not
MONSATO, YOLANDA C. MORTEL,
correspond to the proviso under Section 143 of the LGC which requires the
VENJIE E. NAMOCATCAT, DOLLY
schedule of the graduated tax rates to be within the confines of the rates
C. NEPOMUCENO, AMANDO M.
prescribed therein. Neither was there any justification to the amount required
ORALLO, VEGNETTE U. PACO,
MOSES M. PANGILINAN, MIRIAM by the subject Ordinance.19

M. PASETES, HENRY B. SALAZAR,

ARNNE NOBERT C. SILVESTRE,
ELMER M. SIMBULAN, JEAN P. SCI's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated
TALUSAN, SUSAN R. VALES, AND 18 June 2015.20 Hence, this Petition.
PAUL C. VICENTE, Respondents.
Issues

G.R. No. 244816 - MELPIN A.

Aggrieved by the CA's Decision, petitioner is now before the Court raising the
GONZAGA, FOR HIMSELF, AND
following issues: (1) whether or not the CA erred in entertaining SCI's appeal
ON BEHALF OF ELOISA A. LIM,
considering its failure to exhaust administrative remedies and (2) whether or
SHIRLEY S. ONG, SOCORRO R.
not the CA erred in ruling that Municipal Ordinance No. 2005-491 is unjust,
QUIRINO, ARACELI E.
excessive and confiscatory.21
VILLANUEVA, RUBY C. TUASON,
VICTORIA C. BERCILES AND Ruling of the Court
ANTONIO A. BERNARDO,
Petitioner insists that SCI should have questioned the validity of the subject
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
Ordinance through an appeal filed with the Secretary of Justice and not with
AUDIT, Respondent.
the courts.22 Petitioner likewise claims that SCI failed to prove its bare

G.R. No. 249459 - PEOPLE OF allegations that the subject Ordinance is unjust and excessive. Further, the

THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. amount imposed, i.e., Php200,000.00, is only 2% of SCI's gross sales

NOEL SABATER Y ULAN, (Php10,000,000.00) in the preceding calendar year, in line with Section 143

Respondent. (h) of the LGC. At any rate, SCI should have presented evidence that its
gross sales does not exceed Php10,000,000.00 so as to prove that the

G.R. No. 250584 - Php200,000.00-fee does not comply with the LGC.23
CHRISTOPHER C. CALERA,
On the other hand, SCI maintains that the imposition of tower fees, being a
Petitioner, v. HOEGH FLEET
regulatory measure, is legally infirm as it involves excessive fees. SCI is
SERVICES PHILIPPINES,
likewise adamant that there is no need to exhaust administrative remedies
INCORPORATED, Respondent.
since the issue involved is purely a legal question.24

G.R. No. 245368 - DARREL

The Court ultimately rules for petitioner, albeit for different reasons. The
JOHN PINGA Y TOLENTINO ALIAS
findings of the Court shall be discussed in seriatim.
"DJ," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. The fees imposed under
Ordinance No. 2005-491 are
 G.R. No. 252195 - JOLLY R. not taxes; exhaustion of
CARANDAN, Petitioner, v. DOHLE administrative remedies is
SEAFRONT CREWING MANILA, unnecessary
INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED, AND
Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[e]ach local
PRINCES DULATRE, Respondents.
government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and
G.R. No. 187323 - INTER-
limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of
ISLAND INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the
INC., REPRESENTED BY JESSIE
local government." Consistent with this constitutional mandate, the LGC
TAN TING, Petitioner, v. COURT
grants the taxing powers to each local government unit. Specifically, Section
OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH
142 of the LGC grants municipalities the power to levy taxes, fees, and
DIVISION (FORMER TENTH
charges not otherwise levied by provinces. Section 143 of the LGC provides
DIVISION) AND CHAM Q. IBAY
Respondent. for the scale of taxes on business that may be imposed by municipalities25

while Section 14726 of the same law provides for the fees and charges that
G.R. No. 250523 - ATCI may be imposed by municipalities on business and occupation.27
OVERSEAS CORPORATION AND
AMALIA G. IKDAL, Petitioners, v. The term "taxes" has been defined by case law as "the enforced proportional

ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., contributions from persons and property levied by the state for the support

Respondent. of government and for all public needs." While, under the LGC, a "fee" is
defined as "any charge fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or

G.R. No. 202466 - EDUARDO inspection of a business or activity."28

G. JOVERO, Petitioner, vs.
From the foregoing jurisprudential and statutory definitions, it can be
ROGELIO CERIO, JESUS ALBURO,
gleaned that the purpose of an imposition will determine its nature as either
JR., GIL CLAVECILLAS, DOMINGO
a tax or a fee. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is at least
ZEPEDA, RAUL CLERIGO,
one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly
DOMINGO CANTES, MARCELINO
classified as an exercise of the power to tax. On the other hand, if the
COPINO, CEAZAR CA�EZO,
purpose is primarily to regulate, then it is deemed an exercise of police
LEVY LEGAZPI, EUSTAQUIO
power in the form of a fee, even though revenue is incidentally generated.
RANGASA, ELMAR CONVENCIDO,
Simply stated, if generation of revenue is the primary purpose, the
and ACHILES DYCOCO, imposition is a tax, but if regulation is the primary purpose, the imposition is
Respondents. properly categorized as a regulatory fee.29

G.R. No. 253812 - NOILA The Court En Banc in Smart Communications, Inc. v. Municipality of Malvar30
SABAN Y BANSIL @ "NAWILA" determined the nature of Ordinance No. 18 assailed therein after a reading of
A.K.A. "NAWILA SABAN Y the ordinance's whereas clauses which revealed that the primary purpose of
CARABAO," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE the ordinance was to regulate cell sites or telecommunications towers. Since
OF THE PHILIPPINES, the whereas clauses showed that the ordinance served a regulatory purpose,
Respondent. it was ruled that the case involved a fee and not a tax. The Court also
underlined in said case that while the fees in issue may contribute to the
G.R. No. 203478 - ARMANDO revenues of therein respondent, this is merely incidental. As such, the
H. DE JESUS, Petitioner, v. INTER- assailed fees are not taxes.31
ORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES,
In the case at bar, a cursory reading of the whereas clauses makes it
INC., INTER-ORIENT MARITIME
apparent that the primary purpose of Ordinance No. 2005-491 is "to
ENT., INC. LIBERIA,
regulate the proliferation of these CB [Citizens Band], VHF/UHF [Very High
GRIGOROUSSA I MARIN'E S.A.-
Frequency/ Ultra High Frequency], parabolic discs and towers" erected within
MONROVIA LIBERIA,
petitioner's municipality "to ensure the safety of their operations." The
Respondents.
subject ordinance underlines that: (1) "due to its location, San Mateo is
considered as strategic place for the installation and operation of repeater /
A.M. No. P-12-3049 - IN RE:
transmitter facilities of communication companies"; (2) "communication
LETTER OF ATTY. JOSE C.
facilities such as cellular sites, towers and parabolic discs intended for
CORALES, CLERK OF COURT VI,
commercial and private uses start to proliferate" and that (3) "these
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, facilities, directly or indirectly, affect the populace."32 Evidently, the

BATANGAS CITY, RELATIVE TO Ordinance was issued to address the concerns grounded on the proliferation

THE FILING OF CRIMINAL CASE of the enumerated facilities which affect petitioner's populace.

AGAINST HERMOGENES M.
Considering the above, the main purpose of the assailed ordinance is clearly
GUICO, JR., CLERK III, SAME
to regulate the installation and maintenance of the enumerated
OFFICE, FOR VIOLATION OF R.A.
communication facilities erected within the Municipality of San Mateo,
NO. 9165. (FORMERLY A.M. NO.
Isabela. Consequently, the fees imposed in Ordinance No. 2005-491 are
12-2-31-RTC)OFFICE OF THE
primarily regulatory in nature and not primarily revenue-raising. While the
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, fees contribute to the revenues of petitioner, this effect is merely incidental.
Complainant, v. HERMOGENES M. Thus, the fees imposed in Ordinance No. 2005-491 are not taxes.33
GUICO, JR., CLERK III, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL In this regard, Section 187 of the LGC, which outlines the procedure for

TRIAL COURT, BATANGAS CITY, questioning the constitutionality of a tax ordinance, is inapplicable, rendering

Respondent. unnecessary the resolution of the issue on non-exhaustion of administrative

remedies.34 Ordinances that impose regulatory fees do not need to be

G.R. No. 205172 - HERMINIO challenged before the Secretary of Justice. To stress, the procedure found in
T. DISINI, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC Section 187 must be followed when an ordinance imposes a tax; the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, institution of an action in court without complying with the requirements of
Respondent. the provision will lead to the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, when an ordinance imposes
G.R. No. 208399 - FIRST a fee, as in this case, direct recourse to the courts may be had without prior
DIVISION CAT REALTY protest before the Secretary of Justice.35 At any rate, this Court has
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. previously relaxed the application of the rules in view of the more
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
substantive matters.36
REFORM (DAR), CENTER FOR
AGRARIAN REFORM SCI failed to establish that
EMPOWERMENT & Ordinance No. 2005-491 is
TRANSFORMATION, INC. unjust, excessive and
(CARET), ALTERNATIVE CO T confiscatory
CENTERED ORGANIZATION FOR
The Court has consistently ruled that in order for an ordinance to be valid, it
RURAL DEVELOPMENT (ACCORD),
must not only be within the corporate powers of the concerned local
BENJAMIN C. DE VERA, JR., AND
government unit to enact, but must also be passed in accordance with the
TENORIO GARCIA, Respondents.
procedure prescribed by law. Moreover, substantively, the ordinance: (1)
must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair
G.R. No. 217075 - SOCIAL
or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not
SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS),
prohibit, but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA), Respondent. public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.37 On the other hand,

settled is the rule that every law, including ordinances, is presumed valid.38
 G.R. No. 242257 - IN THE This presumption may be set aside when invalidity or unreasonableness: (1)
MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT appears on the face of the ordinance, or (2) is established by proper
OF AMPARO OF VIVIAN A. evidence.39
SANCHEZ. VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ,
Petitioner, v. PSUPT. MARC SCI insists that Ordinance No. 2005-491 is null and void for being unjust,

ANTHONY D. DARROCA, CHIEF OF excessive and confiscatory. Specifically, SCI ascribes the following reasons to

POLICE, SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL invalidate the ordinance: (1) the amount imposed has no reasonable

POLICE STATION; PSSUPT. LEO justification, (2) the wisdom of its imposition is left for SCI to figure out, and

IRWIN D. AGPANGAN, (3) the imposition is disruptive to SCI's business operations.40

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR, PNP-
Given the foregoing, the alleged invalidity of the subject ordinance is not
ANTIQUE; PCSUPT. JOHN C.
apparent on its face. SCI has not shown that the subject Ordinance
BULALACAO, REGIONAL
contravenes any constitutional or statutory provision or settled public policy,
DIRECTOR, PNP-REGION VI, AND
or is per se unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory or in restraint of
MEMBERS OF THE PNP UNDER
trade.41 As such, the Court must adhere to the methodology used in Morcoin
THEIR AUTHORITY, Respondents.
Co., Ltd. v. City of Manila, as explained in City of Cagayan De Oro v.

G.R. No. 252902 - PEOPLE OF Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc.,42 and thus evaluate the ordinance

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- in the light of the evidence presented by SCI to reach a conclusive

Appellee, v. SPO1 ALEXANDER determination of the fee's excessiveness.

ESTABILLO Y PALARA, Accused-

At any rate, SCI had the burden to prove that Sections 130,43 147,44 and
Appellants.
18645 of the LGC. Based on these aforementioned provisions, if a regulatory

G.R. No. 219317 - CATHAY fee produces revenue in excess of the cost of the regulation, inspection and

PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, licensing, it will be considered excessive, and hence, fail the test of judicial

Petitioner, v. CHARLIE CHUA UY, scrutiny.46 Thus, the Court is faced with the question of whether or not the
JR., Respondent. tower fee in the amount of Php200,000.00 collected annually violated
Section 147 of the LGC which provides that fees must be commensurate with
G.R. No. 244649 - the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing.
CARMENCITA C. DAEP, AMEIFE L.
For SCI's failure to establish excessiveness, We rule in the negative. A
LACBAIN, ARNOLD B. CALCI�A,
judicious perusal of the records fails to reveal anything definitively showing
AND ERNESTO M. MILLENA,
the ordinance's unreasonable, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory nature;
Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN - therefore, because it enjoys the presumption of validity, this Court is
FOURTH DIVISION AND PEOPLE constrained to reverse the decision of the CA.47
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. The presumption of validity is a corollary of the presumption of
constitutionality, a legal theory of common-law origin developed by courts to

G.R. No. 222505 - LOURDES deal with cases challenging the constitutionality of statutes. The presumption

C. AKIAPAT, BILLY CACHERO AND of constitutionality, in its most basic sense, only means that courts, in

NOEL CACHERO, Petitioners, v. passing upon the validity of a law, will afford some deference to the statute

SUMMIT BANK (RURAL BANK OF and charge the party assailing it with the burden of showing that the act is

TUBLAY [BENGUET], INC.), incompatible with the constitution. The doctrine comes into operation when a

Respondent. [G.R. No. 222776, party comes to court praying that a law be set aside for being

June 28, 2021] RICHARD unconstitutional. In effect, it places a heavy burden on the act's assailant to

CACHERO, JEANETTE C. GAMBOA prove invalidity beyond reasonable doubt; it commands the clearest showing

AND TERESITA C. MAINEM, of a constitutional infraction. Accordingly, before a law may be struck down

Petitioners, v. SUMMIT BANK as unconstitutional courts must be certain that there exists a clear and

(RURAL BANK OF TUBLAY unequivocal breach of the constitution, and not one that is speculative or

[BENGUET], INC.), Respondent. argumentative. To doubt, it has been said, is to sustain.48

In the instant case, the CA annulled the subjet Ordinance for being unjust,
G.R. No. 209756 - DIONISIO
excessive and confiscatory.49 The CA ruled that the ordinance was legally
M. REYES, Petitioner, v.
infirm because the amount imposed lacked reasonable justification. It
MAGSAYSAY MITSUI OSK MARINE
emphasized that the parameters and computations employed to set the fees
INC., MOL SHIPMANAGEMENT
CO., LTD., AND/OR CAPT. at the amount prescribed were not explained nor divulged.50 Additionally, the

FRANCISCO MENOR, RTC held that the regulatory fee imposed would have been valid if the

Respondents. amount required had been explained or broken down.51

By pronouncing the above, the lower courts effectively reversed the

G.R. No. 233821 - LOLITA
presumption of validity. Essentially, the lower courts shifted the burden to
JAVIER AND JOVITO CERNA,
petitioner to show that the ordinance was reasonable and that the amount of
Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR OF
the fee was not excessive. To be sure, no law requires that local
LANDS, Respondent.
governments justify the ordinances they pass by setting forth the grounds
 G.R. No. 201069 - BANGKO for their enactment. Thus, the lower courts' nullification of the ordinance was
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, done in a manner contrary to principles established in jurisprudence.52
Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN AND BENJAMIN M. After a meticulous scrutiny of the records, We find that, in the proceedings a

JAMORABO,* Respondents. quo, the ordinance was never shown to be violative of the rule that fees must

be commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing.53

G.R. No. 203020 - SALLY GO- Indeed, basic is the rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of
BANGAYAN, Petitioner, v. proving it by means other than mere allegations.54 Besides the self-serving
SPOUSES LEONCIO AND JUDY statement that the amount was excessive since there was no substantial
CHAM HO, Respondents.
comparison between the sum assessed and the cost to operate the tower,55
SCI showed nothing tending to prove the fee was indeed excessive and
G.R. No. 242082 - SER JOHN
unreasonable. While it stated that the ordinance did not consider the cost to
PASTRANA, VIVIAN VERIDIANO
operate the tower,56 SCI never bothered to allege, much less prove, the cost
DACANAY, AND NORLYN TOMAS,
of such operation.57
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.; G.R. No. Being a domestic corporation engaged m providing telecommunication
242083 - MARY JANE G. YSMAEL,
services to the general public,58 SCI could have certainly adduced evidence
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
on the regulation, inspection and licensing expenses it incurs yearly. It could
AUDIT, Respondent.
have even compared the fee with the annual costs it incurs on the
preservation and inventory of its towers or, as in Morcoin Co., Ltd. v. City of
G.R. No. 231579 - RONALD O.
Manila, showed that the annual fee imposed on a tower was greater than the
MARTINEZ, JUSTINO D. BUCAY,
same tower's yearly income. This would have readily shown the fee's alleged
EDUARDO D. CANLAS, EDWIN Q.
excessiveness. The record, nonetheless, fails to reveal that the imposition
CANSINO, REYNALDO C. CAPILI,
was not commensurate with the actual cost of regulation and inspection.
EMERITO D. CAPILI, DAVID L.
Besides SCI's bare and unsubstantiated allegations, nothing remotely
CAYANAN, ROMEO C. CORTEZ,
denotes the fee's excessiveness.59
RENATO T. FRANCO, JERWIN P.
GADIA, FREDERICK V. ILANO, Without evidence indicating that the amount of the regulatory fee is
ERNESTO C. I�OSA, JUANITO disproportionate to the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing of towers
A. LOBARDIO, ERNESTO L. located in the Municipality of San Mateo, this Court cannot agree with the
MANGIO, GARRY L. MA�ACOP, CA's invalidation of the ordinance. Local governments are allowed wide
GELICO A. MARZAN, BIENVENIDO discretion in determining the rates of imposable fees. In the absence of proof
D. MILLAN, JR., BENEDICTO O. of unreasonableness, courts are bound to respect the judgment of the local
MIRANDA, AARON T. OLIQUINO, authorities. Any undue interference with their sound discretion will
EDGAR C. PANGILINAN, ARNOLD imperatively warrant review and correction.60
B. PEREZ, GERARDO S. ROXAS,
ROBERT LAXAMANA,* ALBERT In City of Cagayan De Oro v. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc., the

SANTOS, EDGARDO ABAGAT, Court upheld the validity of the ordinance imposing Php500.00 annually for

EDGARDO VILLAVICENCIO every electric or telecommunications post belonging to public utility

(HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS companies operating in the city, which amounted to a total of

NOW WIDOW ELNOR C. Php8,500,000.00 fee due from therein respondent.61 Considering that said
PANGILINAN), JANNEL LORD M. ordinance was pronounced valid and such amount was considered reasonable
BONDOC (NOW HEREIN despite therein respondent's allegation that the fee was unjust and
REPRESENTED BY JAZMIN excessive, We do not see why the same. standard may not be applied in this
ALFONSO), AND ROEL M. case.
GUTIERREZ, Petitioners, v.
Here, as the party assailing the ordinance, it was SCI's responsibility to prove
MAGNOLIA POULTRY
the amount's excessiveness; it had the burden to show that the fee was not
PROCESSING PLANT (MPPP),
commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing. Be that
NOW NAMED SAN MIGUEL
as it may, for the reasons discussed above, SCI failed to dismantle the
FOODS, INC., (SMFI) - MPPP,
presumption of validity because it never established that the city council
Respondent. [G.R. NO. 231636]
abused its discretion in setting the amount of the fee at P200,000.00.62
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. RONALD O. Thus, the CA erred in declaring the ordinance invalid. Courts, as a rule, must
MARTINEZ, JUSTINO D. BUCAY, refrain from interfering with legislative acts, lest they stray into the realm of
EDUARDO D. CANLAS, EDWIN Q. policy decision-making. The public interest is best served by allowing the
CANSINO, REYNALDO C. CAPILI,
political processes to operate without undue interference.63 Indeed, the
EMERITO D. CAPILI, DAVID L.
courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments,
CAYANAN, ROMEO C. CORTEZ,
not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution,
RENATO T. FRANCO, JERWIN P.
but also because the judiciary, in the determination of actual cases and
GADIA, FREDERICK V. ILANO,
controversies, must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
ERNESTO C. I�OSA, JUANITO
expressed through their representatives in the government's executive and
A. LOBARDIO, ERNESTO L.
MANGIO, GARRY L. MA�ACOP, legislative departments. This Court, despite its vast powers, will not review
GELICO A. MARZAN, BIENVENIDO the wisdom, merits, or propriety of governmental policies, but will strike
D. MILLAN, JR., BENEDICTO O. them down only on either of two grounds: (1) unconstitutionality or illegality
MIRANDA, AARON T. OLIQUINO, and/or (2) grave abuse of discretion. For having failed to show any of the
EDGAR C. PANGILINAN, ARNOLD above in the passage of the assailed ordinance, SCI's remedy consequently
B. PEREZ, GERARDO S. ROXAS, lies not with the Court, but with the executive and legislative branches of the
ROBERT LAXAMANA, ALBERT government.64
SANTOS, EDGARDO ABAGAT,
EDGARDO VILLAVICENCIO It is also worthy to note that the subject Ordinance does not encroach on the

(HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS regulatory powers of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)

NOW WIDOW ELNOR C. contrary to what the RTC has mentioned in its Order. The fees are not

PANGILINAN), JANNEL LORD M. imposed to regulate the administrative, technical, financial, or marketing

BONDOC (NOW HEREIN operations of telecommunications entities, such as SCI's. Rather, to regulate

REPRESENTED BY JAZMIN the installation and maintenance of communication facilities and physical

ALFONSO), AND ROEL M. structures � SCI's cell sites or telecommunications tower, an exercise of

GUTIERREZ, Respondents. petitioner's police power.65

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 13

G.R. No. 236570 - LEMUEL
February 2015 and the Resolution dated 18 June 2015 of the Court of
DEOCAMPO, Petitioner, v.
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 136173 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SEACREST MARITIME
Municipal Ordinance No. 2005-491 is hereby declared valid and
MANAGEMENT, INC., NORDIC
constitutional.
TANKERS MARINE A/S DENMARK
AND GEZIEL DE GUZMAN, SO ORDERED.
Respondents.
Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Carandang, and Gaerlan, JJ.,
concur.
G.R. No. 227951 - CARLOS
PAULO BARTOLOME Y ILAGAN Endnotes:
AND JOEL BANDALAN Y ABORDO,
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
1Rollo, pp. 10-32.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 227529 - EDUVIGES 2Id. at 35-50; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, and
B. ALMAZAN, Petitioner, v. PERLA concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and
E. BACOLOD, DULCE E. Ramon Paul L. Hernando (who is now a Member of this Court) of
BACOLOD, IRMA E. BACOLOD,
the Seventh (7th ) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
AND BELEN E. BACOLOD,
Respondents. 3Id. at 52-54.

4Id. at 222-226; penned by Judge Raul V. Babaran.

G.R. No. 237826 - RAFAEL A.
MANALO,* FREIDA Z. RIVERA-
5 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
YAP, AND GRACE M. OLIVA, IN
OF 1991," approved on 10 October 1991.
THEIR CAPACITY AS THE DULY
ELECTED ASSIGNEES OF THE 6Id. at 35-36.
ASSETS OF SPOUSES ROSARIO
AND SATURNINO BALADJAY AND 7Id. at 116-117.
THEIR COMPANIES, Petitioners, v.
8Id. at 36.
HERARC REALTY CORPORATION,
ARLENE M. BEDAYO, ANGELO C.
9Id.
GUERRERO, EVANGELINE L.
LOPEZ, REAL P. MADRID, BJORN 10Id.
PAOLO M. BEDAYO, STELLA M.
SALORSANO, DARWIN 11Id.

FERNANDEZ, AND ANTONIO O.

12Id. at 36-37, 192-194.
MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE
13Id. at 37.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MAKATI CITY (BRANCH 56), AND 14Id.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, 15Id. at 222-226.
Respondents.
16Id. at 35-50.
 G.R. No. 239622 - RUBEN 17Id. at 50.
CARPIO, Petitioner, v. MODAIR
18Id. at 43-49.
MANILA CO. LTD., INC.,
Respondent.
19Id. at 49.

G.R. No. 239257 - VENTIS 20Id. at 52-54.

MARITIME CORPORATION,
AND/OR ST. PAUL MARITIME 21Id. at 15.
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
22Id. at 15-26.
JOSEPH B. CAYABYAB,
Respondent.
23Id. at 25-26.

G.R. No. 180203 - PHILIPPINE 24Id. at 299-300.

NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v.
ROMEO B. DARADAR, 25 Section 143. Tax on Business. � The municipality may
Respondent. impose taxes on the following businesses:

(a) On manufacturers, assemblers, repackers,

G.R. No. 209052 - REPUBLIC
processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and
PHILIPPINES OF THE
compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or
(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION),
Petitioner, v. EULALIA T. MANEJA, manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever
kind or nature, in accordance with the following
Respondent.
schedule: xxx xxx xxx

G.R. No. 223635 - MAUREEN

(b) On wholesalers, distributors, or dealers in any
ANN ORETA-FERRER, Petitioner, v.
article of commerce of whatever kind or nature in
RIGHT EIGHT SECURITY AGENCY, accordance with the following schedule: xxx xxx xxx
INC., Respondent.
(c) On exporters, and on manufacturers, millers,

G.R. No. 236383 - OFFICE OF producers, wholesalers, distributors, dealers or

THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. retailers of essential commodities enumerated

MARILYN H. CELIZ AND hereunder at a rate not exceeding one-half (1/2) of

LUVISMINDA H. NARCISO, the rates prescribed under subsection (a), (b) and (d)
Respondents. of this Section:

(1) Rice and corn;

G.R. No. 224235 -
RICHARDSON STEEL (2) Wheat or cassava flour, meat, dairy products,
CORPORATION, AYALA locally manufactured, processed or preserved food,
INTEGRATED STEEL sugar, salt and other agricultural, marine, and fresh
MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., water products, whether in their original state or not;
ASIAN FOOTWEAR AND RUBBER
(3) Cooking oil and cooking gas;
CORP., AND SPOUSES RICARDO
O. CHENG AND ELEANOR S. (4) Laundry soap, detergents, and medicine;
CHENG, Petitioners, v. UNION
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, (5) Agricultural implements, equipment and post-

Respondent. harvest facilities, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides,

herbicides and other farm inputs;

G.R. No. 232801 - PHILIPPINE

(6) Poultry feeds and other animal feeds;
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE
(PCSO), Petitioner, v. DFNN, INC. (7) School supplies; and
(DFNNI), Respondent.
(8) Cement.

G.R. No. 241336 - JOSEPHINE (d) On retailers.

G. BRISENIO, Petitioner, v.
xxx xxx xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. Provided, however, That barangays shall have the
exclusive power to levy taxes, as provided under
G.R. No. 228505 - THE Section 152 hereof, on gross sales or receipts of the
PHILIPPINE RACING preceding calendar year of Fifty thousand pesos
COMMISSION AND THE GAMES (P50,000.00) or less, in the case of cities, and Thirty
AND AMUSEMENTS BOARD, thousand pesos (P30,000.00) or less, in the case of
Petitioners, v. MANILA JOCKEY municipalities.
CLUB, INC., Respondent.
 (e) On contractors and other independent contractors,
G.R. No. 241814 - SITE FOR in accordance with the following schedule: xxx xxx xxx
EYES, INC. (FORMERLY DELOS
(f) On banks and other financial institutions at a rate
REYES OPTICAL CITY, INC.),
not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%)
Petitioner, v. DR. AMOR F.
on the gross receipts of the preceding calendar year
DAMING, Respondent.
derived from interest, commissions and discounts from
lending activities, income from financial l easing,
G.R. No. 254005 - ASELA
dividends, rentals on property and profit from
BRINAS Y DEL FIERRO, Petitioner,
exchange or sale of property, insurance premium.
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. g) On peddlers engaged in the sale of any
merchandise or article of commerce, at a rate nor
G.R. No. 256288 - ATTY. exceeding Fifty pesos (P50.00) per peddler annually.
ROMEO M. ESMERO, Petitioner, v.
(h) On any business, not otherwise specified in the
HIS EXCELLENCY, HONORABLE
preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian
PRESIDENT, RODRIGO ROA
concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That on
DUTERTE, Respondent.
any business subject to the excise, value-added or
percentage tax under the National Internal Revenue
G.R. No. 229956 - DR.
Code, as amended, the rate of tax shall not exceed
BENJAMIN D. ADAPON, FOR
two percent (2%) of gross sales or receipts of the
HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF THE
preceding calendar year.
COMPUTERIZED IMAGING
INSTITUTE, INC., FORMERLY The sanggunian concerned may prescribe a schedule
KNOWN AS THE COMPUTED of graduated tax rates but in no case to exceed the
TOMOGRAPHY CENTER, INC., rates prescribed herein.
Petitioners, v. MEDICAL
26 Section 147. Fees and Charges. � The municipality may
DOCTORS, INC., Respondent.
impose and collect such reasonable fees and charges on business
G.R. No. 213426 - CITIZENS and occupation and, except as reserved to the province in Section
FOR A GREEN AND PEACEFUL 139 of this Code, on the practice of an y profession or calling,
CAMIGUIN, SULOG, INC., SAVE commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection and
CDO NOW MOVEMENT, INC., licensing before any person may engage in such business or
TASK FORCE MACAJALAR, FE E. occupation, or practice such profession or calling.
ULFSTEIN, ANNALIZA E.
27Smart Communications, Inc. v. Municipality of Malvar,
ULFSTEIN, ARISTEO MARBELLA,
SR., MARIA TERESA RAMI, Batangas, 727 Phil. 430-447 (2014), G.R. No. 204429, 18

MAGDALENA L. MAESTRADO, February 2014 [Per J. Carpio].

MARIJONE SAAB GAPAS,

28City of Cagayan De Oro v. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co.,
MAGDALINA L. RODRIGUIZ, CRIS
Inc., G.R. No. 224825, 17 October 2018 [Per J. A.B. Reyes].
T. MAGALLON, VICTOR L.
UMARAN, GEORGE L. BONITA, 29Id.

RANEL G. SEMA�A, FLORIZA A.

30 Supra at note 27.
BOLO, ELPIDIA L. TAGANAS,
GERRY E. AGBU, EDUARDO M.
31Id.
PAYCA, MARIA TERESA E.
ESTRADA, CONCEPCION G. 32Rollo, pp. 116-117.
EBCAS, JONAS E. EBCAS,
EUGENE C. ABAO, IVY MAY B. 33City of Cagayan De Oro v. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co.,
ACEBES, CELESTE LUPINA, Inc., supra at note 28; Smart Communications, Inc. v.
ZUENDELYN PENALOSA, JOCELYN Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, supra at note 27.
DIANA KING, JOCELYN TAGUPA,
34Supra at note 27.
MICHAEL PHILIP L. KHO,
REMEDIO VICENTE, ORLANDO
35Supra at note 28.
EBCAS, JOAN S. DAGONDON,
Petitioners, v. KING ENERGY 36See Alliance of Quezon City Homeowners' Association, Inc. v.
GENERATION, INC.,
Quezon City Government, G.R. No. 230651, 18 September 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]; see also Ferrer v. Bautista, 762 Phil.
BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
233-295 (2015), G.R. No. 210551, 30 June 2015 [Per J. Peralta];
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. City of Cebu, 778 Phil. 685-
RESOURCES, BARANGAY
709 (2016), G.R. No. 180235, 20 January 2016 [Per J. Leonardo-
BALBAGON OF MAMBAJAO,
De Castro].
CAMIGUIN, MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT OF MAMBAJAO, 37City of Batangas v. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corp., 801 Phil.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF 566-590 (2017), G .R. No. 195003, 07 June 2017 [Per J.
CAMIGUIN, AND CAMIGUIN Caguioa], citing Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., 568 Phil.
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 658, 699-700 (2008), G.R. No. 156052, 13 February 2008 [Per J.
(CAMELCO), Respondents. Corona].

38Supra at note 27.

A.C. No. 7963 - RODCO
CONSULTANCY AND MARITIME
39Supra at note 28.
SERVICES CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY MS. KERRY D. 40Rollo, pp. 302-303.
VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. ATTY.
NAPOLEON A. CONCEPCION, 41 Supra at note 28.
Respondent.
42Id., citing Morcoin Ca., Ltd. v. City of Manila, 110 Phil. 920-927
G.R. No. 213730 - GUAGUA (1961), G.R. No. L-15351, 28 January 1961 [Per J. Gutierrez
NATIONAL COLLEGES, Petitioner, David].
v. GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES
43 Section 130. Fundamental Principles. � The following
FACULTY LABOR UNION AND
fundamental principles shall govern the exercise of the taxing and
GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES
other revenue-raising powers of local government units:
NON-TEACHING AND
MAINTENANCE LABOR UNION, xxx
Respondents.
(b) Taxes, fees, charges and other imposition shall:

G.R. No. 209907 - CHARLO P.

(1) be equitable and based as far as
IDUL, Petitioner, v. ALSTER INT'L
practicable on the taxpayer's ability to pay;
SHIPPING SERVICES, INC.,
(2) be levied and collected only for public
JOHANN MKBLUMENTHAL GMBBH
purposes;
REEDEREI AND SANTIAGO D.
(3) not be unjust, excessive,
ALMODIEL, Respondents.
oppressive, or confiscatory;
(4) not be contrary to law, public policy,
 A.M. No. RTJ-11-2282 national economic policy, or in the restraint
(Formerly A.M. No. 10-7-220- of trade;
RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT
(Emphasis supplied)
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
JUDGE JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, 44 Section 147. Fees and Charges. � The municipality may
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC),
impose and collect such reasonable fees and charges on business
BRANCH 37, CAGAYAN DE ORO
and occupation and, except as reserved to the province in Section
CITY, Respondent.
139 of this Code, on the practice of any profession or calling,
commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection and
G.R. No. 208318 - THE
licensing before any person may engage in such business or
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
occupation, or practice such profession or calling. (Emphasis
AND THE UNDERSECRETARY OF
supplied.)
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Petitioners, v. GOLD MARK SEA 45 Section 186. Power to Levy Other Taxes, Fees or Charges. �
CARRIERS, INC., AS THE Local government units may exercise the power to levy taxes,
REGISTERED OWNER OF THE fees or charges on it any base or subject not otherwise
BARGE "CHERYL ANN," specifically enumerated herein or taxed under the provisions of
Respondent. the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, or other
applicable laws: Provided, That the taxes, fees, or charges
G.R. No. 232849 - LOURDES E. shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or
RUIZ, Petitioner, v. REYNALDO contrary to declared national policy x x x. (Emphasis
ARMADA AND DELFIN PAYTONE, supplied.)
Respondents.
46Supra at note 27.

G.R. No. 244001 - AQUILINA

47Id.
MARQUEZ MARAJAS, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 48Id.
Respondent.
49Rollo, pp. 43-49.
G.R. No. 222992 - JOSE R.
50Id. at 49.
DELA TORRE, Petitioner, v.
TWINSTAR PROFESSIONAL 51Id. at 225.
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
52Supra at note 28.
Respondent.

53Id.
G.R. No. 218378 - NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, 54Social Security System v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
v. BENGUET ELECTRIC
243278, 03 November 2020 [Per J. Caguioa], citing Republic v.
COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.
Catubag, G.R. No. 210580, 18 April 2018, 861 SCRA 687, 709
[Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
G.R. No. 230818 - EFRAIM C.
GENUINO, Petitioner, v. 55Rollo, p. 303.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA),
56Id. at 258-260.
COA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE GOVERNMENT
57Supra at note 28.
SECTOR, CLUSTER 6,
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR 58Rollo, p. 11.
JOSEPH B. ANACAY, AND THE
OFFICE OF THE COA 59 Supra at note 28, citing Morcoin Co., Ltd. v. City of Manila,
SUPERVISING AUDITOR - supra at note 42.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND
60Id.
GAMING CORPORATION
(PAGCOR), REPRESENTED BY
61Id.
AUDITOR BELEN B. LADINES,
Respondents. 62Id.

G.R. No. 254570 - 63Id.

BERNADETTE LOURDES B. ABEJO,

64Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION Philippines v. Secretary of Education, G.R. Nos. 216930, 217451,
BOARD (ICAB), Petitioner, v. 217752, 218045, 218098, 218123 & 218465, 09 October 2018

COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON [Per J. Caguioa], citing Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., 791 Phil. 277, 299
MICHAEL AGUINALDO, (2016), G.R. No. 212426, 12 January 2016 [Per J. Sereno].
Respondent.
65Supra at note 27.cralawredlibrary

G.R. No. 235771 - ALYANSA

NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG
AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA
SA MAMAMAYAN (AGHAM),
Back to Home | Back to Main
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, ANGELO B.
PALMONES, Petitioner, v. JAPAN
TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL
(PHILIPPINES), INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER, MR. MANOS
KOUKOURAKIS; HOLCIM
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, MR.
SAPNA SOOD; DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, HON. CARLOS G.
DOMINGUEZ; DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, HON. ROY
CIMATU; AND BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, HON. CAESAR
DULAY, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 234345 - SARIPODEN
ARIMAN GURO, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND SOMERADO MALOMALO
GURO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 231391 - SOCIAL

SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 249953 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v. MEL VIA T. VILLACORTA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 238652 - JUAN S.

ESPLAGO, Petitioner, v. NAESS
SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC.,
KUWAIT OIL TANKER COMPANY
AND/OR LAMBERTO J. TORRES,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 240750 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. XXX, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 230527 - PACIFIC

OCEAN MANNING, INC., BARKER
HILL ENTERPRISES, S.A., AND
ELMER PULUMBARIT, Petitioners,
v. FELICIANO M. CASTILLO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 206761 - PAUL

AMBROSE, Petitioner, v. LOUELLA
SUQUE-AMBROSE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 244542 - MA.

CONCEPCION ALFEREZ, ANTONIO
S. ALFEREZ, AND ESPERANZA
ALFEREZ EVANS, Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES EXEQUIEL AND
CELESTINA CANENCIA, NORMA A.
ALFORQUE, AND TERESA A.
ALFORQUE, Respondents.

A.C. No. 12197 (Formerly CBD

Case No. 12-3355) - CORAZON E.
RECIO, Complainant, v. ATTYS.
ULPIANO S. MADAMBA AND
MANOLITO M. APOSTOL, JR.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 228298 - JUNEL

ALASKA, Petitioner, v. SPO2 GIL
M. GARCIA, PO3 ROMY P. GALICIA
AND PO2 RUZEL S. BRIONES,
Respondents.
 G.R. No. 253686 - IRENE S.
ROSARIO, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 246173 - NATIONAL

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
(TransCo), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT [COA],
AND HON. MICHAEL G.
AGUINALDO, CHAIRPERSON,
COA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 203060 - MALAYAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Petitioner, v. STRONGHOLD
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., AND
RICO J. PABLO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 204452 - METRO

RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
TRACKWORKS RAIL TRANSIT
ADVERTISING, VENDING AND
PROMOTIONS, INC. Respondent.

A.M. No. P-21-024 [Formerly

OCA IPI No. 18-4815-P] - HON.
MARLO C. BRASALES,
Complainant, v. MAXIMA Z.
BORJA, CLERK OF COURT IV,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES (MTCC), KORONADAL
CITY, SOUTH COTABATO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208281 - METROPLEX

BERHAD AND PAXELL
INVESTMENT LIMITED,
Petitioners, v. SINOPHIL
CORPORATION, BELLE
CORPORATION, DIRECTOR
BENITO A. CATARAN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE
COMPANY REGISTRATION AND
MONITORING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR JUSTINA F.
CALLANGAN, IN HER CAPACITY
AS HEAD OF THE CORPORATION
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, ASST.
DIRECTOR FERDINAND B. SALES,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF
CORPORATE AND PARTNERSHIP
REGISTRATION DIVISION, ASST.
DIRECTOR YOLANDA L. TAPALES,
IN HER CAPACITY AS HEAD OF
THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND
AUDIT DIVISION, AND JOHN
DOES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 205405 - EDUARDO

ATIENZA, Petitioner, v. GOLDEN
RAM ENGINEERING SUPPLIES &
EQUIPMENT CORPORATION AND
BARTOLOME TORRES,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 215877 - OFFICE OF

THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON, Petitioner, v. HURLEY D.
SALIG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 228281 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
(FOURTH DIVISION) AND
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 219292 - CITY OF

TANAUAN, Petitioner, v. GLORIA
A. MILLONTE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 221621 - SOCIAL

SECURITY COMMISSION,
Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER EIGHTEENTH DIVISION,
CEBU CITY AND PEOPLE'S
BROADCASTING SERVICES, INC.
(BOMBO RADIO PHILS., NBN),
Respondents.
 G.R. No. 242725 - LOADSTAR
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC.
AND EDGARDO CALDERON,
Petitioners, v. RICHARD T.
CAWALING, Respondent.

G.R. No. 247631 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ZALDY SORIANO Y
BLACER, A.K.A."MODE", Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 250934 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MELFORD BRILLO Y
DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 239047 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHILIPPINES
REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-
MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL,
Petitioner, v. JUAN T. NG AND
METROPOLITAN BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 245516 - MICHAEL

JOHN DELA CRUZ Y SODELA,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 187847 - ESTHER
VICTORIA ALCALA VDA. DE
ALCA�ESES, Petitioner, v. JOSE
S. ALCA�ESES, SUBSTITUTED
BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, GRACIA
SANGA, MARIA ROSARIO
ALCA�ESES, ANTHONY
ALCA�ESES, VERONICA
ALCA�ESES-PANTIG, MARCIAL
ALCA�ESES, AND DEBORA
ALCA�ESES-OBIAS, ALICIA S.
ALCA�ESES-TANGLAO,
MERCEDES ROSARIO S.
ALCA�ESES, LYDIA VICTORIA
ALCA�ESES-DE VILLA,
FELICIDAD S. ALCA�ESES-
LACANDOLA, DINAH L.
ALCA�ESES-REYES, CECILIO L.
ALCA�ESES, FE L.
ALCA�ESES-JUMAWAN, AND
ALFONSO PERCIVAL
ALCA�ESES, ALL REPRESENTED
BY FELICIDAD S. ALCA�ESES-
LACANDOLA AND CECILIO L.
ALCA�ESES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 190207 - LLOYDS

INDUSTRIAL RICHFIELD
CORPORATION (NOW MERGED
WITH AND KNOWN AS REPUBLIC
CEMENT CORPORATION),
Petitioner, v. NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, Respondent.G.R.
NO. 190213 NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
LLOYDS RICHFIELD INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 222123 - AQUILINO

MANIGBAS, Petitioner, v. MELO
ABEL, FROILAN YLAGAN, AND
DENNIS DE GUZMAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 230573 - THE HEIRS

OF ANSELMA GODINES, NAMELY:
MARLON, FRANCISCO, ROQUE,
ROSA AND ALMA, ALL SURNAMED
GODINES,* Petitioners, v. PLATON
DEMAYMAY AND MATILDE
DEMAYMAY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 233646 - FLORENCIO

T. MALLARE, ARISTOTLE Y.
MALLARE AND MELODY TRACY
MALLARE, Petitioners, v. A&E
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 235051 - VERONICA

L. TUMAMPOS AND DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
REGION VII, RESOURCES,
Petitioners, v. CONCEPCION P.
ANG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 237843 - JOHN N.

CELESTE, EDGAR M. BUTED,
DANILO V. GOMEZ, LUZVIMINDO
CAGUIOA, LELITO VALDEZ,
RENATO P. MILLAN, CATALINA DE
LEON, ROBERTO Q. ABULE,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 239859 - TEODORO

RABAGO BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v.
ROLANDO V. MIGUEL,
PATROCINIO H. TOBIA, ANGELITO
FLORES, HIPOLITO RUBIO,
AUREA H. BRUNO, EDILBERTA
ALBERTA H. RUBIO AND JOSE H.
RUBIO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 250865 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. WILLIAM CALLEJA Y
CAGANDA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 229032 - CLAUDIO

DELOS SANTOS GASPAR, JR.,
Petitioner, v. FIELD
INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 230519 - DANIEL G.

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

G.R. No. 230669 - REX

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

G.R. No. 235520 - DAVID

PATUNGAN, Petitioner, v. THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 238021 - PHILIPPINE

STATISTICS AUTHORITY
(FORMERLY NATIONAL
STATISTICS OFFICE) AND
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS
AUTHORITY--LEGAZPI CITY,
Petitioners, v. CLARILYN
FEROLINO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197402 - PHILIPPINE

LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CECILIO
Z. DOMINGO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 250085 - JULIE

FUENTES RESURRECCION,
Petitioner, v. SOUTHFIELD
AGENCIES, INC., BRIGHTNIGHT
SHIPPING & INVESTMENT LTD.
AND/OR ARLENE BAUTISTA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 217782 - EDWIN

ALACON ATIENZA, Petitioner, v.
TKC HEAVY INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION AND LEON TIO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 214520 - SPOUSES

ROLANDO AND CYNTHIA
RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v.
EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK,
INC. (FORMERLY, URBAN BANK,
INC.), THE CLERK OF COURT AND
EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, CITY OF MAKATI
AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS,
CITY OF MAKATI, Respondents.

G.R. No. 250774 - EDGARDO

SANTOS, ZENAIDA SANTOS
HERRERA, CORAZON SANTOS
CANTILERO, ARMANDO SANTOS,
SONIA SANTOS MAGPAYO,
CIELITO SANTOS BALMEDIANO,
EVELYN SANTOS NICOLAS,
FELIXBERTO SANTOS, MARIA
BETTINA DIAZ SANTOS, REUBEN
JOSEPH SANTOS, JEROME
SANTOS DE GUZMAN, AND
JERICK SANTOS DE GUZMAN,
Petitioners, v. MARIA D. SANTOS
AND/OR HER SUCCESSORS-IN-
INTEREST, Respondent.

G.R. No. 220378 - HAZEL MA.

C. ANTOLIN-ROSERO, Petitioner,
v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION, BOARD OF
ACCOUNTANCY, AND ABELARDO
T. DOMONDON, REYNALDO D.
GAMBOA, JOSE A. GANGAN,
VIOLETA J. JOSEF, JOSE V.
RAMOS, AND ANTONIETA
FORTUNA-IBE Respondents.

G.R. No. 225918 - ANASTACIO

R. MARTIREZ, Petitioner, v.
MARIO B. CRESPO A.K.A. MARK
JIMENEZ, TAXINET/PINOY
TELEKOMS, INC. AND LATITUDE
BROADBAND, INC., Respondents.
 G.R. No. 229396 - NIPPON
PAINT PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. NIPPON PAINT
PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION [NIPPEA],
Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 240402-20 - CESAR

P. ALPAY Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 251830 - IMELDA G.

RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 241248 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. RENATO DE GUZMAN,
ROMEO CABICO, MICHAEL
DOMINGO, RENELITO VALDEZ,
BRINGLE BALACANAO AND
BOBOY TAMONANG, ACCUSED.
MICHAEL DOMINGO AND
BRINGLE BALACANAO, Accused-
Appellants.
 G.R. No. 199565 - HONGKONG
AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.
(HSBC), LTD. STAFF RETIREMENT
PLAN (NOW INCORPORATED AS
HSBC RETIREMENT TRUST FUND,
INC.) AND MANUEL FSTACION,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JUAN I.
GALANG AND MA. THERESA
OFELIA G. GALANG,
Respondents.G.R. NO. 199635
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI
BANKING CORP. (HSBC), LTD.,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JUAN I.
GALANG AND MA. THERESA
OFELIA G. GALANG, Respondents.

G.R. No. 230018 - NORMAN

ALFRED F. LAZARO, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 231530-33 - RAMON

C. RENALES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 231603-
08, June 16, 2021 - LCDR
ROSENDO C. ROQUE, Petitioner,
v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST
DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 219506 -
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO,
ISABELA, REPRESENTED BY
MUNICIPAL MAYOR CRISPINA R.
AGCAOILI, M.D., AND ATTY.
ALFREDO S. REMIGIO, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE MUNICIPAL
LEGAL OFFICER, Petitioners, v.
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 213796 - SPOUSES

CALVIN LUTHER R. GENOTIVA
AND VIOLET S. GENOTIVA,
Petitioners, v. EQUITABLE-PCI
BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO
UNIBANK, INC.), Respondent.

G.R. No. 197252 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. NESTOR DE ATRAS Y
ELLA, ET AL., ACCUSED;
WENLITO DEPILLO Y BIORCO @
"WEWEN" AND LOLITO DEPILLO Y
DEHIJIDO @ "LITO", Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 224991 - HEIRS OF

HENRY LEUNG, REPRESENTED BY
HIS WIDOW, MARILYN LEUNG,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF MIGUEL
MADIO, REPRESENTED BY EDDIE
MADIO, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 220340-41 - RMFPU

HOLDINGS, INC., RAYMOND M.
MORENO, AND RMFPU
PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v.
FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION,
INC., Respondent.[G.R. Nos.
220682-84]QUICK SILVER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. FORBES PARK
ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 226244 - ANNIEBEL

B. YONZON, Petitioner, v. COCA-
COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 228135 (Formerly

UDK-15706) - STO. NI�O
VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION, INC., MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NAMELY, JACINTO L. JAMERO,
FERNANDO B. YU, ANNABELLE T.
AMOR, VINCE JEROME C. YAP,
OFELIA C. FRUELDA, BRENDA U.
ROLIDA, LIGAYA L. BATACLAN,
VICTOR V. GARCIA, CARMENCITA
G. LEYCO, REYNALDO A. LIM,
ANTONIO D. OCAMPO, ERNESTO
C. RI�A, PERRI P. SIA,
ROBERTO S. SIGUAN, AND MARIA
LOURDES "MALOU" P. CASTRO,
Petitioners, v. AMADO Y. LINTAG,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 238911 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOHN GALICIA Y
GALICIA, ROGER DEMETILLA Y
GONZALES, LEOPOLDO SARIEGO
Y GENITO, ELISEO VILLARINO Y
RIVERAL, ROGER CHIVA Y NAVAL,
AND NAPOLEON PORTUGAL Y
MALATE, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 225925 - MANUELITO

P. JUGUETA, Petitioner, v. ARTHUR
J. LEDESMA AND BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF PARA�AQUE
SOUTH ADMIRAL VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC. (PSAVHAI), Respondents.

G.R. No. 220916 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND
ROBERT LASTRILLA,
Respondents.
 G.R. No. 225426 - HEIRS OF
JESUS P. MAGSAYSAY, NAMELY:
VICENTE P. MAGSAYSAY, MARIO P.
MAGSAYSAY, CESAR P.
MAGSAYSAY, EXEQUIEL P.
MAGSAYSAY, MARY ANN P.
MAGSAYSAY, CECILLE P.
MAGSAYSAY, JESSICA P.
MAGSAYSAY, ENRICO P.
MAGSAYSAY, AND GIL P.
MAGSAYSAY, Petitioners, v. SPS.
ZALDY AND ANNALIZA PEREZ,
SPS. WILMER AND JOCELYN
DOMINGO, SPS. EDUARDO AND
GILDA ROSCA, SPS. FERNANDO
AND GEMMA BACOLONGAN,
JEFFREY M. DE LEON, MIGUEL
TOLENTINO III, SPS. ANTONIO
AND ABDULLA DECIO, SPS. FELIX
AND ANNABEL ANGCOT, SPS.
MANUEL, JR. AND ANNAMARIE
NOVIO, SPS. ARSENIO JR. AND
MA. LOURDES NAYLON, KRISTEN
JOY ROSCA, MARK JASON
ROSCA, SPS. BENJAMIN AND
ANALYN CATADA, SPS. DANILO
AND FLORDELIZA BULAN, AND
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
ZAMBALES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 254510 - MERRIE
ANNE TAN, Petitioner, v. FIRST
MALAYAN LEASING AND FINANCE
CORP., NEW UNITEDWARE
MARKETING CORP., AND EDWARD
YAO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 210822 - FLORANTE

VILLAROMAN AND CARLOS
VILLAROMAN, Petitioners, v.
ESTATE OF JOSE ARCIAGA AND
FELICIDAD FULGENCIO
REPRESENTED BY THEIR HEIRS,
ANICIA, DANILO, ROMEO,
ORLANDO, MERCEDITA, EULALIA,
ADRIANO, FERNANDO, AND
EDGARDO, ALL SURNAMED
ARCIAGA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 249638 - EDUARDO

GILBERT DINOYO, RODELIO
NENGASCA, AGAPITO ARCILLAS,
LEONARDO F. CAMPOMAYOR, JR.,
EDUARDO MERAFUENTES,
ROGELIO G. OYON-OYON,
MARCELINO B. RAFOLS, EUNOLIE
SABEJON, BENITO A. SEDANTES,
TEOFILO BASALO, NOEL B.
CALINADA, ROMEO B. DE LA
CRUZ, EDUARDO REBUSTO,
CESARIO DESOACEDO,
BENEDICTO TALAID, ESMERALDO
MONTEROLA, HERACLEO
REQUINTO, DIONISIO SABAYTON,
AGAPITO PUCOT, KENNETH
DINOYO, BEN DOROY,
WEDJOSEPH ESCUZAR, WILMAR
ACABO, ALLAN TECSON, LEONILO
LANOJAN, EFRYN OCHAVILLO,
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE AVELINO
DINOYO (REPRESENTED BY
KENNETH DINOYO), Petitioners,
v. UNDALOC CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., CIGIN
CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, SPOUSES CIRILO
AND GINA UNDALOC,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 221370 - XXX,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197310 - DANIEL

RIVERA AND ELPIDIO RIVERA,
Petitioners, v. FLORA P.
VILLANUEVA, RUPERTO PACHECO,
VIRGILIO PACHECO AND THE
HEIRS OF DONATO PACHECO, JR.,
NAMELY, ESTELITA PACHECO,
ROLAND PACHECO, DANILO
PACHECO, AND EDMOND
PACHECO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 248037 - OMAR

ERASMO G. AMPONGAN,
Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, JOSE LL.
GRIMALDO, BENJAMIN P. EPRES,
SOFRONIO B. MAGISTRADO,
DANTE C. OLIVA, JESSE S.
ABONITE, AND NENET B.
BERI�A, Respondents.

G.R. No. 243034 - JERICHO

CARLOS Y DELA MERCED,
Petitioner, v. AAA AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 250785 -

INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION
EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY
VICENTE SANTOS, JR., Petitioner,
v. DIRECTOR COMMISSION ON
AUDIT � NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT SECTOR �
CLUSTER 7 PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORT AND ENERGY �
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
Respondent.
 G.R. No. 206015 - CLAUDIO
DAQUER, JR., Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 234013 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MITCHELLE VALENCIA
Y DIZON AND JOANE SIMBILLO Y
LAURETTI, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 237542 -

CHRISTOPHER PACU-AN,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 247961 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ROBERTO BAUTISTA,
ROGER BAUTISTA, RONNIE
BAUTISTA AND ROLLY BAUTISTA,
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 239349 - DYNAMIQ

MULTI-RESOURCES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. ORLANDO D.
GENON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 252152 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MILA SOMIRA A.K.A.
"MILA", Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 239576 - IP E-GAME

VENTURES, INC., Petitioner, v.
GEORGE H. TAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 250895 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MARIO LALAP,
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 243191 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. XXX, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 221133 - LAND BANK

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v. SPOUSES MILU AND ROSALINA
DE JESUS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 237215 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. WILLIE MENDOZA
A.K.A "WILLY MENDOZA,"
"WILFREDO MENDOZA," AND
"SAMAL," RODEL DE GUZMAN
A.K.A. "ITEW," CHRISTIAN
CENTENO SAPIERA A.K.A.
"ASIAN," ROGELIO VIRAY Y
BEREZO A.K.A. "BANONG,"
MENARD FERRER, DEXTER
GRAMATA OCUMEN, BERNARDO
PALISOC A.K.A. "NOGNOG," AND
RODERICK "PANGAL" DE
GUZMAN, ACCUSED, MENARD
FERRER AND RODERICK
"PANGAL" DE GUZMAN, Accused-
Appellants.

A.C. No. 12669 (Formerly CBD

Case No. 15-4856) - JOSEMARIE
L. DIAZ, Complainant, v. ATTY.
MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN,
Respondent.

A.M. No. P-18-3902 (Formerly

A.M. No. 18-09-86-MTCC) -
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
MS. MAXIMA Z. BORJA, CLERK OF
COURT IV; AND MS. MARRIANE
D. TUYA, SHERIFF III/FORMER
CASH CLERK, BOTH OF THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES (MTCC), KORONADAL
CITY, SOUTH COTABATO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 228281 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
(FOURTH DIVISION) AND
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS,
Respondents

G.R. No. 250865 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. WILLIAM CALLEJA Y
CAGANDA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. Nos. 236772-73 - LAND

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. IGNACIO PALIZA,
SR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 247654 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. SADICK ROARING Y
RECTIN, SADJADE ROARING Y
RECTIN, BELTRAN RELLAMA Y
RECTIN, AND BREXTON RELLAMA
Y BORAGAY, Accused, SADICK
ROARING Y RECTIN AND
BELTRAN RELLAMA Y RECTIN,
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 225288 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. XXX[1] AND YYY,[2]
ACCUSED-Appellants
 G.R. No. 247248 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
PABLO C. VILLABER, Respondent.

G.R. No. 238754 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. CELIA DELA CRUZ Y
BUCALING, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. Nos. 251306-07 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. NORKIS
TRADING COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 226852 - RENATO TA?

ON AND PIO CANDELARIA, AS
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS,
NAMELY, HONORIO V.
CANDELARIA, WINNIE C.
MARGATE, AND LOIDA V.
CANDELARIA, Petitioners, v. ASIA
UNITED BANK, AS SUCCESSOR-
IN-INTEREST OF ASIA TRUST
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Respondent

G.R. No. 239334 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOVIC PANTANOSAS
AMPER, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 249945 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ANTONIO M. SUBA,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 245988 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH),
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES
LUIS J. DELA CRUZ AND IMELDA
REYES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 245914 - GREGORIO

SANSON AND MA. LOURDES
TIROL, Petitioners, v. DANIEL M.
TAPUZ, AURORA T. MADRIAGA,
JOSIEL M. TAPUZ SR., EXEQUIEL
M. TAPUZ, ORLY M. TAPUZ, EDINA
T. GAJISAN, NEMIA T. CARMEN,
EXPEDITO M. TAPUZ, JR., SUSITA
T. MAGBANUA, MEDINA T.
ESMANE, NOBO M. TAPUZ,
DELILAH T. LECERIO AND
SALVACION T. LAROCO,
Respondents.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023 Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions | ReDiaz
ChanRobles™ | Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™