|chanrobles.

com

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary

Tweet

Share

Search

Philippine SupremeCourt Jurisprudence >Year 2015 > August2015 Decisions >G.R. No. 202322, August19,
2015 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S. MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO,
ROBERTOM.REYES,EDGARDOCRISTOBAL,JR.,ANDRODOLFOROMAN,Respondents.:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

G.R.No.202322,August19,2015LIGHTRAILTRANSITAUTHORITY,Petitioner,v.ROMULOS.
MENDOZA,FRANCISCOS.MERCADO,ROBERTOM.REYES,EDGARDOCRISTOBAL,JR.,ANDRODOLFO
ROMAN,Respondents.

SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.202322,August19,2015
LIGHTRAILTRANSITAUTHORITY,Petitioner,v.ROMULOS.MENDOZA,FRANCISCOS.
MERCADO,ROBERTOM.REYES,EDGARDOCRISTOBAL,JR.,ANDRODOLFOROMAN,
Respondents.
DECISION
BRION,J.:
For resolution is the present petition for review on certiorari1 which seeks the reversal of the January
31,2012Decision2andJune15,2012Resolution3oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.109224.
TheAntecedents
TheLightRailTransitAuthority(LRTA)isagovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporationcreatedunder
Executive Order No. 603 for the construction, operation, maintenance, and/or lease of light rail transit
systemsinthePhilippines.

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

To carry out its mandate, LRTA entered into a tenyear operations and management (O & M)
agreement4withtheMeralcoTransitOrganization,Inc.(MTOI)fromJune8,1984,toJune8,1994,for
an annual fee of P5,000,000.00. Subject to specified conditions, and in connection with the operation
and maintenance of the system not covered by the O & M agreement, LRTA undertook to reimburse
MTOIsuchoperatingexpensesandadvancestotherevolvingfund.
"Operatingexpenses"included"allsalaries,wagesandfringebenefits(bothdirectandindirect)upto
the rank of manager, and a lump sum amount to be determined annually as top management
compensation (above the rank of manager up to president), subject to consultation with the LRTA."
MTOI hired the necessary employees for its operations and forged collective bargaining agreements
(CBAs)withtheemployees'unions,withtheLRTA'sapproval.
OnJune9,1989,theManilaElectricCompany,whoowned499,990ofMTOIsharesofstocks,soldsaid
sharestotheLRTA.Consequently,MTOIbecameawhollyownedsubsidiaryofLRTA.MTOIchangedits
corporate name to Metro Transit Organization, Inc.(METRO), but maintained its distinct and separate
personality. LRTA and METRO renewed the O & M agreement upon its expiration on June 8, 1994,
extendedonamonthtomonthbasis.5

cralawrednad

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division

On July 25, 2000, the Pinagisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa METRO, INC., the rankandfile union at
METRO, staged an illegal strike over a bargaining deadlock, paralyzing the operations of the light rail
transport system. On July 28, 2000, the LRTA Board of Directors issued Resolution No. 00446 where
LRTA agreed to shoulder METRO'S operating expenses for a maximum of two months counted from
August1,2000.ItalsoupdatedtheEmployeeRetirementFund.

Becauseofthestrike,LRTAnolongerrenewedtheO&MagreementwhenitexpiredonJuly31,2000,
resulting in the cessation of METRO'S operations and the termination of employment of its workforce,
includingtherespondentsRomuloMendoza,FranciscoMercado,RobertoReyes,EdgardoCristobal,Jr.,
andRodolfoRoman.
On April 1, 2001, the METRO Board of Directors authorized the payment of 50 % of the dismissed
employees' separation pay, to be sourced from the retirement fund. In May 2001, respondents
receivedonehalf(1/2)oftheirseparationpay.Dissatisfied,theydemandedfromLRTApaymentofthe
50%balanceoftheirseparationpay,butLRTArejectedthedemand,promptingthemtofileonAugust
31,2004,aformalcomplaint,7beforethelaborarbiter,againstLRTAandMETRO.
LRTA moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of absence of employeremployee
relationshipwiththerespondents,lackofjurisdictionandofmerit,andprescriptionofaction.
TheCompulsoryArbitrationRulings
Inhisdecision8datedAugust8,2005,LaborArbiter(LA)ArthurL.AmansecpiercedtheveilofMETRO'S
corporatefiction,invokedthelawagainstlaboronlycontracting,anddeclaredLRTAsolidarityliablewith
METROforthepaymentoftheremaining50%ofrespondents'separationpay.OnappealbytheLRTA,
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed in its decision9 of December 23, 2008, LA
Amansec's ruling, thereby dismissing the appeal. It also held that the case had not prescribed. LRTA
movedforreconsideration,buttheNLRCdeniedthemotioninitsresolution10ofMarch30,2009.
TheCasebeforetheCA
LRTAchallengedtheNLRCdecisionbeforetheCAthroughapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65ofthe
Rules of Court, contending that the labor tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion when it (1)
assumed jurisdiction over the case (2) held that it was an indirect employer of the respondents with
solidary liability for their claim and (3) took cognizance of the case despite its being barred by
prescription.
LRTA argued that as a governmentowned and controlled corporation, all actions against it should be
broughtbeforetheCivilServiceCommission,nottheNLRC,pursuanttoArticleIXB,Section2(1)ofthe
Constitution, as declared by this Court's decision in the consolidated cases of LRTA v. Venus, Jr., and
METROv.CourtofAppeals(Venuscase).11Itfurtherarguedthatitcouldnotbemadesolidarityliable
withMETROfortherespondents'claimsinceMETROisanindependentjobcontractor.

! CLICKTOWATCH

Inadifferentvein,LRTAstressedthatitsResolutionNo.0044updatingtheretirementfundforMETRO
employees was merely a financial assistance to METRO, which neither created an employeremployee
relationshipbetweenitandtheMETROemployees,nordiditimposeacontractualobligationuponitfor
theemployees'separationpay.Lastly,itreiteratedthatrespondents'claimhadalreadyprescribedsince
they filed the complaint beyond the threeyear period under Article 306 of the Labor Code (formerly
Article291renumberedbyR.A.10151,AnActAllowingtheEmploymentofNightworkers).12
cralawrednad

The respondents, for their part, prayed for the dismissal of the petition, relying on an earlier case
involvingthesamecauseofactiondecidedbytheCA,LRTAv.NLRCandRicardoB.Malanao,etal.,13
andwhichhadbecomefinalandexecutoryonFebruary21,2006.14Inthatcase,theypointedout,LRTA
washeldsolidarityliablewithMETRO,asanindirectemployer,forthepaymentoftheseverancepayof
METRO'Sseparatedemployees.
Inthemeantime,oronJune3,2010,LAAmansecissuedaWritofExecution15forhisAugust8,2005
decision.OnAugust5,2010,respondentsfiledanUrgentManifestation16 stating that pursuant to the
labor arbiter's order, LRTA's cash bond covered by Check No. LB0000007505, dated September 20,
2005, for PI,082,929.16 had been released to them. Thus, they considered the case to have become
academic.

August2015Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015 JOSE YULO
AGRICULTURALCORPORATION,Petitioner,v.SPOUSES
PERLA CABAYLO DAVIS AND SCOTT DAVIS,
Respondents.
G.R.No.200969,August03,2015 CONSOLACION
D. ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, Petitioners,
v.ENGRACIAD.SINGSON,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 082192), August 12,
2015SPOUSESBYRONANDMARIALUISASAUNDERS,
Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO
CALDE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 177803, August 03, 2015 SPOUSES
EMILIANO L. JALBAY, SR. AND MAMERTA C. JALBAY,
Petitioners,
v.
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
Respondent.
G.R.No.201365,August03,2015THEPEOPLEOF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MANUELA
FLORESYSALAZAR@WELLAAccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 198908, August 03, 2015 VIRGINIA
OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. DEOGRACIO OCAMPO,
Respondent.
G.R.
No.
195175,
August
10,
2015

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.

TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent. G.R. NO.
199645 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213233, August 05, 2015 BLISS
DEVELOPMENT
CORP./HOME
GUARANTY
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MONTANO DIAZ,
DOMINGO TAPAY,
AND
EDGAR
H. ARREZA,
Respondents.
G.R.No.197953,August05,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND
DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS

TheCADecision
The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling that LRTA is solidarity liable for the remaining 50% of respondents'
separationpay,butnotsquarelyonthesamegrounds.UnliketheNLRC,itconsideredinapplicablethe
doctrineofpiercingtheveilofcorporatefictiontojustifyLRTA'ssolidaryliabilityduetotheabsenceof
fraud or wrongdoing on LRTA's part in relation to the nonpayment of the balance of the respondents'
separationpayasthisCourthadstatedintheVenuscase.17
cralawrednad

TheCAlikewisedisagreedwiththeNLRC'sopinionthatMETROisalaboronlycontractorsoastomake
LRTAtherespondents'directemployer.ItexplainedthatMETROwasacorporationwithsufficientcapital
andinvestmentintoolsandequipment,anditsownemployees(whowereevenunionized)toundertake
theoperationandmanagementofthelightrailtransitsystem,forwhichitwasexclusivelyengagedby
LRTA. Neither did LRTA exercise the prerogatives of an employer over the METRO employees. It thus
concludedthatLRTA'ssolidaryliabilityasanindirectemployerislimitedtothepaymentofwages,and
for any violation of the Labor Code,18 excluding backwages and separation pay which are punitive in
nature.19
cralawrednad

The CA nonetheless held that LRTA cannot avoid liability for respondents' separation pay as it is a
contractualobligation.ItagreedwiththeNLRCfindingthatLRTAprovidedMETRO'S"operating
expenses" which included the employees' wages and fringe benefits, and all other general
andadministrativeexpensesrelativetotheoperationofthelightrailtransitsystem.
TheCAfoundadditionalbasisforitsrulinginthelettertotheLRTA,datedJuly12,2001,ofthenActing
Chairman of the METRO Board of Directors, Wilfredo Trinidad, that "Funding provisions for the
retirementfundhavealwaysbeenconsideredoperatingexpensesofMETRO.Pursuanttothe
O&MAgreement,theLRTAhadbeenreimbursingMETROofalloperatingexpenses,including
thefundssetasidefortheretirementfund.ItfollowsnowthatcircumstancescallforMetrotopay
thefullseparationbenefitsthatLRTAshouldprovidethenecessaryfundingtocompletelysatisfythese
benefits."20
cralawrednad

Also, the CA noted that "METRO'S November 17, 1997 Memorandum further revealed that the LRTA
Board approved 'the additional retirement/resignation benefit of 7.65 days or a total of 1.5 months'
salary for every year of service' for METRO'S rankandfile employees and that lthe granting of 1.5
months'salaryforeveryyearofserviceasseveranceorresignationpaywouldeffectivelyamendthe
existing Employees' Retirement Plan."21 This LRTA memorandum, together with its July 28, 2000
Resolution No. 0044, the CA believed, was an indication that LRTA regularly financed the retirement
fund.
Accordingly, the CA stressed, the LRTA cannot argue that the retirement fund was not meant to cover
theseparationpayofthe"terminated"employeesofMETRO,andneithercanitdenythatitisboundto
complywithitsundertakingtoprovidethenecessaryfundstocoverpaymentoftherespondents'claim.
The CA brushed aside the prescription issue. It held that the complaint is not timebarred, citing De
Guzman v. Court of Appeals,22 where the Court affirmed the applicability of Article 1155 of the Civil

ADRIATICO Y
Respondents.

ERUDA

AND

ROMEO

DE

Code23toanemployee'sclaimforseparationpayintheabsenceofanequivalentLaborCodeprovision
for determining whether the period for such claim may be interrupted. It agreed with the NLRC
conclusionthattheprescriptiveperiodforrespondents'claimforseparationpaywasinterruptedbytheir
letterstoLRTA24 (dated September 19, 2002 and October 14, 2002) demanding payment of the 50%
balanceoftheirseparationpay.

LUNA,

G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015 SPOUSES

MARIA BUTIONG AND FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA,
SUBSTITUTED BY DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, Petitioners,
v. MA. GRACIA RIOZA PLAZO AND MA. FE RIOZA
ALARAS,Respondents.

ThePetition
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA, LRTA now asks the Court for a reversal,
contendingthattheappellatecourtcommittedaseriouserroroflawwhenitaffirmedtheNLRCdecision.

G.R.No.209447,August11,2015PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG),
Petitioner,v.HON.WINLOVEM.DUMAYAS,PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI
CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB),
Respondents. G.R. NO. 210901 PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG),
Petitioner,v.HON.WINLOVEM.DUMAYAS,PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI
CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS LIFE
ASSURANCECORPORATION(COCOLIFE),Respondents.

It faults the CA for not ruling on the jurisdictional question which, it contends, had been settled with
finality"inactionssimilartotheoneatbar."25
cralawredcralawrednad

On the merits of the case, LRTA submits that no liability, from whatever origin or source, was ever
attachedtoitinsofarastherespondents'claimisconcerned.ItdisputestheCAopinionthatitsliability
for50%oftherespondents'separationpayisacontractualobligationunderMETRO'Sretirementfund.
ItalsoassailstheCA'srelianceonitsJuly28,2000ResolutionNo.0044asevidenceofitscontractual
obligation.Itassertsithasnosuchobligation.

G.R. No. 188739, August 05, 2015 BENJAMIN E.

RAVAGO,Petitioner,v.METROPOLITANBANK&TRUST
COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY BRIGHT VENTURES
REALTY,INC.,Respondents.

Lastly, LRTA contends that while its board of directors updated METRO'S retirement fund to cover the
retirementbenefitsofMETRO'Semployees,theupdatingwasamerefinancialassistanceorgoodwillto
METRO.Itdidnotexecute,itstresses,anydeedorcontractinfavorofMETRO,AvhichamendedtheO&
Magreementbetweenthem,orassumedanyobligationinfavorofMETROoritsemployeesthus,ithas
nocontractualobligationfortheunpaidbalanceofrespondents'separationpay.

G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. EFREN BASAL
CAYAS,AccusedAppellant.

TheRespondents'Position

A.M. No. 11238Ret., August 18, 2015 IN RE:

EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY.
SAADUDDIN
A.
ALAUYA,
OFFICE
OF
THE
JURISCONSULT,ZAMBOANGACITY

IntheirComment26datedOctober8,2012,therespondentsprayedthatthepetitionbedismissedfor
lackofmeritastheCAhadcommittednoerroroflawwhenitaffirmedtheNLRCdecision.
TheystandfirmontheirpositionthatLRTAislegallyboundtopaythebalanceoftheirseparationpayas
evidenced by its official undertakings such as the Joint Memorandum, dated June 6, 1989,27 with
METRO,itswhollyownedsubsidiary,providing,amongothers,fortheestablishmentoftheRetirement
FundofMETRO,Inc.,EmployeesLRTABoardResolutionNo.0044ofJuly28,2000,28authorizingthe
updating of the retirement fund and approving the collective bargaining agreements entered into by
METROwithitsunionscontainingtermsandconditionsofemploymentandbenefitsforitsemployees.

G.R. No. 167838, August 05, 2015 JOSE V.

TOLEDO,GLENNPADIERNOSANDDANILOPADIERNOS,
Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS,
ENRIQUERAMOS,ANTONIORAMOS,MILAGROSRAMOS
ANDANGELITARAMOSASHEIRSOFSOCORRORAMOS,
GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C.
MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT,ALBERTOC.DY,Respondents.

TheyalsocitethelettertoLRTA,29datedJuly12,2001,oftheActingChairmanoftheMETROBoardof
Directorsstatingthatfundingprovisionsfortheretirementfundhavealwaysbeenconsideredoperating
expensesofMETRO.Inshort,theymaintain,LRTAregularlyfinancedtheretirementfundintendednot
only for the retirement benefit, but also for the severance and/or resignation pay of METRO'S
employees.

A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015 NOEL S.

SORREDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P143253, August 19, 2015 NICETAS
TANIEZACALAYOAN, Complainant, v. ELMER JERRY C.
CALAYOAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,BRANCH2,BANGUED,ABRA,Respondent.

TheCourt'sRuling
Thejurisdictionalissue

A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 PATROCINIA H.

SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C.
VILLARUEL,JR.,Respondent.

LRTAreiteratesitspositionthatthelaborarbiterandtheNLRChadnojurisdictionoveritinrelationto
therespondents'claim,quotingtheVenusrulingtoproveitspoint,thus:"xxxThereshouldbeno
dispute then that employment in petitioner LRTA should be governed only by civil service
rules, and not the Labor Code and beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and
Employment,sincepetitioner LRTA is a governmentowned and controlled corporationwith
an original charter x x x Petitioner METRO was originally organized under the Corporation
Code, and only became a governmentowned and controlled corporation after it was
acquiredbypetitionerLRTA.Eventhen,petitionerMETROhasnooriginalcharter,hence,itis
the Department of Labor and Employment, and not the Civil Service Commission, which has
jurisdictionoverdisputesfromtheemploymentofitsworkersxxx."30

A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 SAMUEL B.

ARNADO,Complainant,v.ATTY.HOMOBONOA.ADAZA,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 MARY ANN T.
FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR,
JR.,Respondent.

cralawrednad

A.M.No.CA1226P,August17,2015OFFICEOF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA
MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF
APPEALS,CEBUCITY,Respondent.

Wedisagree.Underthefactsofthepresentlaborcontroversy,LRTA'srelianceontheVenus ruling is
misplaced. The ruling has no bearing on the respondents' case. As we see it, the jurisdictional issue
shouldnothavebeenbroughtupinthefirstplacebecausetherespondents'claimdoesnotinvolvetheir
employmentwithLRTA.Thereisnodisputeonthisaspectofthecase.Therespondentswerehiredby
METROand,were,therefore,itsemployees.

G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 LUIS UY,

SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY
UY MACARAIG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE
LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA, SUBSTITUTED
BYCORAZONBUENA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 ROSVEE C.
CELESTIAL,Petitioner,v.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 MARINA PORT
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCECORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 202967, August 05, 2015 ALICIA Y.
LAUREL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVEJUAN MIGUELY.LAUREL,Petitioner,
v.FERDINANDM.VARDELEON,Respondent.
G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015 LEONARDO L.
VILLALON, Petitioner, v. RENATO E. LIRIO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 179751, August 05, 2015 HERMINIA L.
MENDOZA,INHERCAPACITYASOICOFTHEREGISTER
OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
ARMANDOAND ANGELAGARANAAND FAR EAST BANK
&TRUSTCO.,INC.,Respondents.
G.R.No.208320,August19,2015GRACEDAVIDY
CESAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 174542, August 03, 2015 KAREN GO,
Petitioner,v.LAMBERTOECHAVEZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015 TEDDY
MARAVILLA,Petitioner,v.JOSEPHRIOS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015 HONORLITA
ASCANOCUPINO AND FLAVIANA ASCANOCOLOCADO,

Rather,thecontroversyinvolvesthequestionofwhetherLRTAcanbemadeliablebythelabortribunals
for the respondents' money claim, despite the absence of an employeremployee relationship between
themanddespitethefactthatLRTAisagovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporationwithanoriginal
charter.

The Court provided the answer in Phil. National Bank v. Pabalan31 where it said: "By engaging in a
particularbusinessthroughtheinstrumentalityofacorporation,thegovernmentdivestsitselfprohac

vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject of the rules governing private
corporations."32
cralawrednad

The NLRC accordingly declared: "for having conducted business through a private corporation, in this
case,respondentMETRO,asitsbusinessconduitoralterego,respondentLRTAmustsubmititselftothe
provisions governing private corporations, including the Labor Code. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter
rightfullydismissedtheMotiontoDismissofrespondentLRTA."33
cralawrednad

In this light, we find no grave abuse of discretion in the labor tribunals' taking cognizance of the
respondents'moneyclaimagainstLRTA.
Thesubstantiveaspectofthecase
Thepetitioniswithoutmerit,forthefollowingreasons:

ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

First. LRTA obligated itself to fund METRO'S retirement fund to answer for the retirement or
severance/resignation of METRO employees as part of METRO'S "operatingexpenses." Under Article
4.05.1oftheO&Magreement34betweenLRTAandMetro,"TheAuthorityshallreimburseMETROforx
xx"OPERATINGEXPENSESxxx"InthelettertoLRTA35datedJuly12,2001,theActingChairmanof
theMETROBoardofDirectorsatthetime,WilfredoTrinidad,remindedLRTAthat"fundingprovisionsfor
the retirement fund have always been considered operating expenses of Metro.36 The coverage of
operatingexpensestoincludeprovisionsfortheretirementfundhasneverbeendeniedbyLRTA.
Inthesameletter,TrinidadstressedthatasaconsequenceofthenonrenewaloftheO&Magreement
by LRTA, METRO was compelled to close its business operations effective September 30, 2000. This
created,Trinidadadded,alegalobligationtopaythequalifiedemployeesseparationbenefits
under existing company policy and collective bargaining agreements. The METRO Board of
Directorsapprovedthepaymentof50%oftheemployees'separationpaybecausethatwas

Petitioners, v. PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION,

Respondent.
G.R.No.205823,August17,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO
ANDGARYYUMOLYTUAZON,*Appellants.
G.R. No. 198643, August 19, 2015 MARSMAN &
COMPANY AND QUIRINO R. ILEDAN, Petitioners, v.
ARTEMIOM.LIGO,Respondent.
G.R.No.214054,August05,2015NGMENGTAM,
Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P112982 (Formerly O.C.A. IPI No. 08
2913P),August17,2015FORMERJUDGEFERNANDO
VIL PAMINTUAN, Complainant, v. SALVADOR G.
COMUYOG,JR.,CLERKIII,Respondent.
G.R. No. 187882, August 24, 2015 PHILIPPINE
NATIONALBANK,Petitioner,v.SPOUSESHIPPOCRATES
ANDMELANIEPIMENTEL,Respondents.

onlywhattheEmployees'RetirementFundcouldaccommodate.37
cralawrednad

TheevidencesupportsTrinidad'sposition.WereferprincipallytoResolutionNo.004438issuedby
theLRTABoardofDirectorsonJuly28,2000,inanticipationofandinpreparationfortheexpirationof
theO&MagreementwithMETROonJuly31,2000.
Specifically, the LRTA anticipated and prepared for the (1) nonrenewal (at its own behest) of the
agreement,(2)theeventualcessationofMETROoperations,and(3)theinvoluntarylossofjobsofthe
METRO employees thus, (1) the extension of a twomonth bridging fund for METRO from
August 1, 2000, to coincide with the agreement's expiration on July 31, 2000 (2) METRO'S
cessationofoperationsitclosedonSeptember30,2000,thelastdayofthebridgingfund
and most significantly to the employees adversely affected (3) the updating of the "Metro,
Inc., Employee Retirement Fund with the Bureau of Treasury to ensure that the fund fully
coversallretirementbenefitsyayabletotheemployeesofMetro,Inc."39
cralawrednad

TheclearlanguageofResolutionNo.0044,toourmind,establishedtheLRTA'sobligationforthe50%
unpaid balance of the respondents' separation pay. Without doubt, it bound itself to provide the
necessaryfundingtoMETRO'SEmployeeRetirementFundtofullycompensatetheemployeeswhohad
beeninvoluntaryretiredbythecessationofoperationsofMETRO.Thisisnotatallsurprisingconsidering
thatMETROwasawhollyownedsubsidiaryoftheLRTA.

G.R. No. 170706, August 26, 2015 PRUDENCIO

CARANTO, Petitioner, v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS.
AND/ORBERGESEND.Y.A.S.A.,Respondents.

Second. Even on the assumption that the LRTA did not obligate itself to fully cover the separation
benefits of the respondents and others similarly situated, it still cannot avoid liability for the
respondents' claim. It is solidarity liable as an indirect employer under the law for the
respondents' separation pay. This liability arises from the O & M agreement it had with METRO,
whichcreatedaprincipaljobcontractorrelationshipbetweenthem,anarrangementitadmittedwhenit
argued before the CA that METRO was an independent job contractor40 who, it insinuated, should be
solelyresponsiblefortherespondents'claim.

G.R. No. 194617, August 05, 2015 LA TONDEA,

INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent.

UnderArticle107oftheLaborCode,anindirectemployeris"anyperson,partnership,associationor
corporationwhich,notbeinganemployer,contractswithanindependentcontractorfortheperformance
ofanywork,task,joborproject."

G.R. No. 206612, August 17, 2015 TOYOTA

ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN GAMES,
Respondent.

Ontheotherhand,Article109onsolidaryliability,mandatesthatxxx"every employer or indirect

employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any
provisionsofthisCode.ForpurposesofdeterminingtheextentoftheircivilliabilityunderthisChapter,
theyshallbeconsideredasdirectemployers."

G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 ACOMARIT

ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG,
Petitioners,v.GOMERL.DOTIMAS,Respondent.

G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015 THE

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Petitioner, v.
COALITION OF PPA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES,
REPRESENTED BY HECTOR E. MIOLE, ET AL.,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015 ANLUD METAL
RECYCLING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY
ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN ANG,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 RE: IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF
ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE
PHILIPPINEBAR.
G.R. Nos. 19137071, August 10, 2015 RODOLFO
BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN AND JOHN
BASILONIA,Petitioners,v.HON.DELANOF.VLLLARUZ,
ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, BRANCH
16,ANDDIXONROBLETE,Respondents.
G.R. No. 165146, August 12, 2015 SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND VERNETTE G.
UMALI, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB
CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. N0. 165209
RAMON K. ILUSORIO AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO,
Petitioners,v.BAGUIOCOUNTRYCLUBCORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R.No.203066,August05,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA
YOFIZA,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 VICENTE H.
MANULAT, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

Department Order No. 1802, s. 2002, the rules implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code,
providesinitsSection19that"theprincipalshallalsobesolidarityliableincasethecontractbetween
theprincipalispreterminatedforreasonsnotattributabletothecontractororsubcontractor."
AlthoughthecessationofMETRO'SoperationswasduetoanonrenewaloftheO&Magreementand
notapreterminationofthecontract,thecauseofthenonrenewalandtheeffectontheemployeesare
thesameasinthecontractpreterminationcontemplatedintherules.Theagreementwasnotrenewed
throughnofaultofMETRO,asitwassolelyatthebehestofLRTA.Thefactis,underthecircumstances,
METROreallyhadnochoiceonthematter,consideringthatitwasameresubsidiaryofLRTA.
Nevertheless, whether it is a pretermination or a nonrenewal of the contract, the same adverse effect
befalls the workers affected, like the respondents in this case the involuntary loss of their
employment,oneofthecontingenciesaddressedandsoughttoberectifiedbytherules.
Infine,wefindnoreversibleerrorintheCArulings.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DISMISSED, for lack of
merit.TheassaileddecisionandresolutionoftheCourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED.Thedecisiondated
May8,2005,ofLaborArbiterArthurL.Amansec,isREINSTATED.
SOORDERED.

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Carpio,(Chairperson),DelCastillo,Mendoza,andLeonen,JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:

1Rollo,pp.930filedpursuanttoRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
2Id.at3651pennedbyAssociateJusticeMarioV.LopezandconcurredinbyAssociate

JusticesFernandaLampasPeraltaandSocorroB.Inting.
3Id.at5354.

G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 NATION

PETROLEUM GAS, INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO
ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G. SY, NELSON ANG,
LUISAANG,RENATOC.ANG,PAULINET.ANG,RICKYC.
ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED
BY PHILIPPINE ASSET GROWTH ONE, INC.,
Respondent.

4CArollo,pp.172208.

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 JUAN PONCE

ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJETANG, HON. SAMUEL R.
MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD
DIVISIONOFTHESANDIGANBAYAN,Respondents.

8Id.at5869.

G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015 LIWAYWAY

ANDRES,RONNIEANDRES,ANDPABLOB.FRANCISCO,
Petitioners, v. STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT,
INCORPORATED,Respondent.

10Id.at95.

G.R. No. 153810, August 12, 2015 WINSTON R.

GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioners, v. ANGELITA
TOLENTINO, EDELITO ZOLLO EDRALINDA, KATHLYN A.
UMALI,VIVIANROSIELLECERVANTES,EDITHMEDINA,
ROMELO CABANGON, ET AL., Respondents. G.R. NO.
167297 MELINA I. GARCIA, CECILIA V. LAS, NIMFA
PENALOSA, ROSANA R. ZEPEDA, RACHELLE L. JACOB,
MARIBELB.TENA,ANDEDUVIGISS.ANGELES(INLIEU
OF ANGELITA TOLENTINO FOR THE NATIONAL
FORESTATIONDEVELOPMENTOFFICEDEPARTMENTOF

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

5Rollo,p.103PetitionforCertiorari,p.7,par.10.
6CArollo,p.255.
7Id.at5556.

Id. at 8193 penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with

CommissionersPerlitaB.Velasco,andRomeoL.Go,concurring.

11520Phil.233(2006).
12SignedintolawbyPresidentBenignoS.AquinoIII,March14,2013.
13Rollo,pp.150173CAG.R.SPNo.83984.
14Id.at:179180EntryofJudgmentinG.R.No.169194,LRTAv.RicardoB.Malanao,et

al., where the Supreme Court's 3rd Division denied LRTA's Rule 45 appeal from the CA
decisioninsamecase.
15CArollo,pp.657662.
16Id.at654655.

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.),

Petitioners,v.WINSTONGARCIA,ETAL.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 192943, August 12, 2015 UNITED
DUMANGAS PORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ATTY.
OSMAR M. SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY.
FERNANDO B. CLAVERINA, PORT MANAGER, PORT
MANAGEMENTOFFICERILOILOANDRAULT.SANTOS,
PORT DISTRICT MANAGER, PORT DISTRICT OFFICE
VISAYAS,Respondents.
G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 177168, August 03, 2015 NAVY
OFFICERS' VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (NOVAI),
Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015 AGRARIAN
REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), AS
REPRESENTED BY ISAIAS "ACE" NICOLAS IN HIS
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VIOLETA BATADHAY, JESUS
F. DANAO, DOMINADOR RIOSA, EVA I. FLORIDO,
VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA
MENGOLIO,FEDELINAAMENGYAO,REBECCAREBAMBA,
MELANI CADAG, SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA
SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I.
REBUZANO, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, ALGERICO L.
GAEGUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ,
HELEN S. BUNI, EMELINDA FERNANDEZ, JULIETA J.
AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA,
EDUARDO M. DILAY, SIMEONA V. ROLEDA, EVELYN
SANTO ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA
ABRENICA,
BESAME
VILLACORTA,
ROSALINA
HERNANDEZ, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SOUN,
ILUMENADA RONQUILLO, REGINA LOPEZ, AMPARO
GREY, HIPOLITO MANDAO, JUAN DELA VEGA,
PRESCILIANALLEMIT,LEBERETAIGNACIO,FRANCISCO
VALDEMOR,
Petitioners,
v.
FILESTATE
INC.,
PROPERTIES, Respondent. G.R. NO. 164660 THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES,
INC.,
ET
AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
KINGSVILLE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND
JOHNSON ONG, Respondents. G.R. NO. 164779
AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION
(ARBA), VIOLETA BATADHAY, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO,
JESUS F. DANAO, EVA I. FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS,
WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA MENGOLIO, ROBERTO
ISIP, REBECCA REBAMBA, SOFRONIA SABORDO,
MYRNASANTIAGO,JOSELYNDAMANALANZAN,NORAI.
REBUZANO, ALGERICO L. GALQUERA, RUBEN G.
ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ, HELEN S. BUNI,
JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C.
CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY, ELEUTERIA A.
NOLASCO,TERESACRUZ,MELBAABRENICA,VERONICA
DOMULOT, LUCIA SUN, ILUMENADA RONQUILLO AND
PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ANDJOHNSONONG,Respondent.

G.R. No. 164974, August 05, 2015 CHARLIE TE,

Petitioner, v. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY U R. BAHINTING, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SARANGGANI
DISTRICT OFFICE AND PRYCE GASES, INC.,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015 PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C. SALINAS,
AND
NORWEGIAN
CREW
MANAGEMENT
A/S,
Petitioners,v.CESARC.PELAGIO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 ROMMEL C.
ARNADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
ANDFLORANTECAPITAN,Respondents.
G.R. No. 211649, August 12, 2015 AQA GLOBAL
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent. G.R. No. 211742
JEANSUPREMEBUILDERSANDSALESCORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203355, August 18, 2015 LEO R.
ROSALES, EDGAR SOLIS JONATHAN G. RANIOLA, LITO
FELICIANO, RAYMUNDO DIDAL, JR., NESTOR SALIN,
ARNULFOS.ABRIL,RUBENFLORES,DANTEFERMAAND
MELCHOR SELGA, Petitioners, v. NEW A.N.J.H.
ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION, NOEL
AWAYAN, MA. FE AWAYAN, BYRON ILAGAN, HEIDI A.
ILAGANANDAVELINOAWAYAN,Respondents.
A.M.No.RTJ142383(FormerlyA.M.OCAI.P.INo.
052301RTJ), August 17, 2015 DR. CORAZON D.
PADERANGA,DULCEP.GUIBELONDO,PATRIAP.DIAZ,
CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, AND DR. AMOR P. GALON,
Complainants,
v.
HONORABLE
RUSTICO
D.
PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28,
INMAMBAJAO,CAMIGUIN,Respondent.A.M.No.RTJ
072033(FORMERLYA.M.OCAI.P.INo.062485RTJ)
PATRIA PADERANGA DIAZ, Complainant, v. HON. RTC
JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, AS THE PRESIDING

17Supranote11.
18Articles106and109.
19RosewoodProcessing,Inc.,v.NLRC,etal.,352Phil.1013,1035(1998).
20CArollo,pp.267268.
21Id.at254.
22358Phil.397,409(1998).
23Theprescriptionofactionsisinterruptedwhentheyarefiledbeforethecourt,

whenthereisawrittenextrajudicialdemandbythecreditors,andwhenthereis
awrittenacknowledgmentofthedebtbythedebtor.
24CARollo,pp.281285.
25

Supranote1,at21,par.4.

cralawred

26Id.at23,par.5.
27CArollo,pp.215216.
28Supranote6.
29Supranote20.
30Supranote11,at243,244.
31173Phil.25,(1978).
32Id.at29.
33Supranote9,at9,par.1.
34Supranote5.
35Supranote20.
36Id.par.4.
37Id.pars.2&3.
38Supranote6.
39Id.par.2
40Rollo,p.113PetitionforCertiorari,p.17,par.10.

Adsby Google
Adsby Google
Adsby Google

MetroMap
CompanyLaw
InPhilippines

EmployerLaw
InPhilippines
EmploymentLaw

LawLaw
LawCases
CAGR

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

QUICKSEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2013

2014

2015

2016

2012

MainIndicesoftheLibrary>

Go!

JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28,

INMAMBAJAO,CAMIGUIN,Respondent.
G.R. No. 160924, August 05, 2015 TERELAY
INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,v.CECILIATERESITAJ.YULO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 213286, August 26, 2015 MAMERTA
LOPEZ CLAUDIO, EDUARDO L. CLAUDIO, ASUNCION
CLAUDIOCONTEGINO,
ANA
CLAUDIOISULAT,
DOLORESCLAUDIOMABINI,ANDFERMINL.CLAUDIO,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FEDERICO AND NORMA
SARAZA,Respondent.
G.R.No.200295,August19,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. EDGAR BOLO Y
FRANCO,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015 DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V.
PURISIMAINHISOFFICIALCAPACITYASSECRETARY,
AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY
HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY
AS
COMMISSIONER
OF
CUSTOMS,
Petitioners,v.HON.MARINOM.DELACRUZ,JR.,INHIS
CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O. LARON
CACANINDIN,INHERCAPACITYASPRESIDINGJUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 17,
RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA,
ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S.
SANDAG,RAYMONDP.VENTURA,MA.LIZAS.TORRES,
ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG,
FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA
D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1] AREFILES
H. CARREON,2] AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015 GABRIELA
CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 170671, August 19, 2015 FILADELFA T.
LAUSA, LORETA T. TORRES, PRIMITIVO TUGOT AND
ANACLETO T. CADUHAY, Petitioners, v. MAURICIA
QUILATON, RODRIGO Q. TUGOT, PURIFICACION T.
CODILLA, TEOFRA T. SADAYA, ESTRELLITA T. GALEOS
ANDROSITAT.LOPEZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 202322, August 19, 2015 LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S.
MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO, ROBERTO M.
REYES, EDGARDO CRISTOBAL, JR., AND RODOLFO
ROMAN,Respondents.
G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015 FLOR CAAS
MANUEL,Petitioner,v.ANDRESD.EGANO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R.No.202645,August05,2015FORTUNATOR.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/ORERNESTOP.ENRIQUEZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 OKS
DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O.
PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 ISMAEL V.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
A.M. No. CA1533P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13
207CAP], August 24, 2015 TERESITA R.
MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS,
MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER,
MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF
APPEALS,CEBUSTATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 HILARIO P.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C.
CLEOFE,Respondents.
G.R. No. 20084142, August 26, 2015 CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 ALBERTO T.
LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
NATIONALFOODAUTHORITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 SAN MIGUEL
PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 MANILA
ELECTRICCOMPANY,Petitioner,v.THECITYASSESSOR
ANDCITYTREASUREROFLUCENACITY,Respondents.
A.M. No. 99701SC, August 18, 2015 RE:
REQUESTOFRETIREDSUPREMECOURTANDCOURTOF

APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF

THEIRDECEMBER1998PENSIONS
A.M.No.RTJ152439(Formerly:OCAI.P.I.No.12
3989RTJ), August 26, 2015 ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH,
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAADOARROYO,REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, SAN
JOSECITY,CAMARINESSUR,Respondent.
G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 TEOFILO
GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND
LIBERATODUMAIL(DECEASED),Petitioners,v.PEOPLE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 REPUBLIC OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED
BY
THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT,
Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYINFACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO,JR.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 NILO V.
CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner,v.VICTORIA BENITEZLIRIO,
FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 JOSE RUDY L.
BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,
Respondents.
G.R.No.208354,August26,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R.No.202645,August05,2015FORTUNATOR.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/ORERNESTOP.ENRIQUEZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 ISMAEL V.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 OKS
DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O.
PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM,
Respondent.
A.M. No. CA1533P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13
207CAP], August 24, 2015 TERESITA R.
MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS,
MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER,
MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF
APPEALS,CEBUSTATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 HILARIO P.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C.
CLEOFE,Respondents.
G.R. No. 20084142, August 26, 2015 CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 ALBERTO T.
LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
NATIONALFOODAUTHORITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 SAN MIGUEL
PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 MANILA
ELECTRICCOMPANY,Petitioner,v.THECITYASSESSOR
ANDCITYTREASUREROFLUCENACITY,Respondents.
A.M.No.RTJ152439(Formerly:OCAI.P.I.No.12
3989RTJ), August 26, 2015 ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH,
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAADOARROYO,REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, SAN
JOSECITY,CAMARINESSUR,Respondent.
A.M. No. 99701SC, August 18, 2015 RE:
REQUESTOFRETIREDSUPREMECOURTANDCOURTOF
APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF
THEIRDECEMBER1998PENSIONS
G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 TEOFILO
GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND
LIBERATODUMAIL(DECEASED),Petitioners,v.PEOPLE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.

G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 REPUBLIC OF

THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED
BY
THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT,
Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYINFACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO,JR.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 NILO V.
CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner,v.VICTORIA BENITEZLIRIO,
FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 JOSE RUDY L.
BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,*
Respondents.
G.R.No.208354,August26,2015PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 MONICO
LIGTAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 RICHARD N.
RIVERA, Petitioner, v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE,
INC.ANDRIZAA.MOISES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 DAVID YU
KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU,
ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS
YU,MARCELOYU,ANDSINCHIAOYULIM,Petitioners,
v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA,
JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD
R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME,
YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE
OFELIAL.CALO,PRESIDINGJUDGEOFBRANCH211OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY,
Respondents.
G.R.No.171804,August05,2015 THEREGISTER
OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE
NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., AND
ANGLO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED
BYOSCARANGLO,JR.,Respondents.
G.R.No.205705,August05,2015DOMINADORM.
APIQUE,
Petitioner,
v.
EVANGELINE
APIQUE
FAHNENSTICH,Respondent.
G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015 HEIRS OF
RAFAEL GOZO REPRESENTED BY CASTILLO GOZO AND
RAFAEL GOZO, JR., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE UNION
MISSION CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH (PUMCO), SOUTH PHILIPPINE
UNIONMISSIONOFSDA(SPUMCO)ANDSEVENTHDAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH AT SIMPAK, LALA, LANAO DEL
NORTEREPRESENTEDBYBETTYPEREZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015 BERLINDA
ORIBELLO,Petitioner,v.COURTOFAPPEALS(SPECIAL
FORMERTENTHDIVISION),ANDREMEDIOSORIBELLO,
Respondents.

! CLICKTOWATCH

! CLICKTOWATCH

|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions

Copyright19982016ChanRoblesPublishingCompany

ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com

RED