Home

Law Firm

Law Library

Laws

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > October 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 205039,
October 21, 2015 - SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET SANTIAGO,
Petitioners, v. RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO, Respondents.:

G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015 - SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET
SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015

SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. RAFFY
TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO, Respondents.
DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated August 6, 20122 and January
7, 20133 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City4 (RTC) in SP No. Q-12-71275, which (a) dismissed the
petition for writ of amparo filed by petitioners-spouses Rozelle Raymond Martin "Raymart" (Raymart)
and Claudine Margaret Santiago (Claudine; collectively, petitioners) and (b) dissolved the temporary
protection order (TPO) previously issued therein.

The Facts

At around 11:40 in the morning of May 6, 2012, petitioners arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) aboard a Cebu Pacific Airline flight from a vacation with their family and
friends. They waited for the arrival of their baggage but were eventually informed that it was offloaded
and transferred to a different flight. Aggrieved, petitioners lodged a complaint before the Cebu Pacific
complaint desk. As they were complaining, they noticed a man taking photos of Claudine with his
cellular phone. Ray mart approached the man and asked what he was doing. Suddenly, the man, later
identified as Ramon "Mon" Tulfo (Mon), allegedly punched and kicked Raymart, forcing the latter to
fight back. When Claudine saw the commotion, she approached Mon and the latter likewise allegedly
kicked and pushed her back against the counter. At that instance, Raymart rushed to defend his wife,
while one Edoardo Benjamin Atilano (Atilano) joined in the brawl. Immediately thereafter, several
airport security personnel came to stop the altercation and brought them to the Airport Police
Department for investigation.5

Days after the incident, respondents Raffy, Ben, and Erwin Tulfo (respondents), brothers of Mon, aired
on their TV program comments and expletives against petitioners, and threatened that they will
retaliate.6 Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled, petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a
writ of amparo against respondents on May 11, 2012 before the RTC.7
On May 23, 2012, Erwin Tulfo filed a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Issuance of Protection Order
and/or Dismissal of the Petition Motu Proprio8 (May 23, 2012 Motion) which was opposed by
petitioners for being a prohibited pleading.9

On May 24, 2012, then Presiding Judge Bayani Vargas (JudgeVargas) issued a Resolution10 granting a
TPO in favor of petitioners and directed respondents to file their return/answer.11

In his return/answer,12 Ben Tulfo claimed that the statements he uttered did not involve any actual
threat and that he merely expressed his strong sentiments to defend his brother.13

On June 29, 2012, Judge Vargas submitted the case for resolution but eventually retired on July 11,
2012. Consequently, Judge Maria Filomena Singh (Judge Singh) was designated as the Acting Presiding
Judge who assumed office and handled the present case.14

The RTC Ruling

In a Resolution15 dated August 6, 2012, the RTC, through Judge Singh, dismissed the petition and
ordered the dissolution of the TPO.16 It held that the petition is not a proper subject of a writ of amparo
since the rules were intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,
noting that the purpose of the law is to, among others, ascertain the whereabouts of an aggrieved party,
recover evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition, and
determine the facts surrounding the death or disappearance of a missing person. Consequently, it held
that it did not have the authority to issue said writ in favor of petitioners. In this relation, it explained
that while it is true that the May 23, 2012 Motion was a motion to dismiss and as such, a prohibited
pleading under the rules, it still had the discretion to dismiss the case when in its own determination the
case is not covered by the same rule. It expressed that the prohibition against motions to dismiss was
meant to expedite the proceedings; thus, in line with the same objective, it has the primary duty to so
declare if it cannot grant the remedy at the outset so as not to waste the time and resources of the
litigants and the courts, both in a moot and academic exercise.17

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,18 which was, however, denied for lack of merit in a
Resolution19 dated January 7, 2013; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not the RTC's dismissal of petitioners' amparo petition was
correct.

Petitioners argue that the issuance of a writ of amparo is not limited to cases of extrajudicial killings,
enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.20 They submit that they need not undergo the human
rights abuses such as extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances, as is common to landmark
decisions on military and police abuses, before their right to life, liberty, and security may be protected
by a writ of amparo.21 Further, they insist that the May 23, 2012 Motion was a prohibited pleading and,
hence, should not have been allowed.22

The Court's Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

In the landmark case of Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo),23 the Court has already
explained that the writ of amparo, under its present procedural formulation, namely, A.M. No. 07-9-12-
SC,24 otherwise known as "The Rule on the Writ of Amparo," was intended to address and, thus, is
presently confined to cases involving extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats
thereof:

As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and
"enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to
threats thereof, x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Indeed, while amparo (which literally means "protection" in Spanish) has been regarded as a special
remedy provided for the enforcement of constitutional rights, the parameters of protection are not the
same in every jurisdiction. In Manalo, the origins of amparo were discussed as follows:
The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. "Amparo" literally means "protection" in Spanish. In 1837, de
Tocqueville's Democracy in America became available in Mexico and stirred great interest. Its
description of the practice of judicial review in the U.S. appealed to many Mexican jurists. One of them,
Manuel Crescencio Rejon, drafted a constitutional provision for his native state, Yucatan, which granted
judges the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. This
idea was incorporated into the national constitution in 1847, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in the exercise and preservation of those
rights granted to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto, against attacks by the
Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments, limiting themselves to granting
protection in the specific case in litigation, making no general declaration concerning the statute or
regulation that motivated the violation.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Since then, the protection has been an important part of Mexican constitutionalism. If, after hearing, the
judge determines that a constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated, he orders the official, or
the official's superiors, to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to restore the
petitioner to the full enjoyment of the right in question. Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial
review derived from the U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law
tradition which prevails in Mexico. It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual
rights in particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation.

The writ of amparo then spread throughout the Western Hemisphere, gradually evolving into various
forms, in response to the particular needs of each country. It became, in the words of a justice of the
Mexican Federal Supreme Court, one piece of Mexico's self-attributed "task of conveying to the world's
legal heritage that institution which, as a shield of human dignity, her own painful history conceived."
What began as a protection against acts or omissions of public authorities in violation of constitutional
rights later evolved for several purposes: (1) amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom,
equivalent to the habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the
constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and
legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions;
and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants" rights derived from the agrarian reform process.

In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to
protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas. In general,
these countries adopted an all-encompassing writ to protect the whole gamut of constitutional rights,
including socio-economic rights. Other countries like Colombia, Chile, Germany and Spain, however,
have chosen to limit the protection of the writ of amparo only to some constitutional guarantees or
fundamental rights.26
In our jurisdiction, the contextual genesis, at least, for the present Amparo Rule has limited the remedy
as a response to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. "Extrajudicial
killings," according to case law, are generally characterized as "killings committed without due process
of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings,"27 while "enforced disappearances,"
according to Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 9851,28 otherwise known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes
Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity," "means the
arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a
State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to
give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." In Navia v. Pardico,29 the Court held that it must
be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the
intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Simply put,
the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable
element of government participation.30 Notably, the same requirement of government participation
should also apply to extralegal killings, considering that the writ of amparo was, according to then Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno, who headed the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court that drafted
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, intended to "hold public authorities, those who took their oath to defend the
constitution and enforce our laws, to a high standard of official conduct and hold them accountable to
our people. [In this light] [t]he sovereign Filipino people should be assured that if their right[s] to life and
liberty are threatened or violated, they will find vindication in our courts of justice."31 Stated differently,
the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy that is meant to balance out the government's incredible
power in order to curtail human rights abuses on its end.

Consistent therewith, the delimitation of our current writ of amparo to extralegal killings and/or
enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, is explicit from Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, which
reads:

Section 1. Petition. - The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to
life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
While the foregoing rule, as per Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's first paragraph, does state that the
writ is a remedy to protect the right to life, liberty, and security of the person desiring to avail of it, the
same section's second paragraph qualifies that the protection of such rights specifically pertain to
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof, which are more concrete cases that
involve protection to the rights to life, liberty and security. The two paragraphs should indeed be read
together in order to construe the meaning of the provision. Clearly applicable is the statutory
construction rule that "clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but
the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to
produce a harmonious whole. Every part of the statute [or, in this case, procedural rule] must be
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered
together with other parts of the statute and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole
enactment."32

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners' amparo petition before the RTC does not allege any case of
extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats thereof, in the senses above-
described. Their petition is merely anchored on a broad invocation of respondents' purported violation
of their right to life and security, carried out by private individuals without any showing of direct or
indirect government participation. Thus, it is apparent that their amparo petition falls outside the
purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and, perforce, must fail. Hence, the RTC, through Judge Singh, properly
exercised its discretion to motu proprio dismiss the same under this principal determination, regardless
of the filing of the May 23, 2012 Motion. The court, indeed, has the discretion to determine whether or
not it has the authority to grant the relief in the first place. And when it is already apparent that the
petition falls beyond the purview of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss the petition so as not to prejudice
any of the parties through prolonged but futile litigation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The petition for writ of amparo filed by petitioners-spouses Rozelle
Raymond Martin and Claudine Margaret Santiago before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
docketed as SP No. Q-12-71275, is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Leonardo-De Castro, and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2253 dated October 14, 2015.

1Rollo, pp. 2-37.

2 Id. at 42-49. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Filomena D. Singh.

3 Id. at 50-59.

4 Branch 219 for the Resolution dated August 6, 2012 and Branch 85 for the Resolution dated January 7,
2013.

5 See id. at 5-7.

6 See id. at 8-10.

7 See id. at 12-13.

8 Not attached to the rollo. See rollo, pp. 13 and 42-43.

10 Not attached to the rollo.

11Rollo, p. 42.

12 Not attached to the rollo.

13 See rollo, pp. 13-14.

14 See id. at 42.

15 Id. at 42-49.

16 Id. at 48.

17 See id. at 43-48.

18 Not attached to the rollo. See id. at 50.

19 Id. at 50-59.

20 See id. at 16-27.

21 Id. at 24.

22 See id. at 27-30.

23 589 Phil. 1 (2008).

24 Effective October 24, 2007.

25 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, supra note 23, at 37-38; citations omitted.
26 Id. at 38-40; citations omitted.

27 Id. at 37.

28 Entitled "AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN
LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING JURISDICTION, DESIGNATING
SPECIAL COURTS, AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES" (approved on December 11, 2009).

29 G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 618.

30 Id. at 634-635.

31 Rempillo, Jay B., "SC Approves Rule on Writ of Amparo," Bench Mark, Vol. VIII, No. 9, September
2007, p. 1., quoting a statement of then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

32Civil Service Commission v. Jason, Jr., 473 Phil. 844, 858 (2004).

Back to Home | Back to Main

chanrobles.com

Custom Search
ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman

October-2015 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 182395, October 05, 2015 - MARITO T. BERNALES, Petitioner, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 193990, October 14, 2015 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., AND/OR CONGRESSMAN ERWIN L.
CHIONGBIAN, Petitioners, v. JULIO C. CANJA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 191031, October 05, 2015 - DOLORES L. HACBANG AND BERNARDO J. HACBANG, Petitioners, v.
ATTY. BASILIO H. ALO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193271, October 05, 2015 - LOLITA M. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. SILVESTRE H. BELLO IV,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015 - EDGAR T. BARROSO, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY AND TRAVELLERS INSURANCE &
SURETY CORPORATION, ANTONIO V. BATAO, REGIONAL MANAGER, Respondents.

G.R. No. 171897, October 14, 2015 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FLORO ROXAS AND
EUFEMIA ROXAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 186114, October 07, 2015 - CHEVRON (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, v. VITALIANO C GALIT, SJS AND
SONS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND MR. REYNALDO SALOMON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191526, October 05, 2015 - SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND CONSOLACION TABALNO, Petitioners,
v. PAULINO T. DINGAL, SR. AND JUANITA GALOLA VDA. DE DINGAL, Respondents.

G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD REP. BY ITS
PRESIDENT, ALFIE ALIPIO, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND
CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. (HHIC-PHIL.), Respondents.

G.R. No. 213197, October 21, 2015 - REMEGIO A. CHING, Petitioner, v. SAN PEDRO COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 203969, October 21, 2015 - ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., Petitioner, v. ALBERTO COMPAS,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS NAMELY, CLIFFORD M. COMPAS AND JOAN M. COMPAS, AND PHILIPPINE
MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 214057, October 19, 2015 - FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, MANUEL B. FLORES, JR., Petitioner, v. NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, BENJAMIN G. BAUTISTA AND INTERNATIONAL EXCHAN BANK, Respondents.

G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRICO
MIRONDO Y IZON, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 211638, October 07, 2015 - MARK ANTHONY SASO, Petitioner, v. 88 ACES MARITIME SERVICE,
INC. AND/OR CARMENCITA A. SARREAL AND LIN WEN YU, Respondents.

G.R. No. 175483, October 14, 2015 - VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
ANNIE SHOTWELL JALANDOON, ET AL., Respondents.

G.R. No. 182210, October 05, 2015 - PAZ T. BERNARDO, SUBSTITUTED BY HEIRS, MAPALAD G.
BERNARDO, EMILIE B. KO, MARILOU B. VALDEZ, EDWIN T. BERNARDO AND GERVY B. SANTOS,
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 194969, October 07, 2015 - CONVOY MARKETING CORPORATION AND/OR ARNOLD LAAB,
Petitioners, v. OLIVER B. ALBIA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 182208, October 14, 2015 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. ALLIED GUARANTEE
INSURANCE, CO., INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 194410, October 14, 2015 - OCEAN EAST AGENCY, CORPORATION, ENGR. ARTURO D. CARMEN,
AND CAPT. NICOLAS SKINITIS, Petitioners, v. ALLAN I. LOPEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204105, October 14, 2015 - GERONIMO S. ROSAS, Petitioner, v. DILAUSAN MONTOR AND IMRA-
ALI M. SABDULLAH, Respondents.

G.R. No. 169457, October 19, 2015 - THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED PACIFIC LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 201535, October 05, 2015 - NEC SYSTEM INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION (NESIC) PHILS., INC.,
Petitioner, v. RALPH T. CRISOLOGO, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 153745-46, October 14, 2015 - NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT, SR., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS (17th Division Composed of JUSTICE BIENVENIDO L. REYES, PONENTE; JUSTICE ROBERTO A.
BARRIOS, Chairman; AND JUSTICE EDGARDO F. SUNDIAM, Acting Third Member), LOURDES S. PASCUAL,
LEONILA F. ACASIO, AND SAN JUAN MACIAS MEMORIAL PARK, INC., Respondents.; G.R. No. 166573 -
LOURDES S. PASCUAL, LEONILA F. ACASIO AND SAN JUAN MACIAS MEMORIAL PARK, INC., Petitioners, v.
NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT, SR., Respondent.

A.M. No. P-14-3209, October 20, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
FREDELITO R. BALTAZAR, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ALLACAPAN-LASAM,
CAGAYAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 215313, October 21, 2015 - OLIMPIO O. OLIDANA, Petitioner, v. JEBSENS MARITIME, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 213014, October 14, 2015 - MAYBANK PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY PNB-REPUBLIC BANK),
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NENITA TARROSA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015 - SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET
SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 204481-82, October 14, 2015 - ALBERT G. AMBAGAN, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 193420, October 14, 2015 - 7107 ISLANDS PUBLISHING, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HOUSE
PRINTERS CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 191176, October 14, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG),
Petitioner, v. RAUL V. GATUZ, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10783, October 14, 2015 - ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER
A. BASILIO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197058, October 14, 2015 - GREGORY BALUYO Y GAMORA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF EMMANUEL
GAMORA BALUYO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOAQUIN AND REBECCA DE LA CRUZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015 - G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ROMEO L.
BATTUNG, JR., REPRESENTED BY ROMEO BATTUNG, SR., Respondents.

G.R. No. 212096, October 14, 2015 - NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN & SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v.
NESTOR LUMAHAN, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-15-3321 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2966-P), October 21, 2015 - GUIAWAN REGINA
BALANZA, Complainant, v. ARSENIO P. CRISTE, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, VIGAN
CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2102 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2762-RTJ), October 14, 2015 - SUGNI REALTY
HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, CYNTHIA
CRUZ KHEMANI, Complainant, v. JUDGE BERNADETTE S. PAREDES-ENCINAREAL, [THEN IN HER CAPACITY
AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 10, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, IN DIPOLOG CITY], PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12, OROQUIETA CITY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 196597, October 21, 2015 - MODESTO W. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. ALLIED BANKING
CORPORATION, CORA D. CORPUS AND ANTONIO H. SANTOS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169442, October 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, v. ANTONIO V. BAÑEZ, LUISITA BAÑEZ
VALERA, NENA BAÑEZ HOJILLA, AND EDGARDO B. HOJILLA, JR., Respondents.

G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERGEL ANCAJAS
AND ALLAIN ANCAJAS, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIET PANCHO,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 208015, October 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONWALDO
LAFARAN Y ACLAN, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 184076, October 21, 2015 - ST. RAPHAEL MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC., REPRESENTED BY
TERESITA G. BADIOLA, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 215319, October 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. APOLONIO
BABOR @ "JULITO", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 181284, October 20, 2015 - LOLOY UNDURAN, BARANGAY CAPTAIN ROMEO PACANA, NESTOR
MACAPAYAG, RUPERTO DOGIA, JIMMY TALINO, ERMELITO ANGEL, PETOY BESTO, VICTORINO ANGEL,
RUEL BOLING, JERMY ANGEL, BERTING SULOD, RIO BESTO, BENDIJO SIMBALAN, AND MARK BRAZIL,
Petitioners, v. RAMON ABERASTURI, CRISTINA C. LOPEZ, CESAR LOPEZ JR., DIONISIO A. LOPEZ,
MERCEDES L. GASTON, AGNES H. LOPEZ, EUSEBIO S. LOPEZ, JOSE MARIA S. LOPEZ, ANTON B.
ABERASTURI, MA. RAISSA A. VELEZ, ZOILO ANTONIO A. VELEZ, CRISTINA ABERASTURI, EDUARDO LOPEZ
JR., ROSARIO S. LOPEZ, JUAN S. LOPEZ, CESAR ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, VENANCIO L. GASTON, ROSEMARIE S.
LOPEZ, JAY A. ASUNCION, NICOLO ABERASTURI, LISA A. ASUNCION, INEZ A. VERAY, HERNAN A.
ASUNCION, ASUNCION LOPEZ, THOMAS A. VELEZ, LUIS ENRIQUE VELEZ, ANTONIO H. LOPEZ, CHARLES H.
LOPEZ, ANA L. ZAYCO, PILAR L. QUIROS, CRISTINA L. PICAZO, RENATO SANTOS, GERALDINE AGUIRRE,
MARIA CARMENCITA T. LOPEZ, and as represented by attorney-in-fact RAMON ABERASTURI,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 - MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 194159, October 21, 2015 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner,
v. MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ (AS THEN OMBUDSMAN), DON M. FERRY, JOSE R. TENGCO,
JR., ROLANDO M. ZOSA, CESAR C. ZALAMEA, OFELIA I. CASTELL, AND RAFAEL A. SISON, PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS, RODOLFO M. CUENCA, MANUEL I. TINIO, AND ANTONIO R. ROQUE, PRIVATE,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 214506, October 19, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR PARBA Y
SOLON, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 181683, October 07, 2015 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. No. 184568 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197852, October 19, 2015 - PASIG AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
CORPORATION AND CELESTINO E. DAMIAN, Petitioners, v. WILSON NIEVAREZ, ALBERTO HALINA, GLORY
VIC NUEVO, RICKY TORRES AND CORNELIO BALLE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 177600, October 19, 2015 - MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, LT. COL. JALANDONI COTA,
MAYOR AMER ODEN BALINDONG, AND ALI BALINDONG, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, STATE
PROSECUTOR LEAH ARMAMENTO, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND ZENAIDA LIMBONA,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 178684 - ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE ALEXANDER S. BALUT
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 76, Respondent.

G.R. No. 176394, October 21, 2015 - COL. ORLANDO E. DE LEON, PN (M), Petitioner, v. LT. GEN.
HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., (AFP), AND SPECIAL GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2, Respondents.;
COL. ARMANDO V. BAÑEZ, PN (M), Petitioner-Intervenor.; LTC ACHILLES S. SEGUMALIAN, PN (M),
Petitioner-Intervenor.; G.R. No. 177033 - MAJOR LEOMAR JOSE M. DOCTOLERO O-10124 (INFANTRY)
PHILIPPINE ARMY AND CAPTAIN WILLIAM VICTORINO F. UPANO O-11876 (INFANTRY) PHILIPPINE ARMY,
Petitioners, v. LT. GEN. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE SPECIAL GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2, Respondents.; G.R. No. 177304 -
MAJOR JASON L. AQUINO (INF) PA, Petitioner, v. GEN. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., AS CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND APPOINTING AND REVIEWING AUTHORITY OF
THE SPECIAL GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2 (SIC), AND THE SPECIAL GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 177470 - 1ST LIEUTENANT ERVIN C. DIVINAGRACIA O-12742 (INF), PHILIPPINE
ARMY, Petitioner, v. LT. GEN. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE SPECIAL GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2, Respondents.; G.R. No. 177471 -
CAPTAIN JOEY T FONTIVEROS O-11713 (INFANTRY) PHILIPPINE ARMY, Petitioner, v. LT. GEN.
HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SPECIAL
GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 2, Respondent.

G.R. No. 172902, October 21, 2015 - RAMON IKE V. SEÑERES, Petitioner, v. DELFIN JAY M. SABIDO IX,
VICTORIA P. GARCHITORENA, WALDO Q. FLORES, AND ESTRELLA F. ALABASTRO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 171953, October 21, 2015 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO ROXAS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 194814, October 21, 2015 - ROSARIO ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE A.
SUING, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 194825 - JAIME C. VISTAR, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 166391, October 21, 2015 - MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO D.
MANANSALA AND/OR MEL MANANSALA, DOING BUSINESS AS DATAMAN TRADING COMPANY AND/OR
COMIC ALLEY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 161006, October 14, 2015 - ROGELIO BARONDA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND
HIDECO SUGAR MILLING CO., INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 161006, October 14, 2015 - ROGELIO BARONDA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND
HIDECO SUGAR MILLING CO., INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 161006, October 14, 2015 - ROGELIO BARONDA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND
HIDECO SUGAR MILLING CO., INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 212861, October 14, 2015 - MELVIN P. MALLO, Petitioner, v. SOUTHEAST ASIAN COLLEGE, INC.
AND EDITA ENATSU, Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz