JLJ Realty Other Home Services: Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

9/13/2021 G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v.
ner, v. ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents. : September 2014 - Philippp…
JLJ Realty and Other Home Services

Jlj Realty Other Home Services
For Real Estate Properties That Speak to You, Get in Touch with Our Agents.
Directions Website
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
September 2014 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > September 2014 Decisions >
G.R. No.

200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD

CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents.:

ChanRobles Professional Review,

Inc.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=791 1/37
9/13/2021 G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents. : September 2014 - Philippp…

G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v.
ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014
STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
CUARESMA, Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated June 22, 2011 and
January 16, 2012, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117785.
The antecedent facts are as follows:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Avail affordable
ChanRobles CPA Review Online
internet plan

Power your home with fast
and reliable fiber internet.
Internet plans for all home
Streamtech fiber internet types
On March 20, 2004, two vehicles, one driven by Jefferson Cham and insured with petitioner
Standard Insurance Co., Inc., and the other owned by respondent Arnold Cuaresma and driven
by respondent Jerry B. Cuaresma, figured in an accident at North Avenue, Quezon City.3

Consequently, the damage on the vehicle driven by Cham was repaired, the cost of which was
borne by petitioner. Cham then executed a Release of Claim in favor of petitioner subrogating
the latter to all his rights to recover on all claims, demands, and rights of action on account of
the loss, damage, or injury sustained as a consequence of the accident from any person liable
thereto.4 Based on said document, petitioner, in its letter5 dated April 15, 2004 addressed to
respondents, demanded the payment of the sum spent on repairing the vehicle driven by
Cham.
Meanwhile, on August 10, 2004, an Information6 was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Quezon City charging Cham of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property docketed as Criminal Case No. 020256. During the pendency thereof, on
March 17, 2008, petitioner, claiming that respondents collided with Cham's vehicle in a reckless
ChanRobles Special Lecture and imprudent manner, filed a Complaint7 for Sum of Money with the MeTC of Manila against
Series
respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. 184854, demanding payment of the sum of

P256,643.26 representing the cost of repairs on Cham's vehicle.
Respondents, however, were declared in default on December 12, 2008 for failure to file their
responsive pleading to petitioner's Complaint despite several opportunities granted by the
MeTC of Manila.8 As a result, petitioner was allowed to present its evidence exparte.
Finding that petitioner sufficiently proved its claims by preponderance of evidence, the MeTC
ruled in favor of petitioner in its Decision9 dated January 8, 2010, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
IN VIEW THEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants Arnold

Cuaresma and Jerry B. Cuaresma, jointly and severally, to:
1. Pay plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
FORTY-THREE PESOS AND TWENTY-SIX CENTAVOS (Php256,643.26) with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint;
2. Pay plaintiff the sum of Php 10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees;
3. Pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC, however, reversed the ruling of the MeTC in its Decision10 dated September 17,
2010. Contrary to the findings of the MeTC, the RTC found that not only were there
inconsistencies in the evidence presented by petitioner as to its corporate identity as well as
the amount of the supposed cost of indemnification, but petitioner also failed to sufficiently
prove that the proximate cause of the damage incurred by Cham's vehicle was respondents'
fault or negligence. In addition, on respondents' argument that the instant case must be
consolidated with the prior criminal suit they filed against Cham, the RTC disagreed and ruled
that criminal and civil cases can proceed independently.11

cralawlawlibrary
On appeal, the CA likewise found that the evidence proffered by petitioner is insufficient to
support its averment of negligence. Consequently, it affirmed the RTC's Decision and further
denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution12 dated January 16, 2012.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner essentially invokes the following ground to support its petition:
I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY THE
TESTIMONY OF ITS ASSURED, JEFFERSON CHAM AND ITS ASSISTANT VICE-
PRESIDENT FOR CLAIMS, CLETO D. OBELLO, JR., AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC
ACCIDENT REPORT, ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE ITS CLAIMS BY THE REQUIRED
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE.
Petitioner contends that the testimonies of its witnesses Cham and Obello sufficiently prove its
claims, since the former has personal knowledge on the events that transpired during the
vehicular accident and the latter was in a position to prove the amount incurred for the repair
of the damages on Cham's vehicle. It also argues that its failure to present SPO2 Felicisimo V.
Cuaresma, the police investigator who prepared the traffic accident report submitted in
evidence, is not fatal to its cause of action.
In their Comment,13 respondents counter that the bare allegations of Cham on negligence
cannot be deemed sufficient to prove petitioner's claim. They also claim that in order for the
traffic accident report to obtain probative value, the police officer who prepared it must be
identified in court. On a procedural matter, respondents allege that petitioner, in failing to
disclose the pendency of the criminal suit against its assured Cham, is guilty of forum
shopping.
Shop Online Now Prefatorily, We address the issue of forum shopping in saying that the essence of forum
shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
forum, seeking another and possibly a favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or
Make SniZtop part of
special civil action for certiorari.14 It is the act of filing multiple suits involving the same parties
your routine by chewing
for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining
on one tablet each day. a favorable judgment.15 However, as the RTC already mentioned, there exists no forum
shopping herein for the filing of the instant suit is expressly allowed to proceed independently
of the criminal action filed by respondents.
SniZtop
In the similar case of Casupanan v. Laroya,16 wherein as a result of a vehicular accident, a

party involved therein filed a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property against the other party, who, in turn, filed a civil suit against the party instituting the
Shop Now criminal action, We held that the party filing the separate civil action cannot be liable for forum
shopping in the following wise:
xxx However, there is no forum shopping in the instant case because the
law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which
can proceed independently of the criminal action.
Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property based on the Revised Penal Code, while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the
civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although these
two actions arose from the same act or omission, they have different
Shop Online Now causes of action. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under
the Revised Penal Code, while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable
under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. These articles on culpa aquiliana
Make SniZtop part of
pp
your routine by chewing
read:
on one tablet each day.
"Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,

there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
SniZtop Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Shop Now Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by

preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered damage because of the
fault or negligence of another. Either the private complainant or the
accused can file a separate civil action under these articles. There is
nothing in the law or rules that state only the private complainant in a
criminal case may invoke these articles.
Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal

Procedure ("2000 Rules" for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his
counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - (a) x x x.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by

the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could
have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action." (Italics supplied)
Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his
counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if
the accused files such separate civil action.
x x x x
The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and Capitulo, who are not the
offended parties in the criminal case, can file a separate civil action against the
offended party in the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules provides
as follows:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases

provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same
act or omission charged in the criminal action." (Italics supplied)
x x x x
There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the
present Rule 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may bring such an
action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the
offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.
Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in Cabaero vs. Cantos12
where the Court held that the accused therein could validly institute a separate civil
action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. In
Cabaero, the accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with Counterclaim for
malicious prosecution. At that time, the Court noted the "absence of clear-cut rules
governing the prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary
consequences and implications thereof." Thus, the Court ruled that the
trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect of the case and
disregard any counterclaim for civil liability. The Court further ruled that
the accused may file a separate civil case against the offended party "after
the criminal case is terminated and/or in accordance with the new Rules
which may be promulgated." The Court explained that a cross-claim,
counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil aspect will only
unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and delay the resolution of the
criminal case.
Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was incorporated in the 2000 Rules
precisely to address the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the
accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint in the criminal case. However, the same provision states that
"any cause of action which could have been the subject (of the
counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint) may be litigated in a
separate civil action." The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file
his counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, even as the civil action of the
offended party is litigated in the criminal action.17 chanrobleslaw
On the basis of the foregoing decision, therefore, petitioner, who is subrogated to the rights of
Cham, the accused in the criminal case instituted by respondents, cannot be guilty of forum
shopping for its separate civil action is expressly allowed to proceed independently of the
criminal action involved herein.
It must be noted, however, that notwithstanding the allowance of the instant petition to
proceed independently of the criminal action, the claims of petitioner cannot be sustained in
the absence of satisfactory evidence proving its right thereto.
In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by a preponderance of evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not upon the weakness of the defense offered by his opponent. This principle equally holds
true, even if the defendant had not been given the opportunity to present evidence because of
a default order.18
cralawlawlibrary
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the
evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more convincing
to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.19 The reason
for this is that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. Mere
allegations, therefore, cannot be deemed as evidence.20

cralawlawlibrary
To prove the allegations in its complaint, herein petitioner presented testimonies of its assured
and its Assistant Vice-President, the Traffic Accident Investigation Report, and documents
evidencing the assured's insurance policy with petitioner as well as the payment of repair
expenses. As aptly ruled by the RTC and the CA, however, the evidence presented by petitioner
failed to preponderantly establish negligence on the part of the respondents.
While petitioner may have proven the fact of its payment of the expenses for the repair of
Cham's vehicle through the testimony of its Assistant Vice-President and other supporting
receipts and documents, it fell short in proving that the damage caused on said vehicle was
due to the fault of the respondents.
As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, the Traffic Accident Investigation Report21 cannot be
given probative weight. Section 44 of Rule 130 provides:
SEC. 44. Entries in official records - Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.
Moreover, for the Traffic Accident Investigation Report to be admissible as prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated, the following requisites must be present:

x x x (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially

enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the
September-2014 Jurisprudence performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty

specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had

sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by
G.R. No. 205800, September 10,
him personally or through official information.22 chanrobleslaw
2014 - MICROSOFT CORPORATION

AND ADOBE SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. Regrettably, in this case, petitioner failed to prove the third requisite cited above. As correctly
SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. noted by the courts below, while the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as
HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, evidence, the investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify
JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, AND MA. that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them
GERALDINE S. GARCIA (DIRECTORS
AND OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS personally or through official information.23 Neither was there any explanation as to why such
(ASIA PACIFIC), INC.), Respondents. officer was not presented. We cannot simply assume, in the absence of proof, that the account

of the incident stated in the report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating
G.R. No. 201237, September 03, officer who prepared it.
2014 - PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS,
INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, Thus, while petitioner presented its assured to testify on the events that transpired during the
JR., Petitioners, v. MAS TRANSIT vehicular collision, his lone testimony, unsupported by other preponderant evidence, fails to
WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* AND sufficiently establish petitioner's claim that respondents' negligence was, indeed, the proximate
ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY cause of the damage sustained by Cham's vehicle.
ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR.,
Respondents. It bears stressing, as the courts below have explained, that subrogation is ultimately the

substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so
G.R. No. 199388, September 03, that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim,
2014 - OMNI HAULING SERVICES, including its remedies or securities. The rights to which the subrogee succeeds are the same
INC., LOLITA FRANCO, and ANICETO as, but not greater than, those of the person for whom he is substituted, that is, he cannot
FRANCO, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO acquire any claim, security or remedy the subrogor did not have. In other words, a subrogee
BON, ROBERTO TORTOLES, ROMEO cannot succeed to a right not possessed by the subrogor. A subrogee, in effect, steps into the
TORRES, RODELLO* RAMOS,
shoes of the insured and can recover only if the insured likewise could have recovered.24
cralawlawlibrary
RICARDO DELOS SANTOS, JUANITO

BON, ELENCIO ARTASTE,** CARLITO

Hence, before We can sustain petitioner's argument that its right to be reimbursed for the
VOLOSO, ROMEL TORRES, ROBERT
repair is by operation of law upon mere proof of payment of the insurance claim, a
AVILA, EDUARDO BAUTISTA, MARTY
determination of the liability of respondents vis-a-viz the assured in the vehicular collision
VOLOSO, OSCAR JABEL, RICKY
must first be made, for petitioner cannot acquire any claim, security or remedy its assured did
AMORANTO, BERNARD OSINAGA,
not have. Considering, however, the insufficiency of preponderant evidence attributing
EDUARDO BON, JERRY EDUARCE,
negligence on respondents resulting in the damage sustained by the assured's vehicle, it will
and FEDERICO BRAZIL, Respondents.
be unfair to hold respondents liable for the same, payment by petitioner of its costs,

notwithstanding.

2014 - NATIONAL POWER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LUIS
Resolution, dated June 22, 2011 and January 16, 2012, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in
SAMAR AND MAGDALENA SAMAR,
CA-G.R. SP No. 117785 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Respondents.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

2014 - LEOPOLDO QUINTOS Y DEL

AMOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE Endnotes:
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices
A.C. No. 7474, September 09, Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 259-
2014 - PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. 268.
MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, 2Id. at 335-337.
Complainant, v. ATTY. JUAN S.

DEALCA, Respondent.
3Id. at 192.

4Id.
2014 - ELSIE S. CAUSING, Petitioner,

v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

5Id. at 61.
HERNAN D. BIRON, SR.,

Respondents.
6Id. at 90.
2014 - CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 7Id. at 49-55.
ROLANDO CORDERO, Respondent.

8Id. at 262.

2014 - WILLAWARE PRODUCTS 9Id. at 160-162.
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.

JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING
10 Id. at 191-200.
CORPORATION, Respondent.

11 Id. at 195.

2014 - ROLANDO C. DE LA PAZ,*,
12 Id. at 335-337.
Petitioner, v. L & J DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY, Respondent.

13Id. At 345-348.
2014 - ECE REALTY AND 14Marasigan v. Chevron Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA
DEVELOPMENT INC., Petitioner, v. 499, 511, citing, Benedicto v. Lacson, G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA
RACHEL G. MANDAP, Respondent. 82, 97-98.
G.R. No. 178837, September 01, 15Id.
2014 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE

LETRAN, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA DELA 16 436 Phil. 582 (2002).
ROSA-MERIS, Respondent.

17Casupanan v. Laroya, supra, at 593-599. (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)

2014 - NATIONAL POWER 18Ramos v. Obispo, G.R. No. 193804, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 240, 248-249,
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
citing Heirs of Pedro De Guzman v. Perona, G.R. No. 152266, July 2, 2010, 622
FELICISIMO TARCELO AND HEIRS OF
SCRA 653, 661-662, citing Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, 519 Phil. 791, 803
COMIA SANTOS, Respondents.
(2006).
A.C. No. 10196, September 09,

19Penalber v. Ramos, G.R. No. 178645, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 509, 526-527,
2014 - MELODY R. NERY,
citing Ong v. Yap, 492 Phil 188, 196-197 (2005).
Complainant, v. ATTY. GLICERIO A.

SAMPANA, Respondent.
20 Dra. Leila A. Dela Llano v. Rebecca Biong, doing business under the name and

G.R. No. 194507, September 08, style of Pongkay Trading, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013, citing Real v. Belo,
2014 - FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC., 542 Phil. Ill, 122 (2007), citing Domingo v. Robles, 493 Phil. 916 (2005), and
Petitioner, v. FOUNDATION Ongpauco v. CA, 488 Phil 396, 401 (2004).
SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent.;
21Rollo, p. 56.
G.R. NO. 194621 - FOUNDATION

SPECIALISTS, INC., Petitioner, v.
FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC., 22D. M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 275 (2001), citing Africa, et al.
Respondent. v. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., et al., 123 Phil. 272, 277 (1966).
G.R. No. 204233, September 03, 23Rollo, p. 193.
2014 - RICARDO A. DALUSONG,
Petitioner, v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING 24Id. at 199 and 266-267, citing Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho
PHILIPPINES, INC., NORFIELD
Insurance Corporation, 500 Phil 514, 525(2005).
OFFSHORE AS, AND/OR CAPT.
LEOPOLDO T. ARCILLAR, AND COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Back to Home | Back to Main
2014 - FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner,
v. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF LAS PIÑAS CITY,
Respondent.


2014 - IMELDA CATO GADDI,
Complainant, v. ATTY. LOPE M.
VELASCO, Respondent.


2014 - ELISA ANGELES, Petitioner, v.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICER-
IN-CHARGE MARILOU C. MARTIN,
DEPUTY SHERIFF JOSELITO SP
ASTORGA, MARCO BOCO, AND JOHN
DOES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PASIG, BRANCH 268, Respondents.


2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECO YABA Y
BASA A.K.A. “PLOK,” Accused-
Appellant.


2014 - GMA NETWORK, INC.,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. SENATOR
ALAN PETER “COMPAÑERO” S.
CAYETANO, Petitioner-Intervenor.;
G.R. NO. 205374 - ABC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
205592 - MANILA BROADCASTING
COMPANY, INC. AND NEWSOUNDS
BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
205852 - KAPISANAN NG MGA
BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS (KBP)
AND ABS-CBN CORPORATION,

Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
206360 - RADIO MINDANAO
NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO DE LA
TRINIDAD Y OBALLES, Accused-
Appellant.


2014 - FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR,
Petitioner, v. THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAUBAN, QUEZON,
BRANCH 64, QUEZON POWER
(PHILIPPINES) LIMITED, CO.,
PROVINCE OF QUEZON,AND
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Respondents.


2014 - NANCY S. MONTINOLA,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
Respondent.


2014 - MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL,
Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALDO E.
RENTA, Respondent.


2014 - ROBERTO CO, Petitioner, v.
KENG HUAN JERRY YEUNG AND

EMMA YEUNG, Respondents.


2014 - FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR.,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELO B.
SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.


2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY,
INC., Respondent.


2014 - PUERTO AZUL LAND, INC.,
Petitioner, v. PACIFIC WIDE REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent.


2014 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO SIERRA
(SUBSTITUTED BY DONATO,
TERESITA, TEODORA, LORENZA,
LUCINA, IMELDA, VILMA, AND
MILAGROS SIERRA) AND ANTONINA
SANTOS, SPOUSES ROSARIO SIERRA
AND EUSEBIO CALUMA LEYVA, AND
SPOUSES SALOME SIERRA AND
FELIX GATLABAYAN (SUBSTITUTED
BY BUENAVENTURA, ELPIDIO,
PAULINO, CATALINA, GREGORIO,
AND EDGARDO GATLABAYAN,
LORETO REILLO, FERMINA
PEREGRINA, AND NIDA
HASHIMOTO), Petitioners, v. PAIC
SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK,

INC., Respondent.

A.M. No. P-13-3102 [Formerly

OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2562-P],
September 08, 2014 - JOSE S.
VILLANUEVA, Complainant, v. ATTY.
PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, CLERK OF
COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 6, PANIQUI, TARLAC,
Respondent.


2014 - SPOUSES TEODORICO AND
PACITA ROSETE, Petitioners, v. FELIX
AND/OR MARIETTA BRIONES,
SPOUSES JOSE AND REMEDIOS
ROSETE, AND NEORIMSE AND
FELICITAS CORPUZ, Respondents.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMOSTHENES
BONTUYAN, Accused-Appellant.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
TORRES, JAY TORRES, BOBBY
TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES Y
NAVA, BRION, AND RONNIE TORRES,
Accused, BOBBY TORRES @
ROBERTO TORRES Y NAVA, Accused-
Appellant.


2014 - NESTOR CHING AND ANDREW
WELLINGTON, Petitioners, v. SUBIC

BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
HU HO HSIU LIEN ALIAS SUSAN HU,
HU TSUNG CHIEH ALIAS JACK HU,
HU TSUNG HUI, HU TSUNG TZU AND
REYNALD R. SUAREZ, Respondents.


2014 - HEIRS OF VALENTIN BASBAS,
ANSELMA B. ENDRINAL, GERTRUDES
BASBAS, RUFINA BASBAS, CEFERINA
B. CARTECIANO, ANACLETO BASBAS,
ARSENIA BASBAS, ANASTACIO
BASBAS, BEDACIO BASBAS,
TEODOCIA B. OCAMPO, SEGUNDO C.
BASBAS, MARIA B. RAMOS AND
EUGENIO BASBAS IN
REPRESENTATION OF PEDRO
BASBAS; HERINO T. BASBAS AND
NESTOR T. BASBAS IN
REPRESENTATION OF LUCAS
BASBAS; ADELAIDA B. FLORENTINO,
RODRIGO BASBAS, FELIX BASBAS,
JR., TEODULO BASBAS, ANDRESITO
BASBAS, LARRY BASBAS AND JOEY
BASBAS IN REPRESENTATION OF
FELIX BASBAS, SR., VICTOR BEATO,
ALIPIO BEATO, EUTIQUIO BEATO,
JULIANA B. DIAZ, PABLO BEATO AND
ALEJANDRO BEATO IN
REPRESENTATION OF REMIGIA B.
BEATO, AS REPRESENTED BY
RODRIGO BASBAS, Petitioners, v.
RICARDO BASBAS AS REPRESENTED
BY EUGENIO BASBAS, Respondents.


2014 - CESAR V. AREZA AND LOLITA
B. AREZA, Petitioners, v. EXPRESS
SAVINGS BANK, INC. AND MICHAEL
POTENCIANO, Respondents.


2014 - RENATO L. DELFINO, SR.
(DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS
HEIRS, NAMELY: GRACIA DELFINO,
GREGORIO A. DELFINO, MA. ISABEL
A. DELFINO, RENATO A. DELFINO,
JR., MA. REGINA DELFINO ROSELLA,
MA. GRACIA A. DELFINO, MARIANO
A. DELFINO, MA. LUISA DELFINO
GREGORIO AND REV. FR. GABRIEL A.
DELFINO, Petitioners, v. AVELINO K.
ANASAO AND ANGEL K. ANASAO
(DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY
HIS SOLE HEIR, SIXTO C. ANASAO),
Respondents.


2014 - SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS
AND CASINOS, INC., Petitioner, v.
BERNARD C. FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.


2014 - HEIRS OF TELESFORO JULAO,
NAMELY, ANITA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ,
SONIA J. TOLENTINO AND RODERICK
JULAO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
ALEJANDRO AND MORENITA DE
JESUS, Respondents.


2014 - ROLANDO VIRAY,
Complainant, v. ATTY. EUGENIO T.
SANICAS, Respondent.


2014 - SPOUSES MICHELLE M.
NOYNAY AND NOEL S. NOYNAY,
Petitioners, v. CITIHOMES BUILDER
AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Respondent.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDILBERTO
BALIBAY Y LABIS AND MARICEL
BALIBAY BIJA-AN, Defendant-
Appellants.


2014 - EDUARDO D. MONSANTO,
DECOROSO D. MONSANTO, SR., AND
REV. FR. PASCUAL D. MONSANTO,
JR., Petitioners, v. LEONCIO LIM AND
LORENZO DE GUZMAN, Respondents.


2014 - ROBINSON’S BANK
CORPORATION (FORMERLY THE
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND [PHILS.],
INC.), Petitioner, v. HON. SAMUEL H.
GAERLAN, HON. HAKIM S.
ABDULWAHID AND HON. RICARDO R.
ROSARIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RESPECTIVELY
OF THE TENTH DIVISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, AND TRADE
AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.


2014 - INTERORIENT MARITIME
ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v.
VICTOR M. CREER III, Respondent.

A.M. No. 2010-21-SC, September

30, 2014 - Re: ANONYMOUS LETTER-
COMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED
INVOLVEMENT AND FOR ENGAGING
IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING
MONEY AT USURIOUS RATES OF
INTEREST OF MS. DOLORES T.
LOPEZ, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF
OFFICER, AND MR. FERNANDO M.
MONTALVO, SC SUPERVISING
JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, CHECKS
DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FISCAL
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK JASON
CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR ALIAS “NOY”,
Accused-Appellant.

A.M. No. 2008-23-SC, September

30, 2014 - ALLEGED LOSS OF
VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER
DURING THEIR TRANSFER FROM THE
PROPERTY DIVISION, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (OAS),
TO THE VARIOUS ROOMS OF THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY.;
[A.M. No. 2014-025-Ret.] - RELEASE

OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
BENEFITS UNDER R.A. NO. 8291 OF
MR. ISIDRO P. AUSTRIA, FORMER
SUPPLY OFFICER II, PHILIPPINE
JUDICIAL ACADEMY, SUPREME
COURT.


2014 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, JANEL D.
NACION, DIRECTOR IV, LEGAL
SERVICES SECTOR OF COA, AND THE
SUPERVISING AUDITOR OF THE
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3260 (Formerly

A.M. No. 12-2-38- RTC ), September
16, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
EDGAR S. CRUZ, CLERK III,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
52, GUAGUA, PAMPANGA,
Respondent.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRIMO P.
JAPSON ALIAS “LONGLONG”,
Accused-Appellant.


2014 - CARMEN T. GAHOL,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS,
RICARDO T. GAHOL, MARIA ESTER
GAHOL PEREZ, JOSE MARI T. GAHOL,

LUISITO T. GAHOL AND ALCREJ
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
ESPERANZA COBARRUBIAS,
Respondent.


2014 - EDITA S. BUENO AND
MILAGROS E. QUINAJON, Petitioners,
v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA
G. RAÑA AND ROMEO G. REFRUTO,
Respondents.


2014 - SOLEDAD TRIA, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.


2014 - PEDRO LIBANG, JR.,
Petitioner, v. INDOCHINA SHIP
MANAGEMENT INC., MR. MIGUEL
SANTOS AND MAJESTIC CARRIERS,
INC., Respondents.


2014 - REBECCA MARIE UY
YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, Complainant, v.
ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY, Respondent.


Petitioner, v. JOSE C. GO AND AIDA
C. DELA ROSA, Respondents.


2014 - ATTY. FORTUNATO
PAGDANGANAN, JR., ATTY. ABIGAIL
D. SUAREZ, AND EUGENIO A.
VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v.
FLORENTINO P. SARMIENTO,
Respondent.


2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS AND PRESIDENTIAL
ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION,
Petitioners, v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
EQUIPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondent.


2014 - ROSALIE L. GARGOLES,
Petitioner, v. REYLITA S. DEL
ROSARIO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND STYLE JAY ANNE'S
ONE HOUR PHOTO SHOP,
Respondent.


2014 - AGRIEX CO., LTD., Petitioner,
v. HON. TITUS B. VILLANUEVA,
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS (NOW REPLACED BY HON.
ANTONIO M. BERNARDO), AND HON.
BILLY C. BIBIT, COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS, PORT OF SUBIC (NOW
REPLACED BY HON. EMELITO

VILLARUZ), Respondents.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOBBY BELGAR,
Accused-Appellant.


2014 - MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO,
Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa
D.D.; MOST REV. DEOGRACIAS S.
INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus
ofCaloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR.,
Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA CAROLINA P.
ARAULLO, RENATO M. REYES, JR.,
BagongAlyansang Makabayan, HON.
NERI JAVIER COLMENARES,
BayanMuna Party-list, ROLAND G.
SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk
VFAMovement, TERESITA R. PEREZ,
PH.D., HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO,
Kabataan Party-list, PETER SJ.
GONZALES, Pamalakaya, GIOVANNI
A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham, ELMER C.
LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN
MAY E. SALVADOR, Gabriela, JOSE
ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A.
CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. GUAN,
NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A.
EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners, v.
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet,
MARK A. RICE in his capacity as
Commanding Officer of the USS
Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO S.
AQUINO III in his capacity as

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, HON.
ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO, Secretary,
Department of Foreign Affairs, HON.
PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Executive
Secretary, Office of the President,
HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN,
Secretary, Department of National
Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS P.
PAJE, Secretary, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources,
VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO,
Philippine Navy Flag Officer in
Command, Armed Forces of the
Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D.
ISORENA, Commandant, Philippine
Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO
EFREN EVANGELISTA, Philippine
Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN.
VIRGILIO O. DOMINGO,
Commandant of Armed Forces of the
Philippines Commandand LT. GEN.
TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps
Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013
Exercise Co-Director, Respondents.


2014 - CF SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED,
Complainant, v. NICOLAS C. TORRES,
Respondent.


2014 - LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER,
GEORGIE A. HUISO AND VELVET
BARQUIN ZAMORA, Petitioners, v.
JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA AND

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(COMELEC), Respondents.


2014 - NENITA CARGANILLO,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE


2014 - EMMANUEL B. MORAN, JR.,
(DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIDOW, CONCORDIA V. MORAN,
Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R.
ERMITA AND PGA CARS, INC.,
Respondents.


2014 - ESPERANZA TUMPAG,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER SON, PABLITO
TUMPAG BELNAS, JR., Petitioner, v.
SAMUEL TUMPAG, Respondent.


2014 - HACIENDA LEDDY/RICARDO
GAMBOA, JR., Petitioner, v. PAQUITO
VILLEGAS, Respondent.


2014 - 680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE
MARYANN E. CORPUS-MAÑALAC, IN
HER CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH
141, ATTY. ENGRACIO ESCASINAS,
JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EX-
OFFICIO SHERIFF/CLERK OF COURT
VII, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MAKATI CITY, FIRST SOVEREIGN
ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC),
INC. AND ALDANCO MERLMAR, INC.,
Respondents.


2014 - EXOCET SECURITY AND
ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION
AND/OR MA. TERESA MARCELO,
Petitioner, v. ARMANDO D. SERRANO,
Respondent.


REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS
SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Respondent.

A.M. No. SB-14-21-J [Formerly

A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB], September
23, 2014 - RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE
UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AGAINST
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S.
ONG, SANDIGANBAYAN


2014 - ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN,
Petitioner, v. BERNARDO HIZON,
CARLOS HIZON, SPS. JOSE MANUEL

& LOURDES GUEVARA, Respondents.


2014 - RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES
AND SPS. MARGARITA AND DAVID
SUZARA, Petitioners, v. ST.
THERESA’S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA
T. ESCUDERO, AND JOHN DOES,
Respondents.


2014 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. MA. CONCEPCION M.
DEL ROSARIO, Respondent.


2014 - CBK POWER COMPANY
LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
205353 - CBK POWER COMPANY
LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.


2014 - H.H. HOLLERO
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM AND POOL OF MACHINERY
INSURERS, Respondents.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADEL RAMOS Y
ABELLANA, Accused-Appellant.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELADIO B.
LUMAHO ALIAS “ATTUMPANG,”
Accused-Appellant.


2014 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v.
JOSE M. CAPACITE, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-13-3130 [Formerly

OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3668-P],
September 22, 2014 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Petitioner, v. MAY F. HERNANDEZ,
CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 199, LAS PIÑAS CITY,
Respondent.


2014 - WPM INTERNATIONAL
TRADING, INC. AND WARLITO P.
MANLAPAZ, Petitioners, v. FE
CORAZON LABAYEN, Respondent.


2014 - PEDRITO DELA TORRE,
Petitioner, v. DR. ARTURO IMBUIDO,
DRA. NORMA IMBUIDO in their
capacity as owners and operators of
DIVINE SPIRIT GENERAL HOSPITAL
AND/OR DR. NESTOR PASAMBA,
Respondents.


2014 - AMADA C. ZACARIAS,
Petitioner, v. VICTORIA ANACAY,
EDNA ANACAY, CYNTHIA ANACAY-
GUISIC, ANGELITO ANACAY, JERMIL
ISRAEL, JIMMY ROY ISRAEL AND ALL
OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING
AUTHORITY UNDER THEM,
Respondents.


2014 - PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK
(NOW AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC
INVESTMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ALSO KNOWN AS
ISLAMIC BANK), Petitioner, v.
EVANGELISTA CONTRERAS,
Respondent.


2014 - CAPITAL SHOES FACTORY,
LTD., Petitioner, v. TRAVELER KIDS,
INC., Respondent.


2014 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDUARDO
AND MA. ROSARIO TAJONERA AND
EDUAROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT,
INC., Respondents.


2014 - CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO,
Petitioner, v. MUNICIPALITY OF
MALAY, AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY
HON. MAYOR JOHN P. YAP,
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MALAY,
AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. EZEL

FLORES, DANTE PASUGUIRON,
ROWEN AGUIRRE, WILBEC GELITO,
JUPITER GALLENERO, OFFICE OF THE
MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF
THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER,
BORACAY PNP CHIEF, BORACAY
FOUNDATION, INC., REPRESENTED
BY NENETTE GRAF, MUNICIPAL
AUXILIARY POLICE, AND JOHN AND
JANE DOES, Respondents.


2014 - DIONISIO B. COLOMA, JR.,
Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.


2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR.,
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
209215 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL J.
JIMENEZ, JR., Respondent.


2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES ROGELIO LAZO AND
DOLORES LAZO, Respondents.


2014 - JEBSEN MARITIME INC., APEX
MARITIME SHIP MANAGEMENT CO.
LLC., AND/OR ESTANISLAO

SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. WILFREDO
E. RAVENA, Respondent.


REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.


2014 - EMERITU C. BARUT, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.


2014 - ROBERT KUA, CAROLINE N.
KUA, AND MA. TERESITA N. KUA,
Petitioners, v. GREGORIO SACUPAYO
AND MAXIMINIANO PANERIO,
Respondents.

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837 [formerly

OCA IPI No. 12-2463-MTJ],
September 24, 2014 - CONRADO ABE
LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY.
ROMUALDO JUBAY, Complainant, v.
JUDGE ROGELIO S. LUCMAYON,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
BRANCH 1, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU,
Respondent.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD
GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, Accused-
Appellant.


2014 - RONNIE L. ABING, Petitioner,
v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ALLIED BANKING
CORPORATION, FACILITATORS
GENERAL SERVICES AND MARILAG
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Respondents.


2014 - AMBROSIO ROTAIRO
(SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE
MARIA RONSAYRO ROTAIRO, AND
HIS CHILDREN FELINA ROTAIRO,
ERLINDA ROTAIRO CRUZ, EUDOSIA
ROTAIRO CRIZALDO, NIEVES
ROTAIRO TUBIG, REMEDIOS
ROTAIRO MACAHILIG, FELISA
ROTAIRO LEGASPI, JOSEFINA
ROTAIRO TORREVILLAS, AND
CRISENCIO R. ROTAIRO, MARCIANA
TIBAY, EUGENIO PUNZALAN, AND
VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners,
v. ROVIRA ALCANTARA AND VICTOR
ALCANTARA, Respondents.


2014 - LIMUELL C. NARCISO, OMAR
C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA,
AZENITH MAG-ASO, LILIBETH
MASCARIÑAS, LUTGARDO OGAMA,
LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS MATUGUINA
AND ELMER BANILAD, CARLOS B.
MATUGUINA, JR., BIBIANO ESTRERA,
JR., PEDRO LINABOG, BOBBY
ALQUEZA, SANTIAGO ATIS, MARLON
DAMAYO, CASINILLO NESTRO,

BERNARDITO DACAN, SABINIANO
PATATAG, JOLLYBOY MONICIT,
RODRIGO DAYDAY, REY ESTRERA,
CRESENCIO CASIO, DOMINICO
AVILA, ERVERT RICAZA, ENRIQUE
PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E.
GONZAGA, RENATO CASIO, BENNY
BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO IGOT,
NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO
RABAL, JULITO MONSALES,
LEOPOLDO MONGUEZ, JR., ROWEL
NEIGAS, EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE
JUDILLAS AND MANUEL CENIZA,
Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS &
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
(PTMC)/TABOK WORKERS MULTI-
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (TWMPC),
Respondents.


2014 - JUANARIO G. CAMPIT,
Petitioner, v. ISIDRA B. GRIPA,
PEDRO BARDIAGA, AND SEVERINO
BARDIAGA, REPRESENTED BY HIS
SON ROLANDO BARDIAGA,
Respondents.


2014 - LEONARDO A. VILLALON AND
ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON,
Petitioners, v. AMELIA CHAN,
Respondent.


2014 - CESAR T. QUIAMBAO AND
ERIC C. PILAPIL, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

ADERITO Z. YUJUICO AND
BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA,
Respondents.


2014 - MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE
EMPLOYEES UNION
(MCCEU)/RUMOLO S. BASCAR,
MARIBEL TESALUNA, ROLANDO
TESALUNA, KENNETH BENIGNOS,
MARILYN MANGULABNAN, EMELINA I.
NACIONAL, JODELYN REBOTON,
EVERSITA S. BASCAR, MAE BAYLEN,
ERNA E. MAHILUM, EVELYN R.
ANTONES, Petitioners, v. MOUNT
CARMEL COLLEGE, INCORPORATED,
Respondent.


2014 - MA. GRACIA HAO AND DANNY
HAO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE


2014 - MA. ROSARIO P. CAMPOS,
PHILIPPINES AND FIRST WOMEN’S
CREDIT CORPORATION,
Respondents.


2014 - LEONARDO BOGNOT,
Petitioner, v. RRI LENDING
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DARIO J.
BERNARDEZ, Respondent.

2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO.,
INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD
CUARESMA AND JERRY B.
CUARESMA, Respondents.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULITO
GERANDOY, Accused-Appellant.


2014 - ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR.,
Petitioner, v. JOHN S. UMALE, IN
SUBSTITUTION OF HERNANDO F.
BALMORES, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
172881 - RODIVAL E. REYES, HANS
M. PALMA AND DOROTEO M.
PANGILINAN, Petitioners, v.
HERNANDO F. BALMORES,
Respondent.


2014 - TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE
(PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v.
RENATO M. CANTOS, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 (Formerly

A.M. No. 00-2-86-RTC), October 07,
2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET,
CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2394 (Formerly

OCA IPI No. 12-3847-RTJ),
September 01, 2014 - GEORGE T.
CHUA, Complainant, v. JUDGE
FORTUNITO L. MADRONA,
Respondent.


Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
BATURI, Accused-Appellant.


2014 - TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE
(PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v.
RENATO M. CANTOS, Respondent.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

JLJ Realty Other Home Services: Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JLJ Realty Other Home Services: Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/13/2021 G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v.

JLJ Realty and Other Home Services

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 2014 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents.:

G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014

STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD CUARESMA AND JERRY B.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

and reliable fiber internet.

Internet plans for all home

Streamtech fiber internet types

by respondent Jerry B. Cuaresma, figured in an accident at North Avenue, Quezon City.3

IN VIEW THEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants Arnold

3. Pay the costs of the suit.

that criminal and civil cases can proceed independently.11

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner essentially invokes the following ground to support its petition:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE

evidence, is not fatal to its cause of action.

In the similar case of Casupanan v. Laroya,16 wherein as a result of a vehicular accident, a

on one tablet each day.

"Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,

Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by

Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal

"SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - (a) x x x.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by

"SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases

offended party is litigated in the criminal action.17 chanrobleslaw

allegations, therefore, cannot be deemed as evidence.20

2014 - MICROSOFT CORPORATION

2014 - PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS,

ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR.,

RICARDO DELOS SANTOS, JUANITO

BON, ELENCIO ARTASTE,** CARLITO

G.R. No. 197329, September 08,

2014 - NATIONAL POWER

G.R. No. 205298, September 10,

2014 - LEOPOLDO QUINTOS Y DEL

MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, 2Id. at 335-337.

Complainant, v. ATTY. JUAN S.

G.R. No. 199139, September 09,

2014 - ELSIE S. CAUSING, Petitioner,

v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

HERNAN D. BIRON, SR.,

G.R. No. 197336, September 03,

2014 - CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. 7Id. at 49-55.

ROLANDO CORDERO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 195549, September 03,

2014 - WILLAWARE PRODUCTS 9Id. at 160-162.

G.R. No. 183360, September 08,

Petitioner, v. L & J DEVELOPMENT

G.R. No. 196182, September 01,

G.R. No. 178837, September 01, 15Id.

2014 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE

LETRAN, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA DELA 16 436 Phil. 582 (2002).

G.R. No. 198139, September 08,

A.C. No. 10196, September 09,

Complainant, v. ATTY. GLICERIO A.

Petitioner, v. FOUNDATION Ongpauco v. CA, 488 Phil 396, 401 (2004).

SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent.;

G.R. NO. 194621 - FOUNDATION