You are on page 1of 7

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > March 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 198967, March 07,
2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON,
Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul
and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated June 8, 2011 and Resolution2 dated October 7, 2011
in CA ​G.R. SP No. 115485, which affirmed in toto the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).

The facts of the case follow.

On March 11, 1996, respondent Crisanto P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal Class Venture
Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an accounting clerk.3 Eventually, he was promoted to the position of
accounting supervisor, with a salary of Php13,000.00 a month, until he was allegedly dismissed from
employment on December 20, 2000.4

DebtKollect Company, Inc. On March 2, 2001, Uson filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration . Branch No. 1, Dagupan City, of the
NLRC a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal, with prayers for backwages, reinstatement, salaries and 13th
month pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Royal Class Venture.5

Royal Class Venture did not make an appearance in the case despite its receipt of summons.6

On May 15, 2001, Uson filed his Position Paper7 as complainant.


On October 22, 2001, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera rendered a Decision8 in favor of the complainant
Uson and ordering therein respondent Royal Class Venture to reinstate him to his former position and pay
his backwages, 13th month pay as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Royal Class Venture, as the losing party, did not file an appeal of the decision.9 Consequently, upon
Uson's motion, a Writ of Execution10 dated February 15, 2002 was issued to implement the Labor
Arbiter's decision.

On May 17, 2002, an Alias Writ of Execution11 was issued. But with the judgment still unsatisfied, a
Second Alias Writ of Execution12 was issued on September 11, 2002.

Again, it was reported in the Sheriff's Return that the Second Alias Writ of Execution dated September
11, 2002 remained "unsatisfied." Thus, on November 14, 2002, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of
Execution and to Hold Directors and Officers of Respondent Liable for Satisfaction of the Decision.13 The
motion quoted from a portion of the Sheriffs Return, which states:

ChanRobles Intellectual Property


chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

On September 12, 2002, the undersigned proceeded at the stated present business office
Division address of the respondent which is at Minien East, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan to serve the
writ of execution. Upon arrival, I found out that the establishment erected thereat is not
[in] the respondent's name but JOEL and SONS CORPORATION, a family corporation
owned by the Guillermos of which, Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo the General Manager of the
respondent, is one of the stockholders who received the writ using his nickname "Joey,"
[and who] concealed his real identity and pretended that he [was] the brother of Jose,
which [was] contrary to the statement of the guard-on-duty that Jose and Joey [were] one
and the same person. The former also informed the undersigned that the respondent's
(sic) corporation has been dissolved.

On the succeeding day, as per [advice] by the [complainant's] counsel that the respondent
has an account at the Bank of Philippine Islands Magsaysay Branch, A.B. Fernandez Ave.,
Dagupan City, the undersigned immediately served a notice of garnishment, thus, the bank
replied on the same day stating that the respondent [does] not have an account with the
branch.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On December 26, 2002, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando issued an Order15 granting the motion filed
by Uson. The order held that officers of a corporation are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of
the corporation to the employees and there is no denial of due process in holding them so even if the
said officers were not parties to the case when the judgment in favor of the employees was rendered.16
Thus, the Labor Arbiter pierced the veil of corporate fiction of Royal Class Venture and held herein
petitioner Jose Emmanuel Guillermo (Guillermo), in his personal capacity, jointly and severally liable with
the corporation for the enforcement of the claims of Uson.17

Guillermo filed, by way of special appearance, a Motion for Reconsideration/To Set Aside the Order of
December 26, 2002.18 The same, however, was not granted as, this time, in an Order dated November
24, 2003, Labor Arbiter Niña Fe S. Lazaga-Rafols sustained the findings of the labor arbiters before her
and even castigated Guillenno for his unexplained absence in the prior proceedings despite notice,
effectively putting responsibility on Guillermo for the case's outcome against him.19

On January 5, 2004, Guillermo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order,20 but the same was
promptly denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order dated January 7, 2004.21

On January 26, 2004, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of Execution,22 to which Guillermo filed a
Comment and Opposition on April 2, 2004.23

On May 18, 2004, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order24 granting Uson's Motion for the Issuance of an Alias
March-2016 Jurisprudence Writ of Execution and rejecting Guillermo's arguments posed in his Comment and Opposition.
G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL Guillermo elevated the matter to the NLRC by filing a Memorandum of Appeal with Prayer for a (Writ of)
P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON,
Respondent. Preliminary Injunction dated June 10, 2004.25 cralawred

G.R. No. 208071, March 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE In a Decision26 dated May 11, 2010, the NLRC dismissed Guillermo's appeal and denied his prayers for
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO PEREZ injunction.
Y ALAVADO, Accused-Appellant.
On August 20, 2010, Guillermo filed a Petition for Certiorari27 before the Court of Appeals, assailing the
G.R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016 - BAGUMBAYAN-
NLRC decision.
VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, AS
CHAIRMAN OF BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC.,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision28 which denied Guillermo's petition
Respondent. and upheld all the findings of the NLRC.

G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016 - TABUK MULTI- The appellate court found that summons was in fact served on Guillermo as President and General
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE Manager of Royal Class Venture, which was how the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners, v. company.29 But Guillermo subsequently refused to receive all notices of hearings and conferences as well
MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.
as the order to file Royal Class Venture's position paper.30 Then, it was learned during execution that
G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016 - SILICON Royal Class Venture had been dissolved.31 However, the Court of Appeals held that although the
PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES judgment had become final and executory, it may be modified or altered "as when its execution becomes
MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. impossible or unjust."32 It also noted that the motion to hold officers and directors like Guillermo
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, personally liable, as well as the notices to hear the same, was sent to them by registered mail, but no
Respondent. pleadings were submitted and no appearances were made by anyone of them during the said motion's
G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016 - SOLOMON pendency.33 Thus, the court held Guillermo liable, citing jurisprudence that hold the president of the
VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE corporation liable for the latter's obligation to illegally dismissed employees.34 Finally, the court dismissed
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Guillermo's allegation that the case is an intra-corporate controversy, stating that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.35
G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 - BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE
CORPORATION (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BPI/MS From the above decision of the appellate court, Guillermo filed a Motion for Reconsideration36 but the
INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioners, v. same was again denied by the said court in the assailed Resolution37 dated October 7, 2011.
YOLANDA LAINGO, Respondent.
Hence, the instant petition.
G.R. No. 184251, March 09, 2016 - ESTATE OF DR.
JUVENCIO P. ORTAÑEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA Guillermo asserts that he was impleaded in the case only more than a year after its Decision had become
ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR final and executory, an act which he claims to be unsupported in law and jurisprudence.38 He contends
ORTAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C.
that the decision had become final, immutable and unalterable and that any amendment thereto is null
LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-
LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., and void.39 Guillermo assails the so-called "piercing the veil" of corporate fiction which allegedly
BRENDA ORTAÑEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND discriminated against him when he alone was belatedly impleaded despite the existence of other
JOHN DOES, Respondents. directors and officers in Royal Class Venture.40 He also claims that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction
because the case is one of an intra-corporate controversy, with the complainant Uson also claiming to be
G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016 - FE P. ZALDIVAR,
ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER a stockholder and director of Royal Class Venture.41
ZALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS., In his Comment,42 Uson did not introduce any new arguments but merely cited verbatim the
Respondents. disquisitions of the Court of Appeals to counter Guillermo's assertions in his petition.

G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016 - MILAGROSA To resolve the case, the Court must confront the issue of whether an officer of a corporation may be
JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL, included as judgment obligor in a labor case for the first time only after the decision of the Labor Arbiter
Respondent. had become final and executory, and whether the twin doctrines of "piercing the veil of corporate fiction"
and personal liability of company officers in labor cases apply.
G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016 - INDUSTRIAL
PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
(IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS & The petition is denied.
CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B. In the earlier labor cases of Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations43 and A.C. Ransom Labor Union-
ARRIOLA, Respondents. CCLU v. NLRC,44 persons who were not originally impleaded in the case were, even during execution,
held to be solidarity liable with the employer corporation for the latter's unpaid obligations to
G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEÑA, complainant-employees. These included a newly-formed corporation which was considered a mere
Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS conduit or alter ego of the originally impleaded corporation, and/or the officers or stockholders of the
OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.
latter corporation.45 Liability attached, especially to the responsible officers, even after final judgment
G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016 - MILAGROS and during execution, when there was a failure to collect from the employer corporation the judgment
DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. debt awarded to its workers.46 In Naguiat v. NLRC,47 the president of the corporation was found, for the
CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON first time on appeal, to be solidarily liable to the dismissed employees. Then, in Reynoso v. Court of
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, Appeals,48 the veil of corporate fiction was pierced at the stage of execution, against a corporation not
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND previously impleaded, when it was established that such corporation had dominant control of the original
TERESITA PUNZALAN, Respondents.
party corporation, which was a smaller company, in such a manner that the latter's closure was done by
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016 - IN THE the former in order to defraud its creditors, including a former worker.
MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR
DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY The rulings of this Court in A.C. Ransom, Naguiat, and Reynoso, however, have since been tempered, at
COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS least in the aspects of the lifting of the corporate veil and the assignment of personal liability to directors,
CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL trustees and officers in labor cases. The subsequent cases of McLeod v. NLRC,49Spouses Santos v.
PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR) NLRC50 and Carag v. NLRC,51 have all established, save for certain exceptions, the primacy of Section
A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3121], 3152 of the Corporation Code in the matter of assigning such liability for a corporation's debts, including
March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND judgment obligations in labor cases. According to these cases, a corporation is still an artificial being
CARIDAD ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY. invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and from that of
REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent. other corporations to which it may be connected.53 It is not in every instance of inability to collect from a
corporation that the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, and the responsible officials are made liable.
G.R. No. 218072, March 08, 2016 - METROPOLITAN Personal liability attaches only when, as enumerated by the said Section 31 of the Corporation Code,
NAGA WATER DISTRICT, VIRGINIA I. NERO, there is a wilfull and knowing assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, there is gross
JEREMIAS P. ABAN JR., AND EMMA A. CUYO, negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation, or there is a conflict of interest resulting
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
in damages to the corporation.54 Further, in another labor case, Pantranco Employees Association (PEA-
G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016 - BASIANA PTGWO), et al. v. NLRC, et al.,55 the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is held to apply only in three
MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA (3) basic areas, namely: ( 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a
MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; (2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to
RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or (3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so
REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency,
EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING conduit or adjunct of another corporation. In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR corporate liabilities.56 Indeed, in Reahs Corporation v. NLRC,57 the conferment of liability on officers for a
METALS INC. (SRMI), Respondents. corporation's obligations to labor is held to be an exception to the general doctrine of separate
personality of a corporation.
A.C. No. 9684, March 16, 2016 - MARY ROSE A.
BOTO, Complainant, v. SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY It also bears emphasis that in cases where personal liability attaches, not even all officers are made
PROSECUTOR VINCENT L. VILLENA, CITY accountable. Rather, only the "responsible officer," i.e., the person directly responsible for and who "acted
PROSECUTOR ARCHIMEDES V. MANABAT AND in bad faith" in committing the illegal dismissal or any act violative of the Labor Code, is held solidarily
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR PATRICK NOEL P. DE liable, in cases wherein the corporate veil is pierced.58 In other instances, such as cases of so-called
DIOS., Respondents.
corporate tort of a close corporation, it is the person "actively engaged" in the management of the
G.R. No. 193134, March 02, 2016 - RAFAEL corporation who is held liable.59 In the absence of a clearly identifiable officer(s) directly responsible for
NADYAHAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE the legal infraction, the Court considers the president of the corporation as such officer.60
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The common thread running among the aforementioned cases, however, is that the veil of corporate
G.R. No. 191079, March 02, 2016 - JOEL CARDENAS, fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but related
HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. ALCANTARA, corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment
REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, JR., Petitioner, and on execution, so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used the corporate
v. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SIMPLICIA P.
vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing
AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR AND ATTY.
NORMAN R. BUENO, Respondents. so. When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and opprobriously
elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and
G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016 - RAMON PACON, shatter the said shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment.
THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO The key element is the presence of fraud, malice or bad faith. Bad faith, in this instance, does not
PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON, connote bad judgment or negligence but imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON, conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it
LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES, partakes of the nature of fraud.61
LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA,
Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent. As the foregoing implies, there is no hard and fast rule on when corporate fiction may be disregarded;
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES instead, each case must be evaluated according to its peculiar circumstances.62 For the case at bar,
CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO, Complainants, v. applying the above criteria, a finding of personal and solidary liability against a corporate officer like
JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, Respondent. Guillermo must be rooted on a satisfactory showing of fraud, bad

G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016 - WIGBERTO faith or malice, or the presence of any of the justifications for disregarding the corporate fiction. As
"TOBY" R. TAÑADA, JR., Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF stated in McLeod,63 bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary, so that the records must first bear
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, evidence of malice before a finding of such may be made.
ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S.
TAÑADA, Respondents.
It is our finding that such evidence exists in the record. Like the A. C. Ransom, and Naguiat cases, the
A.C. No. 9831, March 09, 2016 - CHAN SHUN KUEN, case at bar involves an apparent family corporation. As in those two cases, the records of the present
Complainant, v. COMMISSIONERS LOURDES B. case bear allegations and evidence that Guillermo, the officer being held liable, is the person responsible
COLOMA-JAVIER, GREGORIO O. BILOG III, RAUL in the actual running of the company and for the malicious and illegal dismissal of the complainant; he,
TAGLE AQUINO AND ATTY. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO, likewise, was shown to have a role in dissolving the original obligor company in an obvious "scheme to
Respondent. avoid liability" which jurisprudence has always looked upon with a suspicious eye in order to protect the
rights of labor.64
G.R. No. 217121, March 16, 2016 - SYSTEMS AND
PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT Part of the evidence on record is the second page of the verified Position Paper of complainant (herein
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, respondent) Crisanto P. Uson, where it was clearly alleged that Uson was "illegally dismissed by the
ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL
President/General Manager of respondent corporation (herein petitioner) Jose Emmanuel P. Guillermo
GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA, Respondent.
when Uson exposed the practice of the said President/General Manager of dictating and undervaluing the
G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016 - NELSON TEÑIDO shares of stock of the corporation."65 The statement is proof that Guillermo was the responsible officer in
Y SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE charge of running the company as well as the one who dismissed Uson from employment. As this sworn
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. allegation is uncontroverted - as neither the company nor Guillermo appeared before the Labor Arbiter
despite the service of summons and notices - such stands as a fact of the case, and now functions as
G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016 - SILVERTEX
WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO clear evidence of Guillermo's bad faith in his dismissal of Uson from employment, with the motive
ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v. TEODORA F. apparently being anger at the latter's reporting of unlawful activities.
CAMPO, Respondent.
Then, it is also clearly reflected in the records that it was Guillermo himself, as President and General
G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016 - ERNIE IDANAN, Manager of the company, who received the summons to the case, and who also subsequently and
NANLY DEL BARRIO AND MARLON PLOPENIO, without justifiable cause refused to receive all notices and orders of the Labor Arbiter that followed.66
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, This makes Guillermo responsible for his and his company's failure to participate in the entire
Respondent. proceedings before the said office. The fact is clearly narrated in the Decision and Orders of the Labor
Arbiter, Uson's Motions for the Issuance of Alias Writs of Execution, as well as in the Decision of the NLRC
G.R. Nos. 170746-47, March 07, 2016 - CALTEX
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals,67 which Guillermo did not dispute in any of his belated
PETROLEUM, CO., INC., CALTEX SERVICES motions or pleadings, including in his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals and even in the
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX OCEANIC LIMITED, petition currently before this Court.68 Thus, again, the same now stands as a finding of fact of the said
CALTEX INVESTMENT AND TRADING LIMITED, lower tribunals which binds this Court and which it has no power to alter or revisit.69 Guillermo's
CALTEX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTRAPORT knowledge of the case's filing and existence and his unexplained refusal to participate in it as the
(FAR EAST) COMPANY, CALTEX TRADING AND responsible official of his company, again is an indicia of his bad faith and malicious intent to evade the
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CALTEX SERVICES
judgment of the labor tribunals.
CORPORATION, AMERICAN OVERSEAS PETROLEUM
LIMITED, P.T. CALTEX PACIFIC INDONESIA, CALTEX
PETROLEUM INC., CALTEX ASIA, LIMITED, Finally, the records likewise bear that Guillermo dissolved Royal Class Venture and helped incorporate a
CALIFORNIA TEXAS OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX new firm, located in the same address as the former, wherein he is again a stockl1older. This is borne by
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED, CALTEX OIL the Sherif11s Return which reported: that at Royal Class Venture's business address at Minien East, Sta.
CORPORATION, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION Barbara, Pangasinan, there is a new establishment named "Joel and Sons Corporation," a family
(DELAWARE), CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (NEW corporation owned by the Guillermos in which Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo is again one of the
YORK), CALTEX OIL PRODUCT COMPANY, CALTEX stockholders; that Guillermo received the writ of execution but used the nickname "Joey" and denied
(OVERSEAS) LIMITED, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL being Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo and, instead, pretended to be Jose's brother; that the guard on duty
LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORP., Petitioners, v. MA. FLOR confirmed that Jose and Joey are one and the same person; and that the respondent corporation Royal
A. SINGZON AGUIRRE, ERNEST SINGZON, CESAR
Class Venture had been dissolved.70 Again, the facts contained in the Sheriffs Return were not disputed
SINGZON AND ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS-
INTERVENORS IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 91-59592,91- nor controverted by Guillermo, either in the hearings of Uson's Motions for Issuance of Alias Writs of
59658, AND 92-61026 PENDING BEFORE THE Execution, in subsequent motions or pleadings, or even in the petition before this Court. Essentially,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 39, then, the facts form part of the records and now stand as further proof of Guillermo's bad faith and
Respondents. malicious intent to evade the judgment obligation.

G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016 - BANGKO The foregoing clearly indicate a pattern or scheme to avoid the obligations to Uson and frustrate the
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE JOSE execution of the judgment award, which this Court, in the interest of justice, will not countenance.
CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C.
ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA As for Guillermo's assertion that the case is an intra-corporate controversy, the Court sustains the finding
NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND of the appellate court that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the
BALBINO JOSE CAMPA, Respondents. allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016 - BANGKO to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.71 Although Uson is also a stockholder and
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P. director of Royal Class Venture, it is settled in jurisprudence that not all conflicts between a stockholder
LEGASPI, Respondent. and the corporation are intra-corporate; an examination of the complaint must be made on whether the
complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or director, or as an employee.72 If the latter is
G.R. No. 185757, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES found and the dispute does not meet the test of what qualities as an intra-​corporate controversy, then
VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS the case is a labor case cognizable by the NLRC and is not within the jurisdiction of any other tribunal.73
WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN,
In the case at bar, Uson's allegation was that he was maliciously and illegally dismissed as an Accounting
NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL. AND LYDIA S.
DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, Supervisor by Guillermo, the Company President and General Manager, an allegation that was not even
MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF disputed by the latter nor by Royal Class Venture. It raised no intra-corporate relationship issues between
SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJAO AND ANASTACIA Z. him and the corporation or Guillermo; neither did it raise any issue regarding the regulation of the
BAJAO, Respondents. corporation. As correctly found by the appellate court, Uson's complaint and redress sought were
centered alone on his dismissal as an employee, and not upon any other relationship he had with the
G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 - UNIVERSAL company or with Guillermo. Thus, the matter is clearly a labor dispute cognizable by the labor tribunals. chanrobleslaw

ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,


v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 8, 2011 and Resolution
BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS, dated October 7, 2011 in CA​ G.R. SP No. 115485 are AFFIRMED.
AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED
HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents. SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-


4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO, Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.

G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 - SISON OLAÑO, Endnotes:


SERGIO T. ONG, MARILYN O. GO, AND JAP FUK HAI,
Petitioners, v. LIM ENG CO, Respondent.
1Penned by Associate Justice Joselina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
G.R. Nos. 212593-94, March 15, 2016 - JESSICA Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 130-142.
LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.; G.R.Nos. 213163-78 - The National Labor Relations Commission as well as Labor Arbiter Niña Fe S. Lazaga-Rafols
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE were excluded as respondents by this Court in its Resolution in this case elated January
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) 30, 2012, id. at 159-160, citing Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.;
G.R. Nos. 213540-41 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, 2
Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito Diamante concurring; id. at 155-158.
THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213542-43 - JO CHRISTINE 3Id. at 165.
NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES,
Petitioners, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER 4Id.
CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.; 5Id.
G.R. Nos. 215880-94 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND at 24, 167.
JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 6Id. at 59-61, 77, 80-81, 89-90, 137.
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213475-76 - JOHN
RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO 7Id. at 49-54.
MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND 8Id.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), Respondents. at 57-64.

G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016 - DESIGNER 9Id. at 25, 65, 168.
BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT,
INC. AND ASIA CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC., 10Id. at 65-66.
Respondents.
11Id. at 67-68.
A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3905-P), March 01, 2016 - AIREEN A. MAHUSAY,
Complainant, v. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, 12Id. at 69-70.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS
CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent. 13Id. at 71-74.
G.R. No. 174747, March 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF 14Id.
THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRIVATIZATION at 72.
AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL
15Id. at 75-79.
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION)
AND NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA,
DOMINGO REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO 16Id. at 78.
TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE, AND BIENVENIDO FELINA,
Respondents. 17Id. at 78-79.
G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 - TRAVEL &
18Id. at 170.
TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v.
ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND
VIRGINIA MUÑOZ, Respondents. 19Id. at 80-81.
G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF 20Id.
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NILDA B. TAMPUS, at 170-171.
Respondent.
21Id. at 171 .
G.R. No. 204965, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES
ROMULO H. ESPIRITU AND EVELYN ESPIRITU, 22Id. at 82-83.
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND
ANNALIZA G. SAZON, Respondents. 23Id. at 172.
A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 - THE CHRISTIAN
24Id. at 84.
SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL cralawred

CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-


FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. 25Id. at 172-173.
DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent.
26Id. at 86-91.
G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016 - LAND BANK cralawred

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION


27Id. at 92-110.
PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 201871 - DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. 28Id. at 130-142.
PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES),
Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND 29Id.
BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents. at 137.

30Id.
G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016 - ROGER ALLEN
BIGLER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO, 31Id.
Respondents.
32Id. at 138.
G.R. Nos. 202647-50, March 09, 2016 - CORAZON H.
RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE
33Id.
GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE
ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, THE HONORABLE RAMON M.
BATO, JR., AND THE HONORABLE EDUARDO B. 34Id. at 139-140.
PERALTA, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS
MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION 35Id.
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONWIDE at 140.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROBERTO R. ROMULO,
36Id. at 143-154.
CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN
ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA AND LUIS MANUEL
GATMAITAN, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 205921-24 - 37Id. at 155-158.
CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT
AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. 38Id.
ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, at 31.
ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO
39Id. at 32-33.
NITORREDA, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT cralawred

CORPORATION AND LUIS MANUEL L. GATMAITAN,


Respondents. 40Id. at 36-39.
G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016 - CITA C. PEREZ, 41Id.
Petitioner, v. FIDEL D. AQUINO, Respondent. at 40-42, 51 (Uson's Position Paper).

42Id. at 165-178.
G.R. No. 218399, March 02, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO
COMBOY Y CRONICO, Accused-Appellant. 43 160 Phil. 624 (1975).
G.R. No. 214430, March 09, 2016 - FELICITO M. 44
MEJORADO, Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, 226 Phil. 199 (1986).
IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
45Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations, supra; A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU-NLRC,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
Respondent. supra.

A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 - NENITA D. 46Id.


SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS,
Respondent. 47 336 Phil. 545 (1997).
G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O.
JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. 48 399 Phil. 38 (2000), citing Claparols v. CIR, supra note 43.
CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. 49 541 Phil. 214 (2007).
COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R.
CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR 50
ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA 354 Phil. 918 (1998).
PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING
CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND 51 548 Phil. 581 (2007).
TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.
52 Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - Directors or trustees who willfully
G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016 - TUNG HUI and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are
CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, Petitioners, v. SHIH
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire
CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, Respondent.
any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees
A.M. No. P-10-2793 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06- shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the
2406-P), March 08, 2016 - SIMPLECIO A. MARSADA, corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons.
Complainant, v. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN, When a director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquire, in violation of his duty,
AGUSAN DEL NORTE, Respondent. any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in
him in confidence, as to which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own
G.R. No. 214752, March 09, 2016 - EQUITABLE behalf he shall be liable as a trustee for the corporation and must account for the profits
SAVINGS BANK, (NOW KNOWN AS THE MERGED which otherwise would have accrued to the corporation. (n)
ENTITY "BDO UNIBANK, INC.") Petitioner, v.
ROSALINDA C. PALCES, Respondent.
53McLeod v. NLRC, supra note 49, at 238.
DECISION - PEREZ, J. - G.R. No. 221697, March 08,
2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE- 54
LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON Further, as added in McLeod, there is personal liability also when directors, trustees or
ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, officers consent or fail to object to the issuance of watered clown stocks, despite
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE knowledge thereof; when they agree to hold themselves personally and soliciarily liable
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. with the corporation; or when they are made by specific provision of IDw personally
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, answerable for their corporate action. (Id. at 242)
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents. 55 600 Phil. 645 (2009).
SERENO, C.J.: - CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 56Pantranco
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD Employees Association (PEA-PTGWO), et al. v. NLRC, et al., supra, at 663.
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
57 337 Phil. 698 (1997).
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. 58Carag v. NLRC, supra note 51, at 606-608, citing McLeod v. NLRC, et al., supra note 49.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, 59Naguiat
Respondents. v. NLRC, supra note 47, at 562. A "corporate tort" is described as a violation of
a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law; a breach of a legal duty. Such legal
CARPIO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No. duty include that spelled out in Art. 238 of the Labor Code which mandates the employer
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD to grant separation pay to employees in case of closure or cessation of operations not due
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION to serious business losses or financial reverses.
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE 60Santos v. NLRC, 325 Phil. 145 (1996); Naguiat v. NLRC, supra note 47, at 560.
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, 61Elcee
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Farms, Inc. v. NLRC (Fourth Div.), 541 Phil. 576, 593 (2007).
Respondents.
62Concept Builders Inc. v. NLRC, 326 Phil. 955, 965 ( 1996).
BRION, J. - DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD 63Supra note 49, at 242.
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 64Claparols
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE v. CIR, supra note 43, at 635-636.
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
65Rollo, pp. 50-51.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents. 66Id. at 59-61, 77, 80-81, 89-90, 137.
CAGUIOA, J.: SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION - 67Id.
G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
68Id. at 21-44, 92-109.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, 69Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems v. NLRC, G.R. No. 157900, July 22, 2013, 701 SCRA
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 561.
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents. 70Rollo, p. 72.
DEL CASTILLO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD 71Barrazona v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Baguio City, 521 Phil. 53 (2006).
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 72Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc. and/or Abe, 655 Phil. 68, 83-84 (2011).
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. 73Id.;
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, Aguirre v. FQB+7, Inc., G.R. No. 170770, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 242, 260,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, quoting Speed Distribution, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 739, 758-759 (2004), as
Respondents. follows: To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to be
heard and decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try
JARDELEZA, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. and decide such cases, two elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship or the
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, The first clement requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership, or
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. association of which they are stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents. members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or
association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchises. The second
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: SEPARATE DISSENTING element requires that the dispute among the parties be intrinsically connected with the
OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY regulation or the corporation. If the nature of the controversy involves matters that are
GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, purely civil in character, necessarily, the case docs not involve an intra-corporate
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. controversy. The determination of whether a contract is simulated or not is an issue that
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - could be resolved by applying pertinent provisions of the Civil Code.
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R.


No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
Back to Home | Back to Main
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
QUICK SEARCH
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.


221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
Respondents.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
LEONEN, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED