1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al.

anuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Fast and e cient

We provide Process Service to clients who

need process serving in the Philippines.
Process Service Network

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

November 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Search Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > November 2005 Decisions > A.C. No.
6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. :

ChanRobles Professional Review,

Inc.

A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. NO. 6538 November 25, 2005]

(Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1159)

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ALICIA E. ASTURIAS, Complainant, v. ATTYS. MANUEL SERRANO AND EMILIANO

SAMSON, Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

For consideration is the Petition for Review, filed on September 16, 2004 before the Office of
the Bar Confidant by complainant Dr. Alicia E. Asturias (Dr. Asturias), of the dismissal by the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) of her complaint against
respondents Attys. Manuel Serrano and Emiliano Samson, for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
and professional misconduct, which dismissal this Court NOTED by Resolution of October 4,
2004, hence, it considered the case closed and terminated.

The antecedents of the case are as follows:

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

Dr. Asturias filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Fedman
Development Corporation (FDC) and Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 16640.

Branch 60 of the Makati RTC found for Dr. Asturias and against FDC and FSCC by Decision
dated April 6, 1992.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 1/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Only the defendant FDC appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals which,
by Decision of July 31, 1998, affirmed it with modification, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the complaint
against Fedman Development Corporation be as it is hereby DISMISSED, jurisdiction over it
being exclusively lodged at the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

SO ORDERED. 1 (Underscoring supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

The defendant FSCC not having appealed the decision of the trial court against it, it became
final and executory. On Dr. Asturias' motion, the trial court issued on August 10, 1999 a writ of
execution of the decision.

Sometime in March 2003, the sheriff assigned at the RTC of Makati, Branch 60 served a Notice
ChanRobles Special Lecture of Garnishment dated February 20, 2003 upon unit owners including respondents, tenants, and
Series occupants of the FSCC building. 2

FSCC, through counsel Lagera and Avelino, filed via registered mail on July 1, 2003 a Petition

to Annul [the RTC] Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court 3 before the Court of Appeals
where it was docketed as CA-GR SP No. 78104, alleging, inter alia, that

1.1 No motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or other appropriate
remedies could have been availed of by petitioners because the assailed RTC Decision has
attained finality without petitioners' fault when it was discovered in March 2003. This petition
has been seasonably filed before petitioners have been barred by estoppel and laches, and
clearly, within four (4) years from knowledge of the assailed decision, writ of execution,

subsequent court orders and processes. 4 (Underscoring supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

The verification in the petition, which was signed by respondents-unit owners and members of
the Board of the FSCC-representatives of the building owners and subscribed and sworn to
before Notary Public Venice A. Andaya on July 1, 2003, read:

We, MANUEL SERRANO and EMILIANO SAMSON, both of legal age, Filipino, under oath, hereby
depose and state that:

1. We are members of FSCC Board of Directors and unit-owners of Fedman Suites Building;

2. We are duly authorized to sign the Petition for Annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court re: Asturias case Civil Case 16640 to be filed before the Court of Appeals, as FSCC Board
of Director (sic) and as representatives of Fedman Suites building unit-owners as shown by the
Secretary's Certificate dated 30 June 2003 attached as Annex "A";

2. We caused the preparation of the foregoing petition, have read and fully understood its
contents and hereby verify and affirm that everything stated therein is true and correct to the
best of our personal knowledge and based on authentic records;

x x x 5 (Underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

On account of the above-quoted contents of the verification vis a vis the above-quoted
paragraph 1.1 of FSCC's Petition for Annulment of Judgment, Dr. Asturias (hereafter
"complainant") lodged before the IBP an administrative complaint against respondents, alleging
that they committed perjury by knowingly making an untruthful statement under oath when
they alleged the above-quoted paragraph 1.1 in the Petition filed before the CA.

Complainant contended that the above-quoted allegation in FSCC's petition before the
appellate court is false because FSCC had been duly notified of the assailed RTC Decision, "at

the very latest on August 11, 1999," she citing the Sheriff's Report 6 dated October 1, 1999
showing that copies of the July 31, 1998 Decision of the appellate court and the Writ of
Execution issued by the trial court were personally served upon Norma Estella, Administrative
Secretary of FSCC.

Complainant adopted and repleaded in toto in her administrative complaint her criminal
Complaint-Affidavit for perjury, including all its annexes, which she instituted against
respondents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila on August 4, 2003 where it was
docketed as I.S. No. 03H-21983.

Respondents, in their Answer to the administrative complaint, adopted too their Counter-
Affidavit dated September 29, 2003 and Rejoinder Affidavit dated October 15, 2003 which they
filed in the criminal complaint.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 2/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
During the Mandatory Preliminary Conference conducted by the IBP on January 8, 2004,
complainant, together with her counsel Atty. Pitero M. Reig, and respondent Atty. Emiliano
Samson on his and his co-respondent Atty. Manuel Serrano's behalf, appeared before
Commissioner Demaree J. B. Raval, Investigating Officer of the IBP Commission on Bar

Discipline ("CBD"). 7

Defined by the parties before the CBD as the sole issue was whether respondents, as
stated in the Petition to Annul Judgment, only came to know of the RTC decision on

March 2003. 8
Process Service
Network In her position paper 9 submitted to the CBD, complainant invited attention to the fact that

We provide Process
Service to clients who
need process serving in
the Philippines.
Process Service Network
Open
aside from the Sheriff's Report, the Motion to Archive Case/Suspend Proceedings 10 which FSCC
filed before the appellate court (on December 29, 2003) in the Petition for Annulment of
Judgment showed that FSCC knew of the decision of the trial court prior to March 2003, its
alleged date of discovery of its existence, for in said Motion, FSCC stated that:
The Decision was received by petitioner Fedman Suites Condominium Corporation thru its
counsel, Atty. Quintin Bautista, on July 20, 1992 as evidenced by a machine copy of the
registry return receipt, copy of which is attached hereto as Annex "A". The registry return
receipt was delivered back and received by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 60 in
so far as petitioner is concerned on July 22, 1992 as shown by the stamp of receipt appearing
on the right side of the registry receipt. The registry return receipt showing dates of receipt of
decision with respect to Fedman Development Corporation and Alicia Asturias are attached as
Annexes "B" and "C" respectively. 11

Complainant thus posited that respondents committed violations of the Code of Professional

Responsibility 12 and the Lawyer's Oath and must consequently be suspended from practice, if
not disbarred.

In his Investigation Report 13 dated May 24, 2004, CBD Investigating Commissioner Raval
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit in light of the foregoing
considerations:

Firstly, in attempting to prove the dishonesty of Attorneys Serrano and Samson, Asturias
submits as evidence the verification within a Petition praying for the annulment of the
judgment or final orders and resolutions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the case entitled:
Alicia G. Asturias v. Fedman Development Corp., and Fedman Suites Condominium Corporation
and docketed as Civil Case No. 16640 (Annex "A", Complaint). However, upon closer
examination of the said evidence, the same may not be considered as a concrete
manifestation of any alleged act of perjury on the part of Attorneys Serrano and
Samson, inasmuch as the contention of Asturias is based upon the erroneous premise
that Attorneys Serrano and Samson had actually received a copy of the RTC decision
on August 11, 1999. However, records do not show that Attorneys Samson (should
have been Serrano) and Samson actually received the RTC decision on August 11,
1999. Absent any showing that Attorneys Serrano and Samson actually received the
RTC decision on August 11, 1999, it cannot therefore be said that they made a false
statement when they made the contested assertions in paragraph 1.1 of the Petition
in CA-GR No. SP-78104.

Secondly, even assuming that there was some shade of falsehood in the claim made by
Attorneys Serrano and Samson, still the charge of perjury must fail. Mere assertion of a
falsehood is not enough to amount to perjury. The assertion must be deliberate and
willful (Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 93173, September 15, 1993).

In the present case, even if we assume that the claim that Attorneys Serrano and Samson
discovered the RTC decision only on March 2003 is false, still records do not show that
Asturias had convincingly shown that the falsehood had been done deliberately and
willfully. Records show that the discovery of the said decision only on March 2003,
was to the best of Attorneys Serrano and Samson's personal knowledge and based on
authentic records. This accordingly negates any willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood on their part.

Lastly, even assuming that the claim that Respondents discovered the said decision only on
March 2003 is false, the charge against Respondents for perjury may also not prosper.

The Supreme Court already had the occasion to declare the privileged nature of any statement
made in an appropriate pleading filed in court. Such statements may not be made the subject

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 3/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
November-2005 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 5039 - Spouses Eduardo
and Teresita Garcia v. Atty. Rolando
S. Bala.
A.C. No. 5708 - Bernardo A. Tadlip
v. Atty. Fidel H. Borres, Jr.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315
of a criminal prosecution. Said the Court in the case of Flordelis v. Himalaloan, et al., 84 SCRA
477:
"Moreover, it is likewise clear that any statement contained in an appropriate pleading filed in
court that is relevant to the issues in the case to which it relates is absolutely privileged and it
is the law that the same may not be made the subject of a criminal prosecution (People v.
Aquino, 18 SCRA 555.)"
In the present case, records establish that the claim made by Attorneys Serrano and Samson,
as to the time when they discovered the said decision, was contained within a pleading filed in
court. Both parties furthermore did not controvert the relevancy of the said claim to the issues
in the case to which it relates. Accordingly, said claim is deemed privileged; hence, not
actionable. 14 (Emphasis supplied; underscoring and italics in the original)
By Resolution passed on June 26, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the
complaint.
Copy of the Notice of Resolution incorporating the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution
dismissing the complaint, together with the Investigating Report of Investigating Commissioner
Raval, was received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on August 11, 2004.
On September 16, 2004, complainant filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant a Petition
for Review of the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution of dismissal of her administrative
complaint, faulting the Board of Governors for having gravely erred and committed reversible
error
. . . i[n] totally fail[ing] to consider in its Resolution the Motion to Suspend Proceedings/
Archive Case filed by the Respondents, thereby violating the right of the Petitioner to
administrative due process.
. . . in not finding the Respondents administratively liable despite their misleading, false and
contradictory allegations in thePetition for Annulment and Motion to Suspend Proceedings/
Archive Case. 15
In the meantime, by Resolution of October 24, 2004, this Court, noting the Notice of
Resolution of the IBP dismissing the case for lack of merit, considered the case closed and
terminated.
On November 24, 2004, by Resolution of even date, without giving due course to
complainant's Petition for Review which was, as stated above, filed on September 16, 2004
before the Office of the Bar Confidant, this Court required respondents to file comment
thereon.
To their Comment, respondents attached the Resolution dated January 12, 2004 of the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila dismissing the criminal case for perjury filed against them by
complainant for insufficiency of evidence, thus:
Complainant failed to establish that the respondents made a willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood. While she attached several documents as to the issuance of the subject RTC
Decision and other relative documents, complainant failed to adduced (sic) a single
evidence showing respondents that they have actual knowledge as to the dates of
the RTC Decisions and/ or its date of discovery by the respondents. 16 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ
The burden of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers rests on the complainant who
must establish his charge by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 17
To hold one liable for perjury which is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon
any material matter, before a competent person authorized to administer oath, in cases in
which the law requires such oath, 18 Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code 19 requires that the
following requisites must concur: (a) the accused made a statement under oath or executed an
affidavit upon a material matter; (b) the statement or affidavit was made before a competent
officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths; (c) in the statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) the sworn
statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. 20
As to the third requisite, good faith or lack of malice is a defense. 21
This Court finds that complainant failed to prove that respondents deliberately and willfully
made the questioned assertion in the verification vis a vis the allegation in paragraph 1.1 of the
4/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The Sheriff's Report merely shows that copy of the
A.C. No. 6026 - Godofredo C. appellate court's decision was received by one Norma Estella. The Motion to Archive/Suspend
Pineda v. Atty. Teddy C. Macapagal. Proceedings [in the Petition to Annul the RTC decision], which was filed not by respondents but
by another counsel, merely shows that copy of the trial court's decision of April 6, 1992 was
A.C. No. 6296 - Atty. Evelyn J. received by a certain Atty. Quintin Bautista on July 20, 1992. And the records do not show that
Magno v. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba. respondents, who were not parties to the complaint for specific performance filed by
complainant, themselves received a copy of the decision of the RTC or knew about it prior to
A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias March 2003.
v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al.
This Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are
shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, but neither will it hesitate to extend its
A.M. No. 05-8-539-RTC - Re:
Judicial Audit Conducted in the protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven. 22

Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, In fine, since complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving her charges against
Lapu-Lapu City. respondents by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, her present Petition for Review of
the IBP's dismissal of her complaint must fail.
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1617 Formerly
A.M. No. 02-1342-MTJ - Perfecto K. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED.

Estrada, Jr., v. Judge Kames Stewart

SO ORDERED.
Ramon E. Himalaloan, et al.
Endnotes:
ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 -
Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, 1 Rollo at 51.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 38,
Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, 2 Id. at 10; Respondents' Position Paper, Rollo at 119.
Civil Docket Clerk, et al.
3 Rollo at 8 - 28.

A.M. No. P-05-2056 Formerly OCA 4 Id. at 8-9.

I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P - Luz C. Adajar
v. Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III, et 5 Id. at 28.
al.
6 Id. at 29.

A.M. No. P-05-2088 - Hernando O.

7 Id. at 82-83.
Sibulo v. Muriel S. San Jose, Sheriff
III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, 8 Id. at 115.
Branch 1, Naga City.
9 Id. at 126.
A.M. No. P-05-2090 - Estrella V.
10 Id. at 155-160.
Alvarez v. Joy Albert B. Bulao,
Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial
11 Id. at 157.
Court, Libmanan Cabusao, Camarines
Sur. 12 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
A.M. No. P-93-808 - Court
Employees of the Municipal Circuit Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law

Trial Court, Ramon Magsaysay, or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Zamboanga del Sur v. Earla C. Sy,

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
Court Stenographer I, Municipal
suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Circuit Trial Court, Ramon
Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur. Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement.

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1738 Formerly

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
OCA IPI No. 01-1325-RTJ - Atty.
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Juliana Adalim-White v. Hon. Judge
Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
RTC, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern them to defeat the ends of justice.
Samar.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1875 - Silas Y.
Ca'ada v. Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte. 13 Rollo at 165-169.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1961 Formerly 14 Id. at 167-169.

OCA IPI No. 04-2077-RTJ - Cua Shuk
15 Id. at 176.
Yin v. Judge Norma C. Perello,
Regional Trial Court, Muntinlupa City, 16 Id. at 266.
Branch 276.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 5/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
17 Gaviola v. Salcedo, 428 SCRA 563 (2004); Alitagtag v. Garcia, 403 SCRA 335
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1964 - Henry D. (2003).
Arles v. Judge Rolindo D. Beldia,
18 Padua v. Paz, 402 SCRA 21, 28 (2003) citing Burgos v. Aquino, 249 SCRA 504
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Bacolod City. (1995).

19 ART. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. -
G.R. NOS. 118757 - Roberto
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
Brillante v. Court of Appeals, et al.
minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly make untruthful
statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles,
G.R. No. 52341-46 - Delia
shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a
Preagido et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et
competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so
al.
requires.

G.R. No. 124779 - Danilo Antonio, Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
et al., v. Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, commit any of the falsehoods mentioned made in this and the three preceding
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.
the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo,
20 Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, 450 SCRA 232, 243-244 (2005) citing
Rizal. et al.
Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice, 226 SCRA 438 (1993).
G.R. No. 123346, G.R. NO.
21 Acuña v. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, supra at 245 citing People v. Abaya,
134385 and G.R. NO. 148767 -
74 Phil. 59 (1942).
Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. v. CLT
Realty Development Corporation, et 22 Vide Garrido v. Quisumbing, 207 SCRA 616 (1992); Martin v. Felix, Jr., 163
al.
SCRA 111 (1988); Arcadio v. Ylagan, 143 SCRA 168 (1986).

G.R. No. 134787 - Nicanor T.

Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 133640, G.R. NO.

Back to Home | Back to Main
133661 and G.R. NO. 139147 -
Rodolfo S. Beltran, et al., v. The
Secretary of Health.

G.R. No. 135507 - Philippine

Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Nelson
Goimco, Sr., et al.

G.R. No. 136371 - Prudential Bank

v. Chonney Lim.

G.R. No. 139158 - Chandra O.

Cacho v. Joaquin O. Bonifacio, et al.

G.R. No. 136897 - Private

Development Corporation of the
Philippines, et al., v. The Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 139233 - Spouses Alfredo

and Brigida Rosario v. PCI Leasing
and Finance Inc.

G.R. No. 139290 - Trade and

Investment Development Corporation
of the Philippines v. Roblett Industrial
Construction Corporation, et al.

G.R. No. 140752 - Dionisio

Caraan, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
al.

G.R. No. 141241 - Republic of the

Philippines, through its trustee, the
Asset Privatization Trust v. "G"
Holdings, Inc.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 6/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

G.R. NO. 141484 - GCP-Manny

Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon.
Abraham Y. Principe, et al.

G.R. NOS. 141675-96 - Jesus T.

Tanchanco, et al., v. The Honorable
Sandiganbayan (Second Division).

G.R. No. 142729 - Mamsar

Enterprises Agro-Industrial
Corporation v. Varley Trading, Inc.

G.R. No. 142308 - Sps. Rev. Elmer

J. Ba es, et al. v. Lutheran Church in
the Philippines, et al.

G.R. NO. 143023 - Eastern

Overseas Employment Center, Inc.,
v. Cecilia Bea.

G.R. NO. 142937 - Philippine

Amusement and Gaming Corporation
v. Marita A. Angara, et al.

G.R. No. 143510 - Roman Catholic

Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of
Manuel Abella, et al.

G.R. No. 143647 - Yusuke

Fukuzume v. People of the
Philippines.

G.R. No. 143772 - Development

Bank of the Philippines v. Prudential
Bank.

G.R. NOS. 143803 - Creser

Precision Systems, Inc., v.
Commission on Audit.

G.R. No. 144244 - Ester Deloso v.

Sps. Alfonso Marapao, et al.

G.R. NO. 144374 - Romeo Teston,

et al. v. Development Bank of the
Philippines, et al.

G.R. No. 144619 - C. Planas

Commercial, et al. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 144705 - Nancy L. Ty v.

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank.

G.R. No. 144900 - Domingo

Marcial v. Hi-Cement Corporation, et
al.

G.R. No. 145276 - Rolando Agulto,

et al. v. William Z. Tecson.

G.R. No. 145568 - Heirs of Enrique

Tan Sr., et al., v. Reynalda Pollescas.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 7/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

G.R. No. 145578 - Jose C. Tupaz

IV, et al., v. The Court of Appeals, et
al.

G.R. No. 145821 - Spouses

Rosauro Ocampo, Jr. and Fe Ocampo
v. First Metro Leasing and Finance
Corporation, et .al.

G.R. No. 146424 - Albino Josef v.

People of the Philippines, et al.

G.R. No. 147861 and G.R. NO.

155252 - Philippine Ports Authority v.
Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring
Services, Inc.

G.R. No. 148152 and G.R. NO.

149450 - International Broadcasting
Corporation v. Jose T. Jalandoon.

G.R. No. 148361 - Rafael Bautista,

et al., v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.

G.R. No. 148411 - Martha R.

Horrigan v. Troika Commercial, Inc.

G.R. NOS. 148682-85 - People of

the Philippines v. Angel A. Enfermo.

G.R. No. 150920 - Child Learning

Center, Inc., et al., v. Timothy
Tagario, et al.

G.R. No. 149628 - Edgardo B.

Alcazaren v. Univet Agricultural
Products, Inc.

G.R. No. 151266 - Spouses

Raymundo and Marilyn Calo v.
Spouses Reynaldo and Lydia Tan, et
al.

G.R. No. 151326 - St. James

School of Quezon City v. Samahang
Manggagawa sa St. James School of
Quezon City.

G.R. No. 152346 - Isaias F.

Fabregas, et al. v. San Francisco Del
Monte, Inc.

G.R. NOS. 151373-74 -

Department of Health v. C.V.
Canchela and Associates, Architects
(CVCAA), et al.

G.R. No. 152545 and G.R. NO.

165687 - R-II Builders, Inc., v.
Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC), et al.

G.R. No. 152578, G.R. NO.

154487 and G.R. NO. 154518 -

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 8/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Republic of the Philippines, et al., v.
Estate of Hans Menzi, et al.

G.R. No. 152663 - Edgardo D.

Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D.
Monfort North) of the Municipality of
Dumangas, herein represented by Its
Punong Barangay, et al.

G.R. No. 154115 - Philip S. Yu v.

Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 154460 - Lauro C.

Degamo v. Avant Garde Shipping
Corporation, et al.

G.R. No. 154185 - Amelia J. Delos

Santos v. Jebsen Maritime, Inc.

G.R. No. 154554 - Goodyear

Philippines, Inc. v. Anthony Sy, et al.

G.R. No. 155014 - Crescent

Petroleum, Ltd. v. M/V "LoK
Maheshwari, et al.

G.R. No. 156969 - Baron Express,

et al. v. Roberto F. Umanito, et al.

G.R. No. 155309 - Josephine M.

Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust
Company.

G.R. No. 157306 - Republic of the

Philippines v. Anatalia Actub Tiu
Estonilo, et al.

G.R. No. 157399 - People of the

Philippines v. Jose Ting Lan Uy
(Acquitted), et al.

G.R. No. 157812 - Rodolfo Santos

v. Ronald C. Manalili, et al.

G.R. No. 157656 - Arnulfo C.

Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc.,
et al.

G.R. No. 157830 - Dante M.

Pascual, et al., v. Marilou M. Pascual.

G.R. No. 158857 - Pfeger R.

Dulay, et al. v. Rodrigo S. Dulay.

G.R. No. 159696 - Civil Service

Commission v. Court of Appeals, et
al.

G.R. NOS. 159969 & 160116 -

Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc., et
al. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 160032 - Estela L. Berba

v. Josephine Pablo, et al.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 9/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

G.R. No. 160109 - Spouses

German and Elisa Balanoba, et al., v.
Manuel D. Madriaga.

G.R. No. 160145 - Republic of the

Philippines v. Pedro O. Enciso.

G.R. No. 160118 - Norberto

Rimasug, et al., v. Melencio Martin,
et al.

G.R. No. 160315 - Lourdes D.

Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services,
Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 160324 - International

Finance Corporation v. Imperial
textile Mills, Inc.

G.R. No. 160892 - Spouses

Antonio and Lolita Tan v. Carmelito
Villapaz.

G.R. No. 160893 - Sonia P. Ruiz v.

People of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 161357 - Elena P.

Dycaico v. Social Security
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 161629 - Atty. Ronaldo

P. Ledesma v. Hon. Court of Appeals,
et al.

G.R. No. 161720 - Heirs of Flores

Restar, et al., v. Heirs of Dolores R.
Cichon, et al.

G.R. No. 161973 - Francisco

Ramos v. Stateland Investment
Corporation.

G.R. No. 162461 - Amos P.

Francia, Jr., et al., v. Power Merge
Corporation.

G.R. No. 162187 - Criste B.

Villanueva v. The Hon. Secretary of
Justice, et al.

G.R. No. 162727 - Ssangyong

Corporation v. Unimarine Shipping
Lines, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 162890 - Heirs of Julian

Dela Cruz, et al., v. Heirs of Alberto
Cruz, et al.

G.R. No. 162934 - Heirs of Belinda

Dahlia A. Castillo, et al. v. Dolores
Lacuata-Gabriel.

G.R. NOS. 163619-20 - In the

Matter of the Petition for

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 10/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Disqualification of Tess Dumpit-
Michelena, et al.

G.R. No. 164635 - Majurine L.

Mauricio v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 163988 - Valentina A. Nu

ez, et al., v. GSIS Family Bank, et al.

G.R. No. 164798 - China Banking

Corporation v. Mondragon
International Philippines Inc., et al.

G.R. NOS. 164684-85 - Philippine

Long Distance Telephone Company,
Inc., v. Antonio Q. Tiamson.

G.R. No. 164865 - Roberto P.

Fuentes Jr., v. Office of the
Ombudsman, et al.

G.R. No. 165125 - Cesar T.

Villanueva, et al., v. Mayor Felix V.
Ople, et al.

G.R. No. 165268 - Challenge

Socks Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 165767 - Spouses

William G. Friend and Maria Renee
Friend, et al., v. Union Bank of the
Philippines.

G.R. No. 166333 - Jose E.

Honrado v. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 165842 - Eduardo P.

Manuel v. People of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 166606 - Guillermo T.

Domondon, et al., v. Hon. First
Division, Sandiganbayan.

G.R. No. 166550 - Robert C.

Casol, et al., v. Purefoods
Corporation.

G.R. No. 166645 - Vicente D.

Herce Jr., v. Municipality of Cabuyao,
Laguna, et al.

G.R. No. 166753 - Angelita Morcal

v. Antonio Lavi a, et al.

G.R. No. 166755 - Elmer F.

Cervantes v. The Honorable Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 166883 - Angela

Taguinod, et al. v. Maximino
Dalupang, et al.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 11/12
1/26/2021 A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. : November 2005 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 167206 - Jaime F.
Villalon v. Ma. Corazon N. Villalon.

G.R. No. 167474 - Conrado Banal

III v. Hon. Delia H. Panganiban, in
her capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC-Makati, Branch 64, et al.

G.R. No. 167748 - Heirs of Rafael

Magpily v. Herminigildo de Jesus, et
al.

G.R. No. 168445 - People of the

Philippines v. Capt. Florencio O.
Gasacao.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1315 12/12