Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

October 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Search
Italian elevator manufacturer
High quality build, customize cabin interior, energy saving
ChanRobles Professional technology
Review, Inc.

movilift.com OPEN

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > October 2005 Decisions
> G.R. No. 161026 - Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Goldstar
Elevators, Phils., Inc. :
 Passenger G.R. No. 161026 - Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Goldstar
Elevators, Phils., Inc.
lifts
movilift.com

MRL Technology
THIRD DIVISION
High quality build,
customize cabin [G.R. NO. 161026 October 24, 2005]

interior, energy HYATT ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.

saving technology GOLDSTAR ELEVATORS, PHILS., INC.,* Respondent.

DEC ISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

OPEN Well established in our jurisprudence is the rule that the residence of a
corporation is the place where its principal office is located, as stated in its
Articles of Incorporation.

The Case

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

Before us is a Petition for Review 1 on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Review
Court, assailing the June 26, 2003 Decision 2 and the November 27, 2003

Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 74319. The decretal
portion of the Decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed Orders dated May 27, 2002
and October 1, 2002 of the RTC, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City in Civil Case No.
 99-600, are hereby SET ASIDE. The said case is hereby ordered DISMISSED

on the ground of improper venue." 4

The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts

The relevant facts of the case are summarized by the CA in this wise:

"Petitioner [herein Respondent] Goldstar Elevator Philippines, Inc. (GOLDSTAR for

brevity) is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of marketing,
distributing, selling, importing, installing, and maintaining elevators and
escalators, with address at 6th Floor, Jacinta II Building, 64 EDSA, Guadalupe,
Makati City.

"On the other hand, private respondent [herein petitioner] Hyatt Elevators and
ChanRobles CPA Review
Escalators Company (HYATT for brevity) is a domestic corporation similarly
Online
engaged in the business of selling, installing and maintaining/servicing elevators,
escalators and parking equipment, with address at the 6th Floor, Dao I
Condominium, Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, Makati, as stated in its Articles of
Incorporation.

"On February 23, 1999, HYATT filed a Complaint for unfair trade practices and
damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines against
LG Industrial Systems Co. Ltd. (LGISC) and LG International Corporation (LGIC),
alleging among others, that: in 1988, it was appointed by LGIC and LGISC as the
exclusive distributor of LG elevators and escalators in the Philippines under a
'Distributorship Agreement'; x x x LGISC, in the latter part of 1996, made a
proposal to change the exclusive distributorship agency to that of a joint venture
partnership; while it looked forward to a healthy and fruitful negotiation for a
joint venture, however, the various meetings it had with LGISC and LGIC,
through the latter's representatives, were conducted in utmost bad faith and
ChanRobles Special Lecture
with malevolent intentions; in the middle of the negotiations, in order to put
Series
pressures upon it, LGISC and LGIC terminated the Exclusive Distributorship
Agreement; x x x [A]s a consequence, [HYATT] suffered P120,000,000.00 as
 actual damages, representing loss of earnings and business opportunities,
P20,000,000.00 as damages for its reputation and goodwill, P1,000,000.00 as
and by way of exemplary damages, and P500,000.00 as and by way of attorney's
fees.

"On March 17, 1999, LGISC and LGIC filed a Motion to Dismiss raising the
following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the persons of defendants,
summons not having been served on its resident agent; (2) improper venue; and
(3) failure to state a cause of action. The [trial] court denied the said motion in
an Order dated January 7, 2000.

"On March 6, 2000, LGISC and LGIC filed an Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim ex abundante cautela. Thereafter, they filed a 'Motion for
Reconsideration and to Expunge Complaint' which was denied.

"On December 4, 2000, HYATT filed a motion for leave of court to amend the
complaint, alleging that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, it learned that
SPONSORED SEARCHES
LGISC transferred all its organization, assets and goodwill, as a consequence of a
hyatt elevators v goldstar
joint venture agreement with Otis Elevator Company of the USA, to LG Otis
Elevator Company (LG OTIS, for brevity). Thus, LGISC was to be substituted or
hyatt corp vs goldstar
changed to LG OTIS, its successor-in-interest. Likewise, the motion averred that
elevators and escalators x x x GOLDSTAR was being utilized by LG OTIS and LGIC in perpetrating their
unlawful and unjustified acts against HYATT. Consequently, in order to afford
2 person elevator complete relief, GOLDSTAR was to be additionally impleaded as a party-
defendant. Hence, in the Amended Complaint, HYATT impleaded x x x GOLDSTAR
elevators company
as a party-defendant, and all references to LGISC were correspondingly replaced
with LG OTIS.

"On December 18, 2000, LG OTIS (LGISC) and LGIC filed their opposition to
HYATT's motion to amend the complaint. It argued that: (1) the inclusion of
GOLDSTAR as party-defendant would lead to a change in the theory of the case
since the latter took no part in the negotiations which led to the alleged unfair
trade practices subject of the case; and (b) HYATT's move to amend the
complaint at that time was dilatory, considering that HYATT was aware of the
SPONSORED SEARCHES
hyatt elevators v goldstar
elevators and escalators
industrial elevators
otis elevators
lift elevator
SPONSORED SEARCHES
hyatt elevators v goldstar
elevators and escalators
industrial elevators
residential elevator
lift for residence
October-2005 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 4920 : October 19,
2005 - LEOPOLDO V. CREDITO,
AARON J. VELARDE, PEPITO
JARANILLA, MIGUEL EXITO JR.,
CEZAR CRUCERO, NEMESIO
CABALLERO, RODOLFO
JALANDONI, NILO GAVARAN,
existence of GOLDSTAR for almost two years before it sought its inclusion as
party-defendant.
"On January 8, 2001, the [trial] court admitted the Amended Complaint. LG OTIS
(LGISC) and LGIC filed a motion for reconsideration thereto but was similarly
rebuffed on October 4, 2001.
"On April 12, 2002, x x x GOLDSTAR filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint, raising the following grounds: (1) the venue was improperly laid, as
neither HYATT nor defendants reside in Mandaluyong City, where the original case
was filed; and (2) failure to state a cause of action against [respondent], since
the amended complaint fails to allege with certainty what specific ultimate acts x x
x Goldstar performed in violation of x x x Hyatt's rights. In the Order dated May
27, 2002, which is the main subject of the present petition, the [trial] court
denied the motion to dismiss, ratiocinating as follows:
'Upon perusal of the factual and legal arguments raised by the movants-
defendants, the court finds that these are substantially the same issues posed
by the then defendant LG Industrial System Co. particularly the matter dealing
[with] the issues of improper venue, failure to state cause of action as well as
this court's lack of jurisdiction. Under the circumstances obtaining, the court
resolves to rule that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action and that
the venue is properly laid. It is significant to note that in the amended complaint,
the same allegations are adopted as in the original complaint with respect to the
Goldstar Philippines to enable this court to adjudicate a complete determination
or settlement of the claim subject of the action it appearing preliminarily as
sufficiently alleged in the plaintiff's pleading that said Goldstar Elevator Philippines
Inc., is being managed and operated by the same Korean officers of defendants
LG-OTIS Elevator Company and LG International Corporation.'
"On June 11, 2002, [Respondent] GOLDSTAR filed a motion for reconsideration
thereto. On June 18, 2002, without waiving the grounds it raised in its motion to
dismiss, [it] also filed an 'Answer Ad Cautelam'. On October 1, 2002, [its] motion
for reconsideration was denied.
ROLANDO BELBAR, SIXTO "From the aforesaid Order denying x x x Goldstar's motion for reconsideration, it
CRUCERO, TALAVER filed the x x x petition for certiorari [before the CA] alleging grave abuse of
ELEUTERIO, BONIFACIO discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the [trial]
LABADIA, ELY ERIMA court in issuing the assailed Orders dated May 27, 2002 and October 1, 2002." 5

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

A.C. No. 5424 - Antonio B.
Baltazar v. Atty. Norbin P. The CA ruled that the trial court had committed palpable error amounting to
Dimalanta. grave abuse of discretion when the latter denied respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
The appellate court held that the venue was clearly improper, because none of the
A.C. No. 6396 - Rosalie
litigants "resided" in Mandaluyong City, where the case was filed.
Dallong-Galicinao v. Atty. Virgil
R. Castro. According to the appellate court, since Makati was the principal place of business
of both respondent and petitioner, as stated in the latter's Articles of

A.M. NO. 05-9-555-RTC - Incorporation, that place was controlling for purposes of determining the proper

Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. venue. The fact that petitioner had abandoned its principal office in Makati years

Cecilia L. Asilo, Court prior to the filing of the original case did not affect the venue where personal

Stenographer III, Regional Trial actions could be commenced and tried.

Court, Pasig City, Branch 151.

Hence, this Petition. 6

A.M. No. 04-11-671-RTC - The Issue

Re: Findings of Irregularity on
the Bundy Cards of Personnel
of the Regional Trial
Branch 26 and Municipal Trial
Court Medina, Misamis Oriental.
In its Memorandum, petitioner submits this sole issue for our consideration:
Court, "Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in reversing the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court, erred as a matter of law and jurisprudence, as well as committed grave
abuse of discretion, in holding that in the light of the peculiar facts of this case,

venue was improper[.]" 7

A.M. No. 98-12-394-RTC -
RE: Case Left Undecided by This Court's Ruling
Retired Judge Benjamin A.
The Petition has no merit.
Bongolan.
Sole Issue:

Venue
 A.M. No. MTJ-00-1324
Joaquin Roberto Gozun, et al. v.
Judge Vinci G. Gozum.
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1573
Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Municipal Trial
Court of Tambulig and the 11th
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Mahayag-Dumingag-Josefina,
Both in Zamboanga Del Sur.
- The resolution of this case rests upon a proper understanding of Section 2 of
Rule 4 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court:
"Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other actions may be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides, or where the
-
defendant or any of the principal defendant resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff."
Since both parties to this case are corporations, there is a need to clarify the
meaning of "residence." The law recognizes two types of persons: (1) natural and
(2) juridical. Corporations come under the latter in accordance with Article 44(3)
of the Civil Code. 8

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1579 - Residence is the permanent home - - the place to which, whenever absent for

Eduardo C. Dayuno v. Judge business or pleasure, one intends to return. 9 Residence is vital when dealing with
Hector B. Barillo, et al. venue. 10 A corporation, however, has no residence in the same sense in which
this term is applied to a natural person. This is precisely the reason why the
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1586 -
Court in Young Auto Supply Company v. Court of Appeals 11 ruled that "for
Letter Dated November 12,
practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the
2004 of Judge Adolfo R.
place where its principal office is located as stated in the articles of
Malingan.
incorporation." 12 Even before this ruling, it has already been established that the

residence of a corporation is the place where its principal office is established. 13

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1599 -
Maribeth M. Ora v. Judge Romeo This Court has also definitively ruled that for purposes of venue, the term
A. Almajar.
"residence" is synonymous with "domicile." 14 Correspondingly, the Civil Code
provides:
A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 -
Patricio T. Junio v. Judge Pedro "Art. 51. When the law creating or recognizing them, or any other provision does
C. River, Jr. not fix the domicile of juridical persons, the same shall be understood to be the
place where their legal representation is established or where they exercise their
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1603 - principal functions." 15
Jaime R. Sevilla v. Judge Edison
It now becomes apparent that the residence or domicile of a juridical person is
F. Quintin.
fixed by "the law creating or recognizing" it. Under Section 14(3) of the
 Corporation Code, the place where the principal office of the corporation is to be
ADM. MATTER NO. P-03- located is one of the required contents of the articles of incorporation, which shall
1669 - Jonolito S. Orasa v. be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Manuel S. Seva.
In the present case, there is no question as to the residence of respondent.

What needs to be examined is that of petitioner. Admittedly, 16 the latter's

A. M. No. P-04-1904 -
principal place of business is Makati, as indicated in its Articles of Incorporation.
Miramar Fish Co., Inc. v.
Since the principal place of business of a corporation determines its residence or
Bienvenido Jalon, et al.
domicile, then the place indicated in petitioner's articles of incorporation becomes
controlling in determining the venue for this case.
A.M. No. P-04-1911 - Office
of the Court Administrator v.
Petitioner argues that the Rules of Court do not provide that when the plaintiff is
Aster A. Madela.
a corporation, the complaint should be filed in the location of its principal office as

indicated in its articles of incorporation. 17 Jurisprudence has, however, settled

A. M. No. P-04-1921 - Office
that the place where the principal office of a corporation is located, as stated in
of the Court Administrator v.
the articles, indeed establishes its residence. 18 This ruling is important in
Fely C. Carriedo.
determining the venue of an action by or against a corporation, 19 as in the

A.M. No. P-05-19966 - Office present case.

of the Court Administrator v.

Without merit is the argument of petitioner that the locality stated in its Articles
Melecio T. Ramos.
of Incorporation does not conclusively indicate that its principal office is still in the
same place. We agree with the appellate court in its observation that the
A.M. No. P-05-1983 - Judge
requirement to state in the articles the place where the principal office of the
Alpino P. Florendo v. Edmar C.
corporation is to be located "is not a meaningless requirement. That proviso
Cadano.
would be rendered nugatory if corporations were to be allowed to simply

disregard what is expressly stated in their Articles of Incorporation." 20

A. M. No. P-05-1989 -
Report on the Financial Audit Inconclusive are the bare allegations of petitioner that it had closed its Makati
Conducted at the MCTC- office and relocated to Mandaluyong City, and that respondent was well aware of
Mabalacat, Pampanga. those circumstances. Assuming arguendo that they transacted business with
each other in the Mandaluyong office of petitioner, the fact remains that, in law,
A.M. No. P-05-1994 - Alleged the latter's residence was still the place indicated in its Articles of Incorporation.
Removal of the Bailbond Posted Further unacceptable is its faulty reasoning that the ground for the CA's
in Criminal Case No. C-67629.
A.M. No. P-05-2013 - Linda
Ramos v. Linda C. Esteban.
A.M. No. P-05-2069
P/Capt. Romeo M. De Guzman
v. Maripi A. Apolonio.
dismissal of its Complaint was its failure to amend its Articles of Incorporation so
as to reflect its actual and present principal office. The appellate court was clear
enough in its ruling that the Complaint was dismissed because the venue had
been improperly laid, not because of the failure of petitioner to amend the latter's
Articles of Incorporation.
-
Indeed, it is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are
fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled,
however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a

plaintiff's caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. 21 Allowing

A.M. No. P-05-2080 - RE:
Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. petitioner's arguments may lead precisely to what this Court was trying to avoid

Natividad M. Calingao. in Young Auto Supply Company v. CA: 22 the creation of confusion and untold
inconveniences to party litigants. Thus enunciated the CA:
A.M. No. P-05-2086 - RE:
"x x x. To insist that the proper venue is the actual principal office and not that
Falsification of Daily Time
stated in its Articles of Incorporation would indeed create confusion and work
Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks,
untold inconvenience. Enterprising litigants may, out of some ulterior motives,
et al.
easily circumvent the rules on venue by the simple expedient of closing old offices
and opening new ones in another place that they may find well to suit their
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1647 -
needs." 23
Wong Jan Realty, Inc. v. Hon.
Judge Dolores L. Espa ol. We find it necessary to remind party litigants, especially corporations, as follows:

"The rules on venue, like the other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just
A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1713 and
and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ -
determination of every action and proceeding. Obviously, this objective will not be
Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge
attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose the court where
Sibanah E. Usman.
he may file his complaint or petition.

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1794

"The choice of venue should not be left to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may
Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-941-
be impelled by some ulterior motivation in choosing to file a case in a particular
RTJ - P/Supt. Manuel P. Barcena
court even if not allowed by the rules on venue." 24
v. Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon. d
 ADM. MATTER NO. RTJ-04- WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED,and the assailed Decision and
1848 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
03-1804-RTJ - Philippine
SO ORDERED.
Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Hon. Endnotes:
Romulo A. Lopez.

* The Petition included the "Court of Appeals" as a respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1890 -
However, the CA was omitted by the Court from the title of the case
Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal v.
because, under Section 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the
Judge Rogelio C. Sescon.
appellate court need not be impleaded in petitions for review.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1960 - 1 Rollo, pp. 7-20.

Juvelyn D. Kilat v. Judge Mariano
2 Annex "A" of the Petition; rollo, pp. 22-31. Penned by Justice
S. Macias.
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Justices
G.R. No. 122472 - Apex Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (Sixth Division chair) and Edgardo F. Sundiam
Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (member).
of Internal Revenue, et al.
3 Annex "B" of the Petition; id., p. 33.

G.R. No. 125254 - Spouses 4 CA Decision, p. 9; id., p. 30.

Samuel Ulep, et al. v. Honorable
Court of Appeals, et al. 5 Id., pp. 2-6 & 23-27. Citations omitted.

6 The case was deemed submitted for decision on January 26, 2005,
G.R. No. 106064 - Spouses
Renato Constanino, Jr., et al. v. upon this Court's receipt of respondent's Memorandum, signed by

Hon. Jose B. Cuisia, et al. Attys. Enrique W. Galang and Jerome L. de Guzman. Petitioner's
Memorandum, signed by Atty. Alan A. Leynes, was received by this

G.R. No. 132537 - Mary Court on December 9, 2004.

Josephine Gomez et al., v. Roel

7 Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 6; rollo, p. 192. Original in uppercase.
Sta. Ines, et al.
8 "Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
 G.R. No. 132759 - Alejandro x x x
Danan, et al. v. The Honorable
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or
Court of Appeals, et al.
purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and
distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member."
G.R. No. 134113 - Air France
Philippines v. The Honorable 9 Evangelista v. Santos, 86 Phil. 387, May 19, 1950.
Judge Emilio L. Leachon, et al.
10 Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., 34 Phil. 526, March 29,
G.R. No. 132864 - Philippine 1916.
Free Press, Inc. v. Court of
11 223 SCRA 670, June 25, 1993.
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 138550 - American
Express International Inc., v.
Noel Cordero.
G.R. No. 139448 - Jacinto
Galang, et al. v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al.
12 Id., p. 674, per Quiason, J. This was later reiterated in Davao Light
& Power Co, Inc. v. CA, 363 SCRA 396, August 20, 2001.
13 Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon, 19 SCRA 379, February 18,
1967.
14 Evangelista v. Santos, supra at note 9; Corre v. Corre, 100 Phil.
321, November 13, 1956.

15 Article 51, Civil Code.

G.R. No. 139526 - Ramatek
Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ma. 16 Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 7; rollo, p. 193.
Anela De Los Reyes.
17 Id., pp. 193-195.
G.R. No. 139736 - Bank of
18 Campos, The Corporation Code, Comments, Notes and Selected
the Philippine Islands v.
Commissioner of Internal Cases, Vol. I (1990), p. 77; Villanueva, Philippine Corporate Law

Revenue. (1998), p. 162.

19 Ibid.
G.R. No. 141715 - Local
Superior of the Servants of 20 CA Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 29.
Charity, Inc., et al. v. Jody King
Construction & Development 21 Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon, supra at note 13; Evangelista
Corporation. v. Santos, supra.

22 Supra at note 11.

G.R. No. 139858 -
Commissioner of Internal
23 CA Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 29.
Revenue v. Arturo Tulio.
24 Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc., 119 SCRA 367, 371-372, December
G.R. NO. 142664 - Leoncio
15, 1982, per Aquino, J. See also Sps. Rigor v. Consolidated Orix
Ho, et al. v. Pedro S. Lacsa.
Leasing and Finance Corp., 387 SCRA 437, August 20, 2002.

G.R. No. 142411 - Winifreda

Ursal v. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 143027 -

Back to Home | Back to Main
Encarnacion L. Cuizon, et al. v.
Mercedes C. Remoto, et al.

G.R. No. 143439 - Maximo

Alvarez v. Susan Ramirez.

G.R. No. 143951 - Norma

Mangaliag, et al. v. Hon.
Edelwina Catubig-Pastoral, et al.

G.R. NO. 144273 - Rodolfo

Ramos, et al. v. Hon. Judge
Alfonso V. Combong, Jr., et al.

G.R. No. 145259 - Casimiro

R. Nadela v. Engineering and
Construction Corporation of
Asia.
 G.R. No. 145330 - Spouses
Gomer Ramos, et al. v. Spouses
Santiago Heruela, et al.

G.R. No. 146400 -

Bernardito A. Florido v.
Shemberg Marketing
Corporation.

G.R. No. 146987 - Metro

Properties, Inc. v. Magallanes
Village Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 147746 - Perla

Compania De Seguros, Inc., et
al. v. Sps. Gaudencio Sarangaya
III, et al.

G.R. No. 147911 - Federico

B. Diamante III v. Honorable
Sandiganbayan, et al.

G.R. No. 148574 - Eugenio

G. Palileo, et al. v. National
Irrigation Administration.

G.R. No. 149175 - Jaime H.

Domingo v. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, et al.
 G.R. No. 149259 - People of
the Philippines v. Juanito P.
Quirol, et al.

G.R. No. 151040 - Allied

Banking Corporation v. Cheng
Yong, et al.

G.R. No. 151818 - Oriental

Petroleum, et al. v. Marciano V.
Fuentes, et al.

G.R. No. 151893 - Precy P.

Jacang v. Employees'
Compensation Commission, et
al.

G.R. No. 152527 - Joey

Guiyab y Danao v. People of the
Philippines.

G.R. No. 152689 and G.R.

NO. 154072 - Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company,
Inc., et al. v. Alfredo S. Paguio.

G.R. No. 153152 - Ruperto

V. Peralta, et al. v. Hon. Aniano
Desierto, et al.

G.R. 153526 - Florante

Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, et
al.

G.R. No. 153784 - Romeo C.

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

G.R. No. 154027 - Spouses

Ramon and Rosita Tan v.
Gorgonia Bantegui, et al.

G.R. No. 154087 - Milagros

Ilao-Quianay, et al. v. Rodolfo
Mapile.

G.R. No. 154190 - MIAA-

NAIA Association of Service
Operators v. The Ombudsman,
et al.

G.R. No. 154126 - Allied

Banking Corporation v. The
Quezon City Government, et al.

G.R. No. 154380 - Republic

of the Philippines v. Cipriano
Orbecido III.

G.R. No. 154410 - Heavylift

Manila, Inc., et al. v. The Court
of Appeals, et al.
 G.R. No. 154428 - Philippine
National Bank v. Shellink
Planners, Inc.

G.R. No. 154629 - SPO4

Marino Soberano, et al. v. The
People of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 154798 - Crystal

Shipping, Inc., et al. v. Deo P.
Natividad.

G.R. No. 154993 - Luz R.

Yamane v. BA Lepanto
Condominium Corporation.

G.R. No. 155279 - Micro

Sales Operation Network, et al.
v. The National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 155737 - R

Transport Corporation v.
Philippine Hawk Transport
Corporation.

G.R. No. 155784 - Civil

Service Commission v. Ranulfo
P. Albao.

G.R. No. 156033 -

Expresscredit Financing
Corporation v. Sps. Morton and
Juanita Velasco.

G.R. No. 156081 - Ferdinand

T. Santos, et al. v. Wilson Go.

G.R. No. 156381 - JSS

Indochina Corporation v.
Gerardo R. Ferrer, et al.

G.R. No. 156652 - Dr. Benita

F. Osorio v. Hon. Aniano A.
Desierto, et al.

G.R. No. 156887 - Philippine

National Construction
Corporation v. Hon. Amalia F.
Dy, et al.

G.R. No. 157604 - George V.

Benedicto v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 157044 - Rodolfo V.

Rosales, et al. v. Miguel
Castelltort, et al.

G.R. No. 158227 - Keppel

Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Philip
Adao.
 G.R. No. 158085 - Republic
of the Philippines, et al. v.
Sunlife Assurance Company of
Canada.

G.R. No. 158674 -

Lapreciosisma Cagungun, et al.
v. Planters Development Bank.

G.R. No. 158812 - Public

Estates Authority, et al. v.
Bolinao Security and
Investigation Service, Inc.

G.R. No. 159048 - Benny Go

v. Eliodoro Bacaron.

G.R. No. 159592 - Spouses

Ferdinand Aguilar, et al. v.
Citytrust Finance Corporation.

G.R. No. 160073 - Abundio

Barayoga, et al. v. Asset
Privatization Trust.

G.R. No. 159831 - Pilipinas

Shell Petroleum Corporation v.
John Bordman Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc.

G.R. No. 160283 - John Kam

Biak Y. Chan, Jr., v. Iglesia ni
Cristo Inc.
 G.R. No. 160573 - Grace A.
Basmayor v. Loida B. Atencio.

G.R. No. 160966 - Pagoda

Philippines, Inc. v. Universal
Canning, Inc.

G.R. No. 161026 - Hyatt

Elevators and Escalators
Corporation v. Goldstar
Elevators, Phils., Inc.

G.R. No. 161733 - Civil

Service Commission v. Arnulfo
A. Sebastian.

G.R. No. 161942 - Jose M.

Caringal v. Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office.

G.R. No. 162070 -

Department of Agrarian Reform
v. Delia T. Sutton, et al.

G.R. No. 161997 -

Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Philippine National
Bank.

G.R. No. 162445 - Dionisio

L. Bacarra v. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 163099 - Amadeo

Fishing Corporation, et al. v.
Romeo Nierra, et al.

G.R. No. 163181 - Bonifacio

L. Ca'al, Sr. v. People of the
Philippines.

G.R. No. 163818 - Sebastian

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

G.R. No. 164588 - Nautica

Canning Corporation, et al. v.
Roberto C. Yumul.

G.R. No. 164282 - Teresita

M. Yujuico v. Hon. Jose L.
Atienza, Jr., et al.

G.R. No. 164678 - Office of

the Ombudsman v. Mary Ann T.
Castro.

G.R. No. 164736 - Universal

Robina Corporation, et al. v.
Benito Catapang, et al.

G.R. No. 164914 - Natalia

Realty, Inc. v. Hon. Mauricio M.
Rivera, et al.

G.R. No. 164978 - Aquilino

Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al. v. Exec.
Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, et
al.

G.R. No. 164922 - Raymond

P. Espidol v. Commission on
Elections, et al.

G.R. No. 165282 - Electro

System Industries Corporation
v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 165996 - Rodolfo

G. Valencia v. The
Sandiganbayan.

G.R. No. 166152 - Villamor

Golf Club, et al. v. Rodolfo F.
Pehid.

G.R. No. 166379 - Lakpue

Drug, Inc., et al. v. Ma. Lourdes
Belga.

G.R. No. 166664 - Domingo

C. Suarez v. Leo B. Saul, et al.
 G.R. No. 166964 - Patricia L.
Tiongson, et al. v. National
Housing Authority.

G.R. No. 167462 - Manly

Express Inc., et al. v. Romualdo
Payong, Jr.

G.R. No. 167514 -

Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v.
Trackworks Rail Transit
Advertising, Vending and
Promotions, Inc.

G.R. No. 167886 - Land

Bank of the Philippines v.
Pamintuan Development Co.

G.R. No. 168056 - ABAKADA

Guro Party List Officer Samson
S. Alcantara, et al. v. The Hon.
Executive Secretary Eduardo R.
Ermita.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz