SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229306. April 23, 2018.]

LEO ANGELES, petitioner, vs. AMB ALC HOLDINGS AND

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 23 April 2018 which reads as follows: ISHCcT

"G.R. No. 229306 (Leo Angeles v. AMB ALC Holdings and

Management Corporation, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the
instant petition and AFFIRM the December 11, 2015 Decision 1 and
November 29, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 139247 for failure of petitioner Leo Angeles (Angeles) to sufficiently show
that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing Civil Case No. 2014-
0197-D for lack of locus standi to institute the complaint for annulment of
sale, reconveyance, and damages.
As the CA correctly ruled, Angeles failed to sufficiently allege and show:
(a) such personal and substantial interest, not mere incidental or general
interest common to all residents and citizens of the City of Dagupan; 3 (b)
that public funds were illegally disbursed or would be used for unlawful
purposes affecting its wastage; 4 or (c) that the City Government, in entering
into a transaction with respondent AMB ALC Holdings and Management
Corporation, Inc., has caused material injury to its coffers and the residents,
including Angeles. While the Court has in a number of cases relaxed the rule
on standing, it did so where serious constitutional questions are involved or
when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest, 5 none of which are
availing in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 44-53. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with
Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino
concurring.

2. Id. at 55-56.
3. See Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 656 Phil. 246, 266 (2011), citing Francisco, Jr. v. The
House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 895-896 (2003); and David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 755-757 (2006).
4. See Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 650 Phil. 326, 336 (2010).

5. See Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393, 404 (2008); Tatad v. Secretary of
Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321, 358 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com