Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
| chanrobles.com™
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™
Tweet
Like 0 Share
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2013 > June 2013 Decisions > G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CHOACHUY,
Respondents.:
G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER
CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CHOACHUY, Respondents.
ChanRobles OnLine Bar Review
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN
CHOACHUY, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J .:
�The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it does not likewise compel respect for [one�s]
personality as a unique individual whose claim to privacy and [non]interference demands respect.�1
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the July 10, 2007
Decision3 and the September 11, 2007 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CEBSP No.
01473.
Factual Antecedents
On August 23, 2005, petitionerspouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Mandaue City a Complaint5 for Injunction and Damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
DebtKollect Company, Inc. Mandatory Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as Civil Case MAN5223 and raffled
to Branch 28, against respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot 1900B) covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42817 situated in Barangay Basak, City of Mandaue, Cebu;6 that
respondents are the owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901 and
1900C, adjacent to the property of petitioners;7 that respondents constructed an autorepair shop
building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) on Lot 1900C; that in April 2005, Aldo filed a case against petitioners
for Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN
5125;8 that in that case, Aldo claimed that petitioners were constructing a fence without a valid permit
and that the said construction would destroy the wall of its building, which is adjacent to petitioners�
property;9 that the court, in that case, denied Aldo�s application for preliminary injunction for failure to
substantiate its allegations;10 that, in order to get evidence to support the said case, respondents on
June 13, 2005 illegally setup and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video
surveillance cameras facing petitioners� property;11 that respondents, through their employees and
without the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners� ongoing construction;12 and that
the acts of respondents violate petitioners� right to privacy.13� Thus, petitioners prayed that
respondents be ordered to remove the video surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal
surveillance.14
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
In their Answer with Counterclaim,15 respondents claimed that they did not install the video surveillance
Division cameras,16 nor did they order their employees to take pictures of petitioners� construction.17 They also
clarified that they are not the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On� October 18, 2005,� the RTC issued an Order19� granting the application for a TRO.� The
dispositive portion of the said Order reads: cralavvonlinelawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 1/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
WHEREFORE, the application for a [T]emporary [R]estraining [O]rder or a [W]rit of
[P]reliminary [I]njunction is granted.� Upon the filing and approval of a bond by
[petitioners], which the Court sets at P50,000.00, let a [W]rit of [P]reliminary [I]njunction
issue against the [respondents] Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy. They are
hereby directed to immediately remove the revolving camera that they installed at the left
side of their building overlooking the side of [petitioners�] lot and to transfer and operate
it elsewhere at the back where [petitioners�] property can no longer be viewed within a
distance of about 23 meters from the left corner of Aldo Servitec, facing the road.
IT IS SO ORDERED.20
Respondents moved for a reconsideration21 but the RTC denied the same in its Order22 dated February
6, 2006.23� Thus: cralavvonlinelawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.� Issue a
[W]rit of [P]reliminary [I]njunction in consonance with the Order dated 18 October 2005.
IT IS SO ORDERED.24 nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary
Aggrieved, respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari25 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
with application for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On July 10, 2007, the CA issued its Decision26 granting the Petition for Certiorari.� The CA ruled that the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion because petitioners failed to
show a clear and unmistakable right to an injunctive writ.27� The CA explained that the right to privacy
of residence under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code was not violated since the property subject of the
controversy is not used as a residence.28� The CA also said that since respondents are not the owners of
the building, they could not have installed video surveillance cameras.29� They are mere stockholders of
Aldo, which has a separate juridical personality.30� Thus, they are not the proper parties.31� The fallo
reads:
cralavvonlinelawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us
GRANTING the petition filed in this case. The assailed orders dated October 18, 2005 and
A.C. No. 7944, June 03, 2013 REX POLINAR February 6, 2006 issued by the respondent judge are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
DAGOHOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN
JUAN, Respondents. SO ORDERED.32
nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 2/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
impleaded in this case.43
G.R. NO. 182963, June 03, 2013 SPOUSES DEO
AGNER AND MARICON AGNER, Petitioners, v. BPI Our Ruling
FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.
G.R. NO. 188716, June 10, 2013 MELINDA L. The Petition is meritorious.
OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent. The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.�
G.R. NO. 189297, June 03, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution44 and in our laws.� It is defined as �the right to be
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. GUILLERMO free from unwarranted exploitation of one�s person or from intrusion into one�s private activities in
LOMAQUE, AccusedAppellant. such a way as to cause humiliation to a person�s ordinary sensibilities.�45� It is the right of an
individual �to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the
G.R. NO. 191730, June 05, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MYLENE TORRES public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned.�46� Simply put, the right to privacy is
Y CRUZ, AccusedAppellant. �the right to be let alone.�47
G.R. NO. 191877, June 18, 2013 PHILIPPINE The Bill of Rights guarantees the people�s right to privacy and protects them against the State�s abuse
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), of power.� In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their houses.� No
Petitioner, v. ARIEL R. MARQUEZ, Respondent.; [G.R. one, not even the State, except �in case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent
NO. 192287] IRENEO M. VERDILLO, Petitioner, v.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING procedural safeguards,� can disturb them in the privacy of their homes.48
CORPORATION (PAGCOR), Respondent.
The right to privacy under Article 26(1)
G.R. NO. 192893, June 05, 2013 MANILA of the Civil Code covers business offices
ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF w here the public are excluded therefrom
SPOUSES DIONISIO DELOY AND PRAXEDES and only certain individuals are allow ed
MARTONITO, REPRESENTED BY POLICARPIO DELOY, to enter.
Respondents.
Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an individual�s right to privacy and provides
G.R. NO. 193453, June 05, 2013 SPOUSES RUBIN a legal remedy against abuses that may be committed against him by other individuals.� It states:
AND PORTIA HOJAS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE
cralavvonlinelawlibrary
AMANAH BANK AND RAMON KUE, Respondents.
Art. 26.� Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
G.R. NO. 195523, June 05, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
his neighbors and other persons.� The following and similar acts, though they may not
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERNESTO GANI Y TUPAS,
Appellant. constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and
other relief:
cralavvonlinelawlibrary
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
x x x x
G.R. NO. 197039, June 05, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppelle, v. ARIEL CALARA Y
ABALOS, AccusedAppellant. This provision recognizes that a man�s house is his castle, where his right to privacy cannot be denied
or even restricted by others. It includes �any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into
G.R. NO. 201675, June 19, 2013 JUANITO ANG, the residence of another without the consent of the latter.�49� The phrase �prying into the privacy of
FOR AND IN BEHALF OF SUNRISE MARKETING
another�s residence,� however, does not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy.� As
(BACOLOD), INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ROBERTO
AND RACHEL ANG, Respondents. elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino: cralavvonlinelawlibrary
G.R. NO. 198755, June 05, 2013 ALBERTO PAT
OG, SR., Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Our Code specifically mentions �prying into the privacy of another�s residence.�� This
Respondent. does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law
covers also �similar acts.�� A business office is entitled to the same privacy when
G.R. NO. 202079, June 10, 2013 FILESTATE GOLF the public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals as are allowed to enter
AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND FIL�ESTATE LAND, may come in.� x x x50� (Emphasis supplied)
INC., Petitioners, v. VERTEX SALES AND TRADING,
INC., Respondent.
Thus, an individual�s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his
G.R. NO. 202247, June 19, 2013 SIME DARBY house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them
PILIPINAS, INC., Petitioner, v. JESUS B. MENDOZA, access.� The phrase �prying into the privacy of another�s residence,� therefore, covers places,
Respondent.
locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private.� And as long as his right is
G.R. NO. 202690, June 05, 2013 HENRY L. SY, recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy.� The CA, therefore,
Petitioner, v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences.
Respondent.
The �reasonable expectation of privacy�
G.R. NO. 202791, June 10, 2013 PHILIPPINE test is used to determine w hether there
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., Petitioner, v. is a violation of the right to privacy.
LEANDRO LEGASPI, Respondent.
In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use the �reasonable
A.M. NO. P102741, June 04, 2013 JUDGE expectation of privacy� test.� This test determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of
ANTONIO C. REYES, Complainant, v. EDWIN
privacy and whether the expectation has been violated.51� In Ople v. Torres,52 we enunciated that �the
FANGONIL, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 61 OF BAGUIO CITY, Respondent.
reasonableness of a person�s expectation of privacy depends on a twopart test: (1) whether, by his
conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that
A.M. NO. P062223 [Formerly A.M. NO. 067226 society recognizes as reasonable.�� Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or
MTC), June 10, 2013 OFFICE OF THE COURT extend an individual�s �reasonable expectation of privacy.�53� Hence, the reasonableness of a
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. LORENZA M. person�s expectation of privacy must be determined on a casetocase basis since it depends on the
MARTINEZ, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL factual circumstances surrounding the case.54
COURT, CANDELARIA, QUEZON. Respondent.
In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere for the protection
A.M. NO. P102879 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.
093048P), June 03, 2013 AUXENCIO JOSEPH B. and safety of everyone.� The installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places where
CLEMENTE, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy
COURT, BRANCH 48, PASAY CITY, Complainant, v. would be affected, was obtained.� Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of
ERWIN E. BAUTISTA, CLERK III, METROPOLITAN another�s residence or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, PASAY CITY, Respondent. under Republic Act No. 4200 or the AntiWiretapping Law.
A.M. NO. P123048 (formerly A.M. NO. 11329 In this case, the RTC, in granting the application for Preliminary Injunction, ruled that: cralavvonlinelawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 3/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
G.R. No. 160786, June 17, 2013 SIMPLICIA O. discretionary on the part of the court taking cognizance of the case and should not be interfered with,
ABRIGO AND DEMETRIO ABRIGO, Petitioners, v. unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.56� Here, there is no indication of any
JIMMY F. FLORES, EDNA F. FLORES, DANILO FLORES, grave abuse of discretion.� Hence, the CA erred in finding that petitioners are not entitled to an
BELINDA FLORES, HECTOR FLORES, MARITES
injunctive writ.
FLORES, HEIRS OF MARIA F. FLORES, JACINTO
FAYLONA, ELISA FAYLONA MAGPANTAY, MARIETTA
FAYLONA CARTACIANO, AND HEIRS OF TOMASA This brings us to the next question: whether respondents are the proper parties to this suit.
BANZUELA VDA. DE FAYLONA, Respondents.
A real party defendant is one w ho has a
G.R. No. 160982, June 26, 2013 MANILA JOCKEY correlative legal obligation to redress
CLUB, INC., Petitioner,v. AIMEE O. TRAJANO, a w rong done to the plaintiff by reason
Respondent. of the defendant's act or omission w hich
had violated the legal right of the former.
G.R. No. 161878, June 05, 2013 PHILWORTH
ASIAS, INC., SPOUSES LUISITO AND ELIZABETH Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
MACTAL, AND SPOUSES LUIS AND ELOISA REYES,
cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK, Respondent. SEC. 2. Partiesininterest. � A real partyininterest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
G. R. No. 163061, June 26, 2013 ALFONSO L.
FIANZA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), BINGA or defended in the name of the real partyininterest.
HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, INC., ANTHONY C. ESCOLAR,
ROLAND M. LAUTCHANG, Respondents.
A real party defendant is �one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the
G.R. No. 172334, June 05, 2013 DR. ZENAIDA P. plaintiff by reason of the defendant�s act or omission which had violated the legal right of the
PIA, Petitioner, v. HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, former.�57
JR., OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, FORMERLY
ACTING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, In ruling that respondents are not the proper parties, the CA reasoned that since they do not own the
DR. OFELIA M. CARAGUE, FORMERLY PUP
building, they could not have installed the video surveillance cameras.58� Such reasoning, however, is
PRESIDENT, DR. ROMAN R. DANNUG, FORMERLY
DEAN, COLLEGE OF ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND erroneous.� The fact that respondents are not the registered owners of the building does not
POLITICS (CEFP), NOW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, automatically mean that they did not cause the installation of the video surveillance cameras.
CEFP POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES (PUP), STA. MESA, MANILA, In their Complaint, petitioners claimed that respondents installed the video surveillance cameras in order
Respondents. to fish for evidence, which could be used against petitioners in another case.59� During the hearing of
the application for Preliminary Injunction, petitioner Bill testified that when respondents installed the
G.R. No. 172892, June 13, 2013 PHILIPPINE video surveillance cameras, he immediately broached his concerns but they did not seem to care,60 and
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
thus, he reported the matter to the barangay for mediation, and eventually, filed a Complaint against
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
respondents before the RTC.61� He also admitted that as early as 1998 there has already been a dispute
G.R. No. 173330, June 17, 2013 LUCILLE between his family and the Choachuy family concerning the boundaries of their respective properties.62�
DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. MERLINDA COLINA, With these factual circumstances in mind, we believe that respondents are the proper parties to be
Respondent. impleaded.
G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013 BOSTON EQUITY Moreover, although Aldo has a juridical personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, records
RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS
AND LOLITA G. TOLEDO, Respondents. show that it is a familyowned corporation managed by the Choachuy family.63
G.R. No. 174908, June 17, 2013 DARMA MASLAG, Also quite telling is the fact that respondents, notwithstanding their claim that they are not owners of the
Petitioner, v. AND ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM building, allowed the court to enter the compound of Aldo and conduct an ocular inspection. The counsel
GESTON, REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BENGUET, for respondents even toured Judge Marilyn LaguraYap inside the building and answered all her questions
Respondents. regarding the setup and installation of the video surveillance cameras.64 And when respondents moved
for reconsideration of the Order dated October 18, 2005 of the RTC, one of the arguments they raised is
G.R. Nos. 17527980, June 05, 2013 SUSAN LIM
that Aldo would suffer damages if the video surveillance cameras are removed and transferred.65�
LUA, Petitioner, v. DANILO Y. LUA, Respondent.
Noticeably, in these instances, the personalities of respondents and Aldo seem to merge.
G.R. No. 175542 and 183205, June 05, 2013
GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. All these taken together lead us to the inevitable conclusion that respondents are merely using the
VICTORIA P. CABRAL, SPS. ENRIQUE T. MORAGA and corporate fiction of Aldo as a shield to protect themselves from this suit.� In view of the foregoing, we
VICTORIA SORIANO, FILCON READY MIXED, INC., find that respondents are the proper parties to this suit.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB), and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED.� The Decision dated July 10, 2007 and the Resolution
BULACAN, MEYCAUAYAN BRANCH, Respondents.; dated September 11, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CEBSP No. 01473 are hereby REVERSED
VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated October 18, 2005 and February 6, 200[6] of Branch 28 of the
ADJUDICATOR, JOSEPH NOEL C. LONGBOAN / OFFICE Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City in Civil Case No. MAN5223 are hereby REINSTATED and
OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR, GREEN
AFFIRMED.
ACRES HOLDINGS, INC., SPOUSES ENRIQUE T.
MORAGA and VICTORIA SORIANO and FILCON READY
MIXED, INC., Respondents. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175900, June 10, 2013 KAPISANANG Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and PerlasBernabe, JJ., concur.
PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO, INC.
AND MILAGROS H. REYES, Petitioners, v. REMEDIOS
BARRENO, LILIBETH AMETIN, DRANREV F. NONAY,
FREDERICK D. DIONISIO AND MARITES CASIO, Endnotes:
Respondents.
G.R. No. 176425, June 05, 2013 HEIRS OF 1Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415, 434 (1968).
cralawlibrary
REPRESENTED BY NANCY UMALI, VICTORIA H. 3 CA rollo, pp. 111116; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in
CASTILLO, BERTILLA C. RADA, MARIETTA C.
CAVANEZ, LEOVINA C. JALBUENA AND PHILIP M. by Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz. cralawlibrary
CASTILLO, Respondents.
4 Id. at 128129. cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013 DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, AS REPRESENTED BY FRITZI C. 5 Records, pp. 18.
PANTOJA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE PROVINCIAL
cralawlibrary
LIM, Respondents.
8 Id.
G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013 VIRGINIA DE LOS
cralawlibrary
SANTOS�DIO, AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF
9 Id.
H.S. EQUITIES, LTD., AND WESTDALE ASSETS, LTD., cralawlibrary
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74, REGIONAL. TRIAL
COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, AND TIMOTHY J. DESMOND, 11 Id.
Respondents. R E S O L U T I O N; G.R. No. 179079
cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013 CARLOS L. 13 Id. at 5. cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 SPOUSES BILL 17 Id. at 25.
AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER
cralawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 4/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CHOACHUY, 18 Id. at 24.
cralawlibrary
Respondents.
19 Id. at 5156; penned by Judge Marilyn LaguraYap.
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013 JESUS C. GARCIA,
cralawlibrary
Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON,
20 Id. at 5556.
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTBRANCH cralawlibrary
ADMINISTRATOR, DR. RAUL R. CARAG, Respondent.
25 CA rollo, pp. 212.
G.R. No. 182072, June 28, 2013 UNIVAC
cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013 IRIS KRISTINE 27 Id. at 113114. cralawlibrary
BALOIS ALBERTO AND BENJAMIN D. BALOIS,
Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. 28 Id. at 114.
RODRIGO A. I REYNA, ARTURO S. CALIANGA, GIL
cralawlibrary
AND GRACE EVANGELISTA, Respondents.
33Rollo, pp. 2021. cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 182295, June 26, 2013 7K
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EDDIE ALBARICO, 34 Id. at 173176.
Respondent. cralawlibrary
35 Id. at 172.
G.R. No. 182855, June 05, 2013 MR. ALEXANDER cralawlibrary
THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON, MR. JOSE TORRES, JR.,
38 Id. at 27.
Petitioners, v. SUPERINTENDENT VENANCIO TESORO, cralawlibrary
Respondent.
40 Id. at 153154.
G.R. No. 182957, June 13, 2013 ST. JOSEPH cralawlibrary
ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
41 Id. at 152.
(SJAVFA)FUR CHAPTERTUCP, Petitioner, v. ST. cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 183091, June 19, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE 43 Id. at 152.
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BERNESTO DE LA
cralawlibrary
CRUZ @ BERNING, AccusedAppellant.
44 Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:
cralavvonlinelawlibrary
45Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633 &
G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013 ABELARDO
JANDUSAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 431. cralawlibrary
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
46� Tolentino, Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
G.R. No. 185604, June 13, 2013 REPUBLIC OF Philippines, 1990 Edition, Volume I, p. 108.
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDWARD M.
cralawlibrary
CAMACHO, Respondent. 47Ople v. Torres, 354 Phil. 948, 970 (1998).
cralawlibrary
50 Supra note 46 at 110.
G.R. Nos. 18572932, June 26, 2013 PEOPLE OF cralawlibrary
VERA, ROSANNA P. DIALA AND JOSEPH A. CABOTAJE,
Respondents. 52 Supra note 47 at 980.
cralawlibrary
Respondents.
55 Records, p. 55.
G.R. No. 185821, June 13, 2013 LAND BANK OF
cralawlibrary
Respondent.
59 Records, p. 3
G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013 CATHAY PACIFIC
AIRWAYS, Petitioner, v. JUANITA REYES, WILFI EDO 60 Id. at 54. cralawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 5/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
JR., ARTEMIO A. BOOC AND JOEL S. FERNANDEZ, 63 Id. at 8091.
cralawlibrary
Respondents.
64 Id. at 5871.
G.R. No. 186137, June 26, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
cralawlibrary
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 6/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
TY, ORLANDO REYES, FERRER SUAZO AND ALVIN U.
TY, Petitioners, v. PETRON CORPORATION,
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, AND
SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY
LIMITED, Respondents.
G.R. No. 194247, June 19, 2013 BASES
CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,
v. ROSA REYES, CENANDO, REYES AND CARLOS
REYES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 194362, June 26, 2013 PHILIPPINE
HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS
BSM CREW SERVICE CENTRE PHILIPPINES, INC.)
AND DORCHESTER MARINE LTD., Petitioners, v.
EULOGIO V. DUMADAG, Respondent.
G.R. No. 194382, June 10, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. GLORIA
CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR, AccusedAppellant.
G. R. No. 194384, June 13, 2013 JOSELITO
RAMOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 194846, June 28, 2013 HOSPICIO D.
ROSAROSO, ANTONIO D. ROSAROSO, MANUEL D.
ROSAROSO, ALGERICA D. ROSAROSO, AND CLEOFE R.
LABINDAO, Petitioners, v. LUCILA LABORTE SORIA,
SPOUSES HAM SOLUTAN AND **LAILA SOLUTAN,
AND MERIDIAN REALTY CORPORATION,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 195777, June 19, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. FERDINAND
CASTRO Y LAPENA, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013 MINORU FUJIKI,
Petitioner, v. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY,
SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS
OFFICE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197363, June 26, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ROMAN ZAFRA Y
SERRANO, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 197861, June 05, 2013 SPOUSES
FLORENTINO T. MALLARI AND AUREA V. MALLARI,
Petitioners, v. PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Respondent.
G.R. No. 197049, June 10, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MARIA JENNY
REA Y GUEVARRA AND ESTRELLITA TENDENILLA,
AccusedAppellants.
G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013 CHRISTIAN
CABALLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198789, June 03, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. REGGIE
BERNARDO, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 199354, June 26, 2013 WILSON T. GO,
Petitioner, v. BPI FINANCE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 199650, June 26, 2013 J PLUS ASIA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UTILITY
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200094, June 10, 2013 BENIGNO M.
VIGILLA, ALFONSO M. BONGOT, ROBERTO CALLESA,
LINDA C. CALLO, NILO B. CAMARA, ADELIA T.
CAMARA, ADOLFO G. PINON, JOHN A. FERNANDEZ,
FEDERICO A. CALLO, MAXIMA P. ARELLANO, JULITO
B. COSTALES, SAMSON F. BACHAR, EDWIN P. DAMO,
RENATO E. FERNANDEZ, GENARO F. CALLO, JIMMY C.
ALETA, AND EUGENIO SALINAS, Petitioners, v.
PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC.
AND/OR GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200329, June 05, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RICARDO
PIOSANG, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 200402, June 13, 2013 PRIVATIZATION
AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioner, v. STRATEGIC
ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR
PHILIPPINE ESTATE CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200507, June 26, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. PETER LINDA Y
GEROLAGA, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 200837, June 05, 2013 MAERSK
FILIPINAS CREWING INC./MAERSK SERVICES LTD.,
AND/OR MR. JEROME DELOS ANGELES, Petitioners, v.
NELSON E. MESINA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200882, June 13, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ABEL DIAZ,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 201251, June 26, 2013 INTERORIENT
MARITIME, INCORPORATED AND/OR TANKOIL
CARRIERS, LIMITED, Petitioners, v. CRISTINA
CANDAVA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201701, June 03, 2013 UNILEVER
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA RUBY M.
RIVERA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. PERCIVAL DELA
ROSA Y BAYER, AccusedAppellant.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 7/8
8/20/2018 G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013 - SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CH…
G.R. No. 203041, June 05, 2013 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MOISES CAOILE,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013 ROMEO G.
JALOSJOS, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, MARIA ISABELLE G. CLIMACOSALAZAR,
ROEL B. NATIVIDAD, ARTURO N. ONRUBIA, AHMAD
NARZAD K. SAMPANG, JOSE L. LOBREGAT, ADELANTE
ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND ELBERT C. ATILANO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013 REGINA
ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN,
Respondents.
A.M. No. MTJ111778 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08
1966 MTJ), June 05, 2013 MARICOR L. GARADO,
Complainant, v. REYES, JJ. JUDGE LIZABETH
GUTIERREZTORRES, Respondent.
A.M. No. P011448 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 99
664P), June 23, 2013 RODOLFO C. SABIDONG,
Complainant, v. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS (CLERK OF
COURT IV), Respondent.
A.M. No. P082439 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08
2733P), June 25, 2013 JUDGE MA. MONINA S.
MISAJON, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC), SAN
JOSE, ANTIQUE, Complainant, v. JERENCE P.
HIPONIA, CLERK II, ELIZABETH B. ESCANILLAS,
STENOGRAPHER I, WILLIAM M. YGLESIAS, PROCESS
SERVER, AND CONRADO A. RAFOLS, JR., UTILITY
AIDE, ALL OF THE SAME COURT, Respondents.
A.M. No. P112980 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08
3016P), June 10, 2013 LETICIA A. ARIENDA,
Complainant, v. EVELYN A. MONILLA, COURT
STENOGRAPHEIL III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 4, LEGAZPI CITY, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ092181 [Formerly A.M. No. 094
174RTJ], June 25, 2013 OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. RETIRED JUDGE
GUILLERMO R. ANDAYA, Respondent.
A.M. NO. SCC0811P, June 18, 2013 CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, v. ISMAEL A.
HADJI ALI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, SHARI'A
CIRCUIT COURT, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE
[FORMERLY A.M. NO. 04903SCC] (RE: FORMAL
CHARGE BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS.
ISMAEL A. HADJI ALI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I,
SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, TUBOD, LANAO DEL
NORTE), Respondent.
A.M. SB 1320P [Formerly A.M. No. 1229SBP],
June 26, 2013 RIA PAMELA B. ABULENCIA AND
BLESSIE M. BURGONIO, COMPLAINANTS, v. REGINO
R. HERMOSISIMA, SECURITY GUARD II, SHERIFF AND
SECURITY DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
Adm. Case No. 7332, June 18, 2013 EDUARDO A.
ABELLA, Complainant, v. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.,
Respondent.
Copyright © 1998 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | Email Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013junedecisions.php?id=430 8/8