4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v.

rity v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > July 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic
International Hotel Corporation

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 192885 - July 4, 2012]

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and

SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is to resolve the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dated August 2, 2010, of
petitioner Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated
January 21, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Decision2 dated March 22, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Olongapo City.

The antecedent facts, as found by the RTC and the CA follow.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
Petitioner SBMA is a government agency organized and established under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7227 to
develop the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone into a self-sustaining industrial, commercial and
investment center. On the other hand, private respondent Subic International Hotel, Corporation (private
respondent) is one of the locators of the Freeport Zone.3ςrνll

On December 1, 1992 and June 8, 1993, petitioner and private respondent entered into two separate
lease agreements whereby the private respondent undertook to help petitioner in the development and
rehabilitation of the Subic Naval Base by taking over abandoned barracks and constructing hotel and
restaurant facilities that will accommodate the needs of the growing number of businessmen and tourists

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 1/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
in the Freeport Zone. The two agreements were later consolidated into a Lease and Development
Agreement.4 Section 6.1 of the said Agreement stipulated for the payment of service fees, which pertain
to the proportionate share of the private respondent in the costs that the petitioner may incur in the
provision of services, maintenance and operation of common facilities computed at $0.10 per square
meter of the gross land area of the leased property.

Subsequently, upon a conduct of lease compliance audit, the SBMA Internal Audit Department found out
that private respondent and other Freeport locators have not been charged for service fees. Thus, on
August 25, 2005, petitioner issued private respondent a billing statement for accrued service fees in the
amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Fifty-Three Dollars and Fifty Cents ($265,053.50). This led
to a series of conciliation and clarificatory meetings between the parties. Consequently, the SBMA Board
decided to waive the payment of future service fees and advised private respondent to lodge its protest
for the payment of accumulated service fees to the accounting department.

Private respondent then formally requested for the reconsideration of the billing for accumulated service
fees alleging that the services for which the billing was supposed to be based were not actually provided
by petitioner but by independent contractors.

On the other hand, petitioner clarified that service fees also include other services which indirectly
ChanRobles Intellectual Property redound to the benefit of the tenants. Petitioner reasoned that it has a clear legal right to impose service
Division fees under Section 13 (a) (3) of R.A. No. 7227, which does not specifically pertain to garbage collection,
electricity, telephone, and water service alone but to other services such as fire protection, maintenance
of common areas, police protection, and other services of similar nature.

Thus, private respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the RTC, Branch 74, Olongapo City,
praying for the determination by the Court whether petitioner has the right to collect for the accumulated
service fees from the private respondent. The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts and filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment.5ςrνll

The RTC rendered its Decision dated March 22, 2006 in favor of the private respondent and declared that
petitioner has no legal right under Section 6.3 of the Lease and Development Agreement to enforce the
collection of previous billings for fixed service fees. The dispositive portion of the decision is as
follows:ςrαlαω

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the instant Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted and this Decision is hereby rendered on the basis of the Joint Stipulation of Facts and applicable
laws and jurisprudence declaring that respondent Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority has no legal right
under Section 6.3 of the Lease and Development Agreement dated 24 November 1996, to enforce the
collection of previous billings for Fixed Service Fees at the rate of US$0.10 per square meter per month
of the leased property covering the period from 01 December 1996 up to 08 February 2001 in the total
amount of US$307,874.04.

SO DECIDED.6ςrνll

The motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order7 dated May 31, 2006. Aggrieved, petitioner
appealed to the CA, however, the latter, in its Decision dated January 21, 2010, affirmed the March 22,
2006 decision of the RTC, thus:ςrαlαω

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 22, 2006 of the RTC, Branch 74,
Olongapo City, in Civil Case No. 137-0-04, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.8ςrνll

According to the CA, the records show that petitioner did not actually provide most of the services
enumerated in the Lease and Development Agreement and that the obligation involved in the agreement
was reciprocal in nature; therefore, private respondent's obligation to pay was dependent upon
petitioner's performance of its reciprocal duty to provide the agreed service, and since petitioner failed to
perform its part of the deal, it cannot exact compliance from private respondent of its duty to pay.

July-2012 Jurisprudence A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied. Hence, the present petition.

G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012 - REPUBLIC OF THE This Court finds this petition unmeritorious.
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE
RECLAMATION AUTHORITY (PRA), Petitioner, v. CITY The core of the issue is the entitlement of SBMA to Service Fees as contained in the Lease and
OF PARAÑAQUE Respondents. Development Agreement. Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the said Agreement provide that:

[G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE SECTION 6. SERVICE FEESςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID

BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT. 6.1 Definition. Tenant, its Subsidiaries, assignees, transferees or operators shall, for the
entire Term of this Lease, and without any set-off, counterclaim or deduction therefrom,
[G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M. pay or cause to be paid, to Landlord as "Additional Rent," its proportional share (based on
KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP the Gross Land Area of the Property) of (i) all costs which Landlord may incur in providing
ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H. services or in maintaining and operating facilities which directly or indirectly benefit or
JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, serve the Property or Tenant or any of its Subsidiaries, assignees, transferees or operators,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN. and (ii) any other similar fees or charges assessed on a non-discriminatory basis. Said
JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN, costs shall be referred herein as "Service Fees" and are hereby defined to include but not
P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT.
be limited to a proportional share of the following costs incurred by Landlord: water,
BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. electricity, gas and telephone service; garbage removal; security; police protection; fire
NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS. protection; insurance; landscaping; cost of maintaining common areas; public services
befitting SBF investors generally; janitorial, sanitation and cleaning services; fees for
[G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D. professional services; charges under maintenance and service contracts; all maintenance
VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A. and repair costs; any equipment rental; depreciation of the cost of capital improvements
VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR made to reduce Service Fees or limit increases therein; and any and all other costs of
CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND operation, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An invoice or certificate for service fees or
COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON. other charges delivered by Landlord to Tenant shall be conclusive as to the amount of any
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, such fees or charges payable by Tenant if no protest challenging the basis or amount
RESPONDENTS. thereof is filed with Landlord within five (5) days from receipt of such invoice or certificate.
Notwithstanding any such protest, Tenant shall pay the amount reflected on such invoice or
[G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE
certificate pending resolution of such protest.
ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER,
VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A.
6.2 Estimated Service Fees. As frequently as Landlord shall deem appropriate, Landlord
VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
RESPONDENTS.c may give Tenant notice of Landlord's estimate of Service Fees for the then current fiscal
year ("Estimated Service Fees). Tenant shall pay throughout the Term, as Additional Rent
[A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. hereunder, together with any Base Rent payment due, such instalments of Estimated
05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B. Service Fees as and when Landlord may reasonably require. The amount by which
CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. Estimated Service Fees actually paid to Landlord for any year exceed actual Service Fees
GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL for such year shall be applied by Landlord to the cost of services to be rendered in future
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, periods. The amount by which Estimated Service Fees actually paid to Landlord for any
RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M. year are less than actual Service Fees for such year shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord
OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES- within ten (10) days of notice thereof from Landlord.
PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO,
COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL 6.3 Service Fees Fixed for Five Years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord and Tenant
COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT. agree that Service Fees (excluding electricity, water, gas, sewer and telephone services)
shall be (i) US$0.10 per square meter per month of the Gross Land Area of the Property on
or prior to December 31, 1998, and (ii) US$0.1242 per square meter per month of the

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 2/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
[G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY
INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS.
SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G.
VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA,
RESPONDENTS.cralaw
[A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.
10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P.
KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION
K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48,
BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES
ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO
REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS,
VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO.
161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY
GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw
G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B.
QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C.
QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO,
RESPONDENTS.cr
[G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA
LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D.
NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.cra
[G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE
SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR,
EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA
LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN,
PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND
SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA,
RESPONDENTS.cra
[G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM,
PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR
GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS
OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO,
RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN
CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN
ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q.
MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw
[G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS.
TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES
SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS,
RESPONDENTS.cralaw
[G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V.
SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS,
JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON;
REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON;
ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D.
SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL
M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS,
VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO
B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B.
TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING,
HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA
TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING,
VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND
BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-
2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-
JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA
CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN,
RESPONDENT.
[G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA
MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE
LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T
INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RESPONDENTS.cra
[G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY
CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874
Gross Land Area of the Property between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000.
Payment of Service Fees shall commence on 1 December 1996.
chanrobles virtual law library
In assailing the decision of the CA, petitioner alleges that the same was made with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of and/or excess of jurisdiction because the payment of "Service Fees" is not
dependent on the actual rendition of the services enumerated therein as the said fees comprise of the
tenant's proportionate share for all the costs which petitioner as landlord may incur in providing,
maintaining or operating the facilities. This is misleading.
The Lease and Development Agreement entered into by petitioner and private respondent contains a
definition of "service fees" and in that provision, the CA was correct in ruling that service fees pertain to
the proportionate share of the tenant in the costs of the enumerated services which include the
maintenance and operation of facilities which directly or indirectly benefit or serve the leased property or
the tenant, or any of its subsidiaries, assignees, transferees or operators. Clearly, if the intention is the
contrary, there would have been no need to enumerate what would constitute services covered by the
"service fees." Even logic dictates that before anyone is entitled to collect service fees, one must have
actually rendered a service. As correctly pointed out by the CA, petitioner did not provide most of the
services enumerated in the Lease and Development Agreement, thus:ςrαlαω
A close scrutiny of the records shows that respondent-appellant did not actually provide most of the
services enumerated in the lease agreement. In the case of water, electricity, telephone and cable
television services in the leased property, petitioner-appellee engaged the services of private service
providers to furnish the mentioned necessities. The same holds true with other services like janitorial,
security, ground maintenance and garbage collection services. Petitioner-appellee contracted a private
security agency for its security needs, hired employees to take charge of ground maintenance and
engaged a contractor to haul its scrap materials. For fire protection services, petitioner-appellee is billed
accordingly whenever said service is extended. Thus, the concerned departments of SBMA issued
certifications, attesting to the fact that no security, janitorial and garbage collection services were
extended to petitioner-appellee.9ςrνll
As such, petitioner, not having rendered actual service cannot demand from private respondent its
proportionate share of costs which were not really incurred. Petitioner's claim that the nature of "service
fees" is that of an additional rent for the property or a separate consideration aside from the regular base
rent, as shown by the fact that it is based on the gross land area of the property and the obligation to
pay this amount arises upon the actual use, occupancy and enjoyment of the leased property is illogical.
If that is the case, why would the contracting parties assign the term "service fees" to replace "additional
rent" if the latter is the real intention? In its Comment10 dated November 5, 2010, private respondent
properly observed the flawed reasoning of petitioner by stating that the very reason why the amount is
called "service fees" is that it is a fee imposed by the government for services actually rendered.
Petitioner also raises the argument that the CA seriously erred in rendering the decision which virtually
nullified and/or struck down the provision of the Lease and Development Agreement pertaining to service
fees, hence, resulting to the alteration or amendment of the Lease and Development Agreement. The CA
did no such thing. The said court merely interpreted the questioned provisions of the contract. In doing
so, the CA thus ruled:ςrαlαω
Finally, it is well settled that the decisive factor in evaluating an agreement is the intention of the parties,
as shown not necessarily by the terminology used in the contract but by their conduct, words, actions
and deeds prior to, during and immediately after executing the agreement. For this reason, documentary
and parole evidence may be submitted and admitted to prove such intention.
Here, the attendant circumstances suggest that respondent-appellant is not entitled to service fees. It
acknowledged its failure to furnish the agreed services and impliedly admitted that it is not in the position
to demand for the payment of service fees when it approved the proposal for the waiver of future service
fees and advised petitioner-appellee to contest the charges for accumulated service fees. Thereafter,
respondent-appellant moved for the amendment of the contract, inserting a provision for the waiver of
future service fees. Prior to that, the concerned departments of SBMA issued their respective
certifications that they did not extend any service to petitioner-appellee.11ςrνll
From the above findings of the CA, it is apparent that the questioned provisions of the contract are
reciprocal in nature. Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and in which each
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the
obligation of the other.12 They are to be performed simultaneously such that the performance of one is
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other.13 For one party to demand the performance of
the obligation of the other party, the former must also perform its own obligation. Accordingly, petitioner,
not having provided the services that would require the payment of service fees as stipulated in the
Lease Development Agreement, is not entitled to collect the same.
Based on all of the above disquisitions, it is therefore clear that the CA did not commit any grave abuse
of discretion in affirming the decision of the RTC. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.14ςrνll
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari dated August 2, 2010 of petitioner Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
*Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order
No. 1244 dated June 26, 2012.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Normandie B.
Pizarro and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; rollo, pp. 22-32.
2 Penned by Judge Ramon S. Caguioa; id. at 35-38.
3 Rollo, p. 22.
4
Id. at 60-107.
5 Id. at 42-45.
6 Id. at 38.
7 Id. at 40.
3/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
[G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS.
FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS.
SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS.
CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS.
ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA.
MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY
SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ;
HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED
BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO,
WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA
BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO
VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS.
RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE
FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR);
HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA,
ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND
LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE
SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO,
WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO
BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR
RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD
VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN
WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw
8 Id. at 32.
9 Id. at 29-30.
10
Rollo, pp. 194-209.
11
Id. at 31-32.
12Jaime G. Ong v. CA, 369 Phil. 243, 252, citing Areola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
95641, September 22, 1994, 236 SCRA 643.
13 Id.
14 Tan v. Spouses Antazo, G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 337, 342, citing
Office of the Ombudsman v. Magno, G.R. No. 178923, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 272,
286-287, citing Microsoft Corporation v. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, 438 Phil.
408, 414 (2002); Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006,
485 SCRA 219, 233; Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 1, 19-20 (2002);
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Goimco, Sr., 512 Phil. 729, 733-734 (2005), citing Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 786 (2003); Duero v. Court of
Appeals, 424 Phil. 12, 20 (2002), citing Cuison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, April
15, 1998, 289 SCRA 159, 171.
chanrobles virtual law library

[G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC

CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA
IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF
TAGUIG, RESPONDENT. Back to Home | Back to Main
[G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED
MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, QUICK SEARCH
RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON

B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES
AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING
CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
S.A.K., RESPONDENTS. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
[G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA,
PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE
MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA, 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
RESPONDENTS.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
[G.R. No. 155680 : July 02, 2012] FIRST LEVERAGE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
AND SERVICES GROUP, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SOLID
BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
[G.R. No. 187298 : July 03, 2012] JAMAR M.
KULAYAN, TEMEN S. TULAWIE, HJI. MOH. YUSOP 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
ISMI, JULHAJAN AWADI, AND SPO1 SATTAL H.
JADJULI, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF SULU; GEN.
JUANCHO SABAN, COL. EUGENIO CLEMEN PN,
P/SUPT. JULASIRIM KASIM AND P/SUPT.
BIENVENIDO G. LATAD, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
OFFICERS OF THE PHIL. MARINES AND PHIL. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
NATIONAL POLICE, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 182069 : July 03, 2012] ARNOLD D.

VICENCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REYNALDO A.
VILLAR AND HON. JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE HON.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ELIZABETH S. ZOSA,
RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 189767 : July 03, 2012] PHILIPPINE

ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), PETITIONER,
VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND REYNALDO A.
VILLAR, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
RESPONDENTS.c

[A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.

05-2256-P), July 03, 2012] FILOMENA B.
CONSOLACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S.
GAMBITO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN,
RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-12-3026 (FORMERLY A.M.
OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2081-P) ] JUDGE EMMA S. INES-
PARAJAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. LYDIA S. GAMBITO,
COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT, BINALONAN, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 175123 : July 04, 2012] MOLDEZ REALTY

INC. AND ANSELMO AGERO, PETITIONERS, VS.
SPOUSES RICARDO J. VILLABONA AND GILDA G.
VILLABONA, AND EDUARDO J. VILLABONA,
RESPONDENTS.cralaw

[A.M. No. P-12-3067 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.

10-3400-P], July 04, 2012] RHEA AIRENE P.
KATAGUE, RODOLFO E. KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION
K. DELA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JERRY A. LEDESMA,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48,
BACOLOD CITY, RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G. R. No. 161090 : July 04, 2012] SPOUSES

ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO AND ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 4/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
REPRESENTED BY GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONERS,
VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO.
161092] EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO REPRESENTED BY
GAVINO PLOPENIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORLVI AND LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.cralaw

G.R. No. 192885 : July 04, 2012] SUBIC BAY

METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUBIC
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No 176556 : July 04, 2012] BRIGIDO B.

QUIAO, PETITIONER, VS. RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C.
QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RITA QUIAO,
RESPONDENTS.cr

[G.R. No. 189755 : July 04, 2012] EMETERIA

LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 182059 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAMILO D.
NICART AND MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.cra

[G.R. No. 183260 : July 04, 2012] PHILIPPINE

SPORTS COMMISSION, CESAR PRADAS, NOEL ELNAR,
EMERENCIANA SAMSON, CESAR ABALON, JULIA
LLANTO, EDGARDO MATEO AND ERIC BUHAIN,
PETITIONERS, VS. DEAR JOHN SERVICES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 184482 : July 04, 2012] BETHEL REALTY

AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND
SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA,
RESPONDENTS.cra

[G.R. No. 175851 : July 04, 2012] EMILIA LIM,

PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR
GALLERIA, A SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS
OUTFIT OWNED BY EVELYN S. VALDEVIESO,
RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 172438 : July 04, 2012] METROPOLITAN

CEBU WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. MACTAN
ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 172035 : July 04, 2012] FERNANDO Q.

MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 171050 : July 04, 2012] FAR EAST BANK

AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS.
TENTMAKERS GROUP, INC., GREGORIA PILARES
SANTOS AND RHOEL P. SANTOS,
RESPONDENTS.cralaw

[G.R. No. 172418 : July 09, 2012] NEMESIO V.

SAYCON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS,
JOVEN V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EILLEN G. SAYCON;
REY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE PACITA S. SAYCON;
ARNOLD V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE EVANGELINE D.
SAYCON; JEOFFREY V. SAYCON AND SPOUSE ROCHEL
M. SAYCON; AND CHARLIE V. SAYCON, PETITIONERS,
VS. ANACLETA BAROT VDA. DE TULABING, DIONISIO
B. TULABING, ARCADIA B. TULABING, BALDOMERO B.
TULABING, CARMEN TULABING, JULIA B. TULABING,
HILARION BELIDA, JOEL B. TULABING, PACITA
TULABING, NICOLAS B. TULABING, HENIA TULABING,
VICTORIA B. TULABING, ARMANDO DEVIRA AND
BENITA B. TULABING, RESPONDENTS.

[A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-

2422-P), July 10, 2012] JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-
JOAQUIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOMEDES DELA
CRUZ, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN,
RESPONDENT.

[G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012] FLORDELIZA

MARIA REYES RAYEL, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE
LUEN THAI HOLDINGS, CORPORATION/L&T
INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RESPONDENTS.cra

[G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012] CHINA BANKING

CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY
CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 169957 : July 11, 2012] NATIONAL

POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS.
FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO, SPS.
SERAFIN VALERO AND TERESITA GONZALES, SPS.
CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ, SPS.
ALEJANDRINO VALDERAMA AND TEODORA STA.
MARIA, RENATO VALDERAMA, ALL REPRESENTED BY
SPS. CORNELIO VALDERAMA AND REMEDIOS CRUZ;
HEIRS OF APOLONIO DEL ROSARIO, REPRESENTED
BY RICARDO DEL ROSARIO; DANILO BRILLO,
WLLFREDO BRILLO, REYNALDO BRILLO, THELMA
BRILLO BORDADOR, AND MA. VICTORIA BRILLO
VILLARICO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO BRILLO; SPS.
RUDY AND MODESTA VELASCO; ROSEMARIE
FUKUSUMI (VENDEE)/ DANILO HERRERA (VENDOR);

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 5/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
HEIRS OF SOFIA MANGAHAS VDA. DE SILVA,
ROGELIO DE SILVA, APOLONIA DE SILVA GENER, AND
LUCIO DE SILVA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO DE
SILVA; AND, FRANCISCA MATEO-EUGENIO,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 171558 ] DANILO BRILLO,
WILFREDO BRILLO, LAURO BRILLO, REYNALDO
BRILLO, THELMA BRILLO BORDADOR, THE MINOR
RIKKA OLGA VILLARICO, KRISTIAN GERALD
VILLARICO, DEAN MARBIEN VLLLARICO, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN
WILFREDO BRILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 167732 : July 11, 2012] TEAM PACIFIC

CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE DAZA
IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF
TAGUIG, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 198588 : July 11, 2012] UNITED

MERCHANTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.cralaw

[G.R. No. 178477 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF RAMON

B. GAYARES, REPRESENTED BY EMELINDA GAYARES
AND RHAYAN GAYARES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL
HEIRS OF THE LATE RAMON GAYARES, PETITIONERS.
VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING
CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO.,
S.A.K., RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012] HEIRS OF JOSE

MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA
MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA,
PETITIONER, VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 170125] G & S TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE
MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA,
MICAELA B. OCHOA AND JOMAR B. OCHOA,
RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 6910 - Isaac C. Basilio, Perlita Pedrozo and

Jun Basilio v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro

A.C. No. 6622 - Manuel G. Villatuya v. Atty. Bede S.

Tabalingcos

A.C. No. 7360 - Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. v.

Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa

A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC - Re: COA Opinion on the

Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties
Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.

10-2255-MTJ - Office of Administrative Services-
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio B.
Macarine, MCTC, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.

09-2191-MTJ - Murphy Chu, et al. v. Hon. Mario B.
Capellan, Assisting Judge, MeTC, Br. 40, Quezon City

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.

09-2179-MTJ - City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado
v. Judge Abraham A. Bayona, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City

A.M. No. P-06-2186 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.

05-2256-P and A.M. No. P-12-3026 Formerly A.M. OCA
I.P.I. No. 05-2081-P - Filomena B. Consolacion v.
Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC,
Binalonan, Pangasinan/Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas
v. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, MCTC,
Binalonan, Pangasinan

A.M. No. P-06-2241 Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-

P - Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Nicomedes
Dela Cruz, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan

A.M. No. P-06-2246 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-

2287-P - Lambayong Teachers and Employees
Cooperative, represented in this act by its Manager,
Gudelio S. Valeroso v. Carlos P. Diaz, in his capacity
as Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong City

A.M. No. P-09-2647 - Office of the Court

Administrator v. Lunalinda M. Peradilla, Clerk of Court
II, MCTC, E1 Nido-Linapacan, Palawan

A.M. No. P-11-2952 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.

10-3502-P - Anecita Panaligan v. Clerk of Court II
Ethelda B. Valente, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Patno gon, Antique

A.M. No. P-11-2965 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-

3029-P and A.M. No. P-10-2752 Formerly A.M. No. 09-
1 0-173-MTC - Commission on Audit, represented by
Atty. Francisco R. Velasco v. Arlene B. Asetre, Clerk of
Court, MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur/Re: Financial
Audit conducted in the MTC, Ocampo, Camarines Sur

A.M. No. P-11-2983 Formerly OCA l.P.I. No. 10-

3439-P - Ruby C. Campomanes v. Nancy S. Violon,
Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Office of the Clerk of Court, Oroquieta City

A.M. No. P-11-3024 - Office of the Court

Administrator v. Ma. Irissa G. Musni, Court Legal

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 6/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
Researcher II RTC, Judicial Region III, Branch 36,
Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

A.M. No. P-12-3062 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-

3651-P - Normandy R. Bautista v. Marking G. Cruz,
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 53, Rosales,
Pangasinan

A.M. No. P-12-3067 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-

3400-P - Rhea Airene P. Katague, et al. v. Jerry A.
Ledesma, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 - Criselda C. Gacad v. Judge

Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr., RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-

3378-RTJ - Atty. Felino U. Bangalan v. Judge
Benjamin D. Turgano, RTC, Br. 15, Laoag City

B.M. No. 2112 - In Re: Petition to re-acquire the

privelege to practive law in the Philippines

G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. NO. 132361 - Remman

Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao in his
capacity as Secretary of DAR, et al./Eduardo Adriano,
et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al..

G.R. No. 153511 - Legend Hotel Manila, owned by

Titatium Corporation, et al. v. Hernani S. Realuyo,
also known as Joey Roa

G.R. No. 154952 - Hilarion F. Dimagiba, Irma

Mendoza, and Ellen Rasco v. Julita Espartero, Ma.
Berndardita L. Carreon and Melina San Pedro

G.R. No. 155680 - First Leverage and Services

Group, Inc. v. Solid Builders, Inc.

G.R. No. 159746 - Spouses Ramon Mendiola and

Araceli v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, et al.

G.R. No. 161090 and G.R. NO. 161092 - Sps. Romeo

LL. Plopenio and Rosielinda Plopenio, etc. v.
Department of Agrarian Reform, et al./Eduardo LL.
Plopenio, etc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et
al.

G.R. No. 167732 - Team Pacific Corporation v.

Josephine Daza, etc.

G.R. No. 168771 - Roberto Dipad and Sandra Dipad

v. Sps. Rolando Olivan and Brigida Olivan, and Rubio
Guijon Madrigallo

G.R. No. 169272 - National Spiritual Assembly of

the Baha'is of the Philippines, etc. v. Alfredo S.
Pascual, in his capacity as the Regional Executive
Director, DENR, Regional Office No. 02

G.R. No. 169957 and G.R. No. 171558 - National

Power Corporation v. Sps. Florimon V. Lleto, et
al./Danilo Brillo, et al. v. National Power Corporation

G.R. No. 170038 - China Banking Corporation v.

Sps. Harry Ciriaco and Esther Ciriaco

G.R. No. 170071 and G.R. No. 170125 - Heirs of

Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al.
v. G & S Transport Corporation/G & S Transport
Corporation v. Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely:
Ruby B. Ochoa, et al.

G.R. No. 171050 - Far East Bank and Trust

Company (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) v.
Tentmakers Group, Inc., Gregoria Pilares Santos and
Rhoel P. Santos

G.R. No. 171337 - Benjamin Cua (Cua Hian Tek) v.

Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. and Advance
Shipping Corporation

G.R. No. 171359, G.R. NO. 171755 and G.R. NO.

171776 - Benjamin A. Umipag v. People of the
Philippines/Renato B. Palomo and Margie C. Mabitad
v. People of the Philippines/Carmencita Fontanilla-
Payabyab v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 171514 - Republic of the Philippines v.

Domingo Espinosa

G.R. No. 172035 - Fernando Q. Miguel v. The Hon.

Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 172418 - Nemesio V. Saycon (deceased),

substituted by his heirs, Joven V. Saycon and Spouse
Eillen G. Saycon, et al. v. Anacieta Barot Vda. De
Tulabing, Dionisio B. Tulabing, et al.

G.R. No. 172438 - Metropolitan Cebu Water District

v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc.

G.R. No. 172829 - Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E.

Hernandez and Lauro H. Rodriguez v. Bernardo
Vergara, Jr.

G.R. No. 173171 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office (PCSO) v. New Dagupan Metro Gas
Corporation, et al.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 7/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…
G.R. No. 174893 - Flordeliza Maria Reyes-Rayel v.
Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation, et al.

G.R. No. 175123 - Moldex Realty, Inc. and Anselmo

Agero v. Sps. Ricardo J. Villabona and Gilda G.
Villabona, and Eduardo J. Villabona

G.R. No. 175552 - Spouses Rolando D. Soller and

Nenita T. Soller v. Heirs of Jeremias Ulayao, namely,
Nelson Ulayao, Ferelyn Ulayao-Del Mundo, et al.

G.R. No. 175851 - Emilia Lim v. Mindanao Wines &

Liqour Galleria a Single Proprietorship Business Outfit
Owned by Evelyn S. Valdevieso

G.R. No. 176556 - Brigido B. Quia v. Rita C. Quiao,

et al.

G.R. No. 176570 - Spouses Ramon Villuga and

Mercedita Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction
Supply Inc., represented by Ernesto V. Yu, Executive
Vice-President and General Manager

G.R. No. 178477 - Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares,

represented by Emelinda Gayares, et al. v. Pacific Asia
Overseas Shipping Corp. and Kuwait Oil Tanker S.A.K.

G.R. No. 179265 - People of the Philippines v.

Cristina Gustafsson

G.R. No. 180027 - Republic of the Philippines v.

Michael C. Santos, et al., etc.

G.R. No. 179545 - Engr. Emelyne P. Cayetano, et al.

v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran-Calamba

G.R. No. 180036 - Situs Development Corporation,

et al. v. Asiatrust Bank, et al.

G.R. No. 180245 - Philippine International Air

Terminals Co., Inc. v. Tekanaka Corporation and
Asahikosan Corporation

G.R. No. 181250 - People of the Philippines v.

Emmalyn Dela Cerna y Quindao @ "Inday", et al.,
accused; Regie Medenceles y Istil

G.R. No. 181491 - People of the Philippines v.

Henry Arcillas

G.R. No. 181995 - Bibiano C. Elegir v. Philippine

Airlines, Inc.

G.R. No. 182059 - People of the Philippines v.

Camilo D. Nicart and Manuel T. Capanpan

G.R. No. 182069 - Arnold D. Vicencio v. Hon.

Reynaldo A. Villar, et al.

G.R. No. 183260 - Philippine Sports Commission,

Cesar Pradas, Noel Elnar, Emereciana Samson, Cesar
Abalon, Julia Llanto, Edgardo Mateo and Eric Buhain
v. Dear John Services, Inc.

G.R. No. 183573 - Dizon Copper Silver Mines, Inc.

v. Dr. Luis D. Dizon

G.R. No. 183987 - Asiatrust Development Bank v.

Carmelo H. Tuble

G.R. No. 184300 - Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v.

Philippine First Insurance, Co., Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 184482 - Bethel Realty and Development

Corporation v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board, et al.

G.R. No. 185460 - Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo

Coralde v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 185491 - Julieta E. Bernardo v. Andrew L.

Tan

G.R. No. 185527 - Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo Jerry Ngo

and Jane Go v. The People of the Philippines and
Highdone Company, Ltd., et al.

G.R. No. 185806 - Generoso Abellanosa, et al. v.

Commission on Audit and National Housing Authority

G.R. No. 187298 - Jamar M. Kulayan, et al. v. Gov.

Abdusakur M. Tan etc., et al.

G.R. No. 187316 - Wonder Book Corporation v.

Philippine Bank of Communications

G.R. No. 188612 - People of the Philippines v.

Diosdado Camat and Mamerto Dulay

G.R. No. 189041 - Civil Service Commission v. Dr.

Agnes Quida P. Yu

G.R. No. 189082 - Josephine Ruiz v. Wendel Osaka

Realty Corp., et al.

G.R. No. 189755 - Emeteria Liwag v. Happy Glen

Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 189767 - Philippine Econimic Zone

Authority (PEZA) v. Commission on Audit and
Reynaldo A. Villar, Chairman, Commission on Audit

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 8/9
4/18/2019 G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International Hotel Corporation : JULY 201…

G.R. No. 190102 - Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner

of Internal Revenue

G.R. No. 191109 - Republic of the Philippines,

represented by the Philippine Reclamation Authority
(PRA) v. City of Para aque

G.R. No. 192250 - People of the Philippines v.

Hermogenes De Guzman @ Mong

G.R. No. 192377 - Cesar V. Madriaga, Jr. v. China

Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 192450 - Santiago V. Soquillo v. Jorge P.

Tortola

G.R. No. 192591 - Efren L. Alvarez v. People of the

Philippines

G.R. No. 192885 - Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority

v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Subic International
Hotel Corporation

G.R. No. 192999 - Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Diamond

Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Eliseo
Emanel, Voltaire Lopez, Ruel Romero, Patricio
Capricio, Ernesto Fatallo, Zosimo Gomez and 100 John
Doeste1

G.R. No. 193089 - Rose a Fontelar Ogawa v.

Elizabeth Gache Menigishi

G.R. No. 193636 - Marynette R. Gamboa v. P/Ssupt.

Marlou C. Chan, etc., et al.

G.R. No. 193679 - C.F. Sharp Crew Management,

Inc., et al. v. Joel D. Taok

G.R. No. 194581 - People of the Philippines v.

Danilo Mirasol Agustin, et al., accused; Danilo Mirasol
Agustin, accused-appellant

G.R. No. 194608 - People of the Philippines v.

Antonio Baraoil

G.R. No. 194785 - Virgilio S. David v. Misamis

Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc.

G.R. No. 194945 - People of the Philippines v. Alex

Watamama y Esil @ Alex

G.R. No. 195770 - Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Sergio

Tadeo and Nelson Alcantara v. Executive Secretary
Paquito N. Ochoa and Secretary Corazon Juliano-
Soliman of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development

G.R. No. 196425 - Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. v. Office

of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs-
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, et al.

G.R. No. 198554 - Major General Carlos F. Garcia,

AFP (Ret.) v. The Executive Secretary, representing
the Office of the President; The Secretary of National
Defense Voltaire T. Gazmin; The Chief of Staff, Armed
Forces of the Philippines, Gen. Eduardo SL. Oban, Jr.,
and Lt. Gen. Gaudencio S. Pangilinan, AFP (Ret.)
Director, Bureau of Corrections

G.R. No. 198585 - Republic of the Philippines v.

Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation

G.R. No. 198588 - United Merchants Corporation v.

Country Bankers Insurance Corporation

G.R. No. 198589 - People of the Philippines v. The

Honorable Court of Appeals, Fourt Division and Julieta
G. Ando

G.R. No. 198860 - Abraham Rimando v. Naguilan

Emission Testing Center, Inc., etc., et al.

G.R. No. 200242 - Chief Justice Renato C. Corona v.

Senate of the Philippines sitting as an Impeachment
Court, BPI, Phil. Savings Bank, et al.

G.R. No. 200922 - People of the Philippines v. Cesar

Concepcion y Bulanio

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

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=874 9/9