8/31/2019 G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.

K, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > November 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 199601, November
23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v.
JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO
UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v.

JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court1 filed by Philippine
Commercial International Bank (PCIB) assailing the May 23, 2011 decision2 and the December 7, 2011
resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 68288. The CA affirmed the May 25, 1999
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 145 (RTC) in toto.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Josephine D. Gomez (Josephine) was a teller at the Domestic Airport Branch of the PCIB when a certain
Colin R. Harrington opened Savings Account No. 373-28010-6 with said branch in January 1985.

The following day, Harrington presented two (2) genuine bank drafts dated January 3, 1985, issued by
DebtKollect Company, Inc. the Bank of New Zealand. The first draft was in the sum of US$724.57 payable to "C.R. Harrington,"
while the second draft was in the sum of US$2,004.76 payable to "Servants C/C.R. Harrington."

The PCIB, on the other hand, alleged that it was a certain Sophia La'O, as a representative of Harrington,
who presented the bank drafts for deposit.

Upon receipt of the bank drafts, Josephine asked her immediate supervisor, Eleanor Flores, whether the
drafts payable to "Servants C/C.R. Harrington" were acceptable for deposit to the savings account of
Harrington. When Flores answered in the affirmative, and after receiving from the bank's foreign
exchange supervision a Philippine Currency conversion of the amounts reflected in the drafts, Josephine
received the deposit slip. Thereafter, the deposits were duly entered in Harrington's savings account.

On two (2) separate dates, a certain individual representing himself as Harrington withdrew the sums of
P45,000.00 and P5,600.00. Subsequently, the bank discovered that the person who made the
withdrawals was an impostor. Thus, the bank had to pay Harrington P50,600.00 representing the
amounts of the bank drafts in his name.

The PCIB issued a memorandum asking Josephine to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for having accepted the bank drafts for deposits. Josephine reasoned that being a new teller
she was not yet fully oriented with the various aspects of the job. She further alleged that she had asked
ChanRobles Intellectual Property the approval of her immediate supervisor prior to receiving the deposits.

Division On November 14, 1985, the PCIB deducted the amount of P-423.38 from Josephine's salary. Josephine
wrote the PCIB to ask why the deduction was made.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1004 1/5
8/31/2019 G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE…
November-2015 Jurisprudence               was estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC because it had filed an answer with
  
G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 - EDILBERTO
P. ETOM, JR., Petitioner, v. AROMA LODGING HOUSE
THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, PROPRIETOR AND
GENERAL MANAGER, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR
PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197802, November 11, 2015 - ZUNECA
PHARMACEUTICAL, AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR VENUS
ARAIN, M.D. DBA ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL,
Petitioners, v. NATRAPHARM, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 179121, November 09, 2015 - MARGARITA
M. BENEDICTO-MUÑOZ, Petitioner, v. MARIA
ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES,
PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES,
MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES,
AND MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
179128 - ABACUS SECURITIES CORPORATION AND
JOEL CHUA CHIU, Petitioners, v. MARIA ANGELES
CACHO-OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q.
OLIVARES, MICHAEL Q. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B.
OLIVARES, [and] MELISSA C. OLIVARES,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179129 SAPPHIRE
SECURITIES, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA ANGELES
CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C.
OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL C.
OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, MELISSA C.
OLIVARES, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
NINTH DIVISION, Respondents.
G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 -
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS
THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS
(SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY,
JR., Respondents.
A.M. No. P-15-3391, November 16, 2015 - RE:
INCIDENT REPORT RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL CASE
FILED AGAINST ROSEMARIE U. GARDUCE, CLERK III,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC), REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT (RTC), PARANAQUE CITY
G.R. No. 207041, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
ROXAS CITY, Petitioner, v. JESUS A. ARROJADO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015 - PURISIMO
M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ,
JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO,
Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 196083, November 11, 2015 - MILAGROS
C. REYES, Petitioner, v. FELIX P. ASUNCION,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015 - JOSEPH C.
CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Respondent.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1004
After due investigation on the matter, the PCIB issued another memorandum finding Josephine grossly
negligent and liable for performing acts in violation of established operating procedures. The
memorandum required Josephine to pay the amount of P-50,600.00 through deductions in her salary,
allowance, bonuses, and profit sharing until the amount is fully paid.
Josephine wrote the PCIB to ask for the basis of its findings that she was grossly negligent and liable to
pay the amount of P50,600.00. During trial, the RTC found that the PCIB did not even respond to this
letter. PCIB, however, alleged that it had replied to Josephine's letter, and explained that she was
afforded due process and the deductions made prior to January 15, 1986, were merely a withholding
pending the investigation.
The PCIB also admitted that as early as January 15, 1986, it had started to deduct the amount of P
200.00 from Josephine's salary as well as 50% of her bonuses and profit sharing.
On February 10, 1986, Josephine filed a complaint for damages with prayer for preliminary injunction
before the RTC of Makati City. She claimed that the PCIB had abused its right by gradually deducting
from her salary the amount the bank had to pay Harrington.
The PCIB filed its answer with counterclaims and a separate complaint with the RTC of Makati City, which
was raffled to Branch 149.
In its May 25, 1999 decision, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Josephine and ordered the PCIB to
pay her actual damages in the amount of P5,006.00 plus 12% interest from filing of the complaint; moral
damages in the amount of PI 50,000.00; and attorney's fees in the amount of P-50,000.00.
The RTC considered the PCIB's manner of deducting from the salary and allowance of Josephine as
having been rendered in bad faith and contrary to morals, good custom, and public policy. This was
borne out by the fact that the PCIB had already deducted from her salary before Josephine received the
memorandum finding her liable for the P50,600.00. In addition, while there were other individuals
involved in this incident, it appeared that it was only Josephine who was made solely responsible.
On appeal, the PCIB argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because it was a labor
dispute, which the labor tribunals are more competent to resolve. It also maintained that there was no
factual or legal basis for the RTC to make it liable for damages and to pay Josephine.
In its May 23, 2011 decision, the CA affirmed the May 25, 1999 RTC decision. It held that the PCIB
counterclaims and even initiated a separate case before a different branch of the RTC. It upheld the
RTC's findings and conclusion in awarding damages and attorney's fees to Josephine because there was
no reason to disturb them.
The CA, subsequently, denied the PCIB's motion for reconsideration on December 7, 2011; hence, the
PCIB filed the present petition.
First, the PCIB contends that the CA gravely erred in ruling that its actions were in total and wanton
disregard of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code because the courts a quo summarily imputed bad faith
on how it had treated Josephine.
Second, the PCIB maintains that the CA gravely erred in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to
Josephine absent any basis for it while averring that bad faith cannot be presumed and that Josephine
had failed to prove it with clear and convincing evidence.
OUR RULING
We DENY the present petition for lack of merit.
The civil courts have jurisdiction
over a case when the cause of action
does not have a reasonable causal
connection from the employer-employee
relationship.
Although the PCIB opted not to raise the issue before this Court, we find it prudent and imperative to
justify why the RTC had jurisdiction to take cognizance of Josephine's complaint despite the fact that her
cause of action arose because her employer arbitrarily deducted from her salary - an act expressly
prohibited by our labor laws.4
Article 224 [217] of the Labor Code provides that the Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages arising
from employer-employee relations. The legislative intent appears clear to allow Labor Arbiters to award
to an employee not only the reliefs provided by our labor laws, but also moral and other forms of
damages governed by the Civil Code. Specifically, we have mentioned, in fact, that a complaint for
damages under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code would not suffice to keep the case without the
jurisdictional boundaries of our labor courts -especially when the claim for damages is interwoven with a
labor dispute.5
Nevertheless, when the cause of action has no reasonable connection with any of the claims provided for
in Article 224 of the Labor Code, jurisdiction over the action is with the regular courts. 6 Here, since
Josephine's cause of action is based on a quasi-delict or tort under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of
the Civil Code, the civil courts (not the labor tribunals) have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
case.
To be sure, the case of Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Ernani Cruz Paño is enlightening:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Upon the facts and issues involved, jurisdiction over the present controversy must be held
to belong to the civil courts. While seemingly petitioner's claim for damages arises from
employer-employee relations, and the latest amendment to Article 217 of the Labor Code
under PD No. 1691 and BP Big. 130 provides that all other claims arising from employer-
employee relationship are cognizable by Labor Arbiters, in essence, petitioner's claim for
damages is grounded on the "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause of private
respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the
disapproval of his application for leave of absence without pay. This, coupled with the
further averment that Cruz "maliciously and with bad faith" violated the terms and
conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner
removes the present controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within
the purview of Civil Law.
Clearly, the complaint was anchored not on the abandonment per se by private respondent
Cruz of his job as the latter was not required in the Complaint to report back to work but
on the manner and consequent effects of such abandonment of work translated in
2/5
8/31/2019 G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE…
G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO
UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 173864, November 23, 2015 - BANGKO
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN
LIBO-ON, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015 - ROLANDO
TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L.
MILLADO AND ATTY. FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 193158, November 11, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 214502, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCO
DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A. DARMO YAZON
Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y CORTEZ,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER
MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 - NELSON P.
VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON
DABON, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 197925, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 213330, November 16, 2015 - ALELI C.
ALMADOVAR, GENERAL MANAGER ISAWAD, ISABELA
CITY, BASILAN PROVINCE, Petitioner, v.
CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW
FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON
KISEN CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA,
Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF
SIMON VINCENT H. DATAYAN III, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760, November 16, 2015 -
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner,
v. RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC),
CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR AND RONALDO C. DIONEDA,
CLERK OF COURT OF THE MTCC, CALBAYOG CITY,
SAMAR, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195654, November 25, 2015 - REYNALDO
INUTAN, HELEN CARTE, NOEL AYSON, IVY CABARLE,
NOELJAMILI, MARITES HULAR, ROLITOAZUCENA,
RAYMUNDO TUNOG, ROGER BERNAL, AGUSTEV
ESTRE, MARILOU SAGUN, AND ENRIQUE LEDESMA,
JR., Petitioners, v. NAPAR CONTRACTING & ALLIED
SERVICES, NORMAN LACSAMANA, JONAS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND PHILIP YOUNG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015 - UNITED
ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] AND/OR
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
[PDIC], JAKOB VAN DER SLUIS AND ROBERT T.CHUA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015 - CABIB
ALONTO TANOG, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD G.
BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial Region, MARAWI CITY,
AND GAPO SIDIC, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015 - FRANCISCO
T. INOCENCIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY
PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN, Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015 - and held the PCIB liable for damages. While the PCIB has a right to penalize employees for acts of
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE
INC., Petitioner, v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC.,
TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., QUEZON CITY MAYOR
AND EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION (NOW
BANCO DE ORO BANKING CORPORATION),
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 203930 - J.M. TUASON & CO.,
AND TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE,
INC. AND QUEZON CITY MAYOR, Respondent.
G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015 - MARILOU S.
LAUDE AND MESEHILDA S. LAUDE, Petitioners, v.
HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE,
BRANCH 74, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY OF
OLONGAPO; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. ALBERT F. DEL
ROSARIO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS; HON. GEN. GREGORIO PIO P.
CATAPANG, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. EMILIE FE DELOS
SANTOS, CHIEF CITY PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1004
terms of the damages which petitioner had to suffer.7 [emphasis and underscoring
supplied]
cralawlawlibrary
In the present case, Josephine filed a civil complaint for damages against the PCIB based on how her
employer quickly concluded that she was negligent and hence arbitrarily started to deduct from her
salary. Clearly, without having to dwell on the merits of the case, Josephine opted to invoke the
jurisdiction of our civil courts because her right to fair treatment was violated.
The discussion in Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc. is just as relevant as it is
illuminating on the present case, to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Although the acts complained of seemingly appear to constitute "matters involving
employee-employer relations" as Quisaba's dismissal was the severance of a preexisting
employee-employer relation, his complaint is grounded not on his dismissal per se as in
fact he does not ask for reinstatement or backwages, but on the manner of his dismissal
and the consequent effects of such dismissal.
xxx
The "right" of the respondents to dismiss Quisaba should not be confused with the manner
in which the right was exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was
done anti-socially or oppressively, as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated
article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor
against the other, and article 21, which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully
causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy, the sanction for which, by way of moral damages, is provided in article 2219,
no. 10. (Cf. Phil. Refining Co. v. Garcia, L-21962, Sept. 27, 1966, 18 SCRA 107).8 cralawlawlibrary
From the foregoing, the case at bar is intrinsically concerned with a civil dispute because it has
something to do with Josephine's right under Article 19 of the Civil Code, and does not involve an
existing employer-employee relation within the meaning of Article 224 of the Labor Code. Josephine's
complaint was, therefore, properly filed with and exclusively cognizable by the RTC.
Questions on whether there was a
preponderance of evidence to justify the
award of damages or whether there was
a causal connection between the given
set of facts and the damage suffered by
the private complainant are questions of fact.
The Court's jurisdiction under a Rule 45 review is limited to reviewing perceived errors of law, which the
lower courts may have committed. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts
whose findings, when aptly supported by evidence, bind this Court. This is especially true when the CA
affirms the RTC's findings. While this Court, under established exceptional circumstances, had deviated
from the above rule, we do not find this case to be under any of the exceptions.
Essentially, what the PCIB seeks is a relief from the Court on the issue of the propriety of the award of
damages. On this point alone, the petition must fail, as a Rule 45 petition bars us from the consideration
of factual issues, especially when both the RTC and the CA were consistent with their rulings.
Nevertheless, we still affirm the assailed CA rulings even if we were to disregard these established
doctrinal rules.
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith. The principle embodied in this provision is more commonly known as the "abuse of right principle."
The legal sanctions for violations of this fundamental principle are found in Articles 209 and 2110 of the
Civil Code. We explained how these two provisions correlate with each other in GF Equity, Inc. v.
Valenzona: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[Article 19], known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of
rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's
rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to
act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law,
therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms
of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself
legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become
the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does
not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of
human' relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for
its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would
be proper.11 [Emphasis supplied]
cralawlawlibrary
Both the RTC and the CA found the acts of the PCIB were in clear violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code
negligence, the right must not be exercised unjustly and illegally. In the instant case, the PCIB made
deductions on Josephine's salary even if the investigation was still pending. Belatedly, the PCIB issued a
memorandum finding Josephine grossly negligent and requiring her to pay the amount which the bank
erroneously paid to Harrington's impostor. When Josephine asked for legal and factual basis for the
finding of negligence, the PCIB refused to give any. Moreover, the PCIB continued to make deductions on
Josephine's salary, allowances, and bonuses.
The trial court and the CA also noted that while Josephine was penalized, other employees of the bank
involved in the subject transactions were not. It was Josephine who was made solely responsible for the
loss without giving any basis therefor. It was emphasized that the subject deposit could not have been
received by the bank and entered in Harrington's savings account without the participation of the other
bank employees. The PCIB could have exercised prudence before taking oppressive actions against
Josephine.
All told, we find nothing in the record which would warrant the reversal of the position held by the RTC
and the CA. Based on the above discussion, we find the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in
Josephine's favor proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and consequently, the May 23, 2011
decision and the December 7, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68288 are
AFFIRMED in toto.
3/5
8/31/2019 G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE…
CITY; AND L/CPL JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON,
Respondent. SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 - MANUEL

Velasco,* Villarama, Jr.,** Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D.
GONZALES, Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC. Brion,** (Acting Chairperson)
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG
HWAN JANG A.K.A. STEVE JANG, SANG RAK KIM,
MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI Endnotes:
II, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 - PHIL-AIR
CONDITIONING CENTER, Petitioner, v. RCJ LINES
AND ROLANDO ABADILLA, JR., Respondent.
A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015 - ELENA BIETE
LEONES VDA. DE MILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO
REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 205915, November 10, 2015 - ASSET
POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., Petitioner, v. CLARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. -
JUDGMENT [BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT]
G.R. No. 203087, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO
ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR. y
BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015 - OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS
TANODBAYAN, AND HON. GERARD A. MOSQUERA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON,
Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.; G.R.
NO. 201882 - LERMA S. PRUDENTE AND DAMASO T.
AMBRAY, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 188372, November 25, 2015 - BEAMS
PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MARIANITA CASTILLO AND NIDA QUIRANTE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAMAD
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "MHADS" AND BAINHOR
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "BHADS,", Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 188118, November 23, 2015 - FEDERAL
PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Petitioner, v.
FORTUNE SEA CARRIER, INC., Respondent.
*Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio,
per Special Order No. 2282 dated November 13, 2015.
** Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio, per Special Order No. 2281 dated November 13, 2015.
** Designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated September 5, 2012.
1Rollo, pp. 8-25.
2 Id. at 27-38; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, and
concurred in by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Associate Justice
Ricardo R. Rosario.
3 Id. at 40-41.
4 See Article 113 of the Labor Code.
5 San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v. Judge Bersamira, G.R. No.
87700, June 13, 1990, 264 Phil. 875, 884, to wit:
"The claim of SanMig that the action below is for damages
under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code would not
suffice to keep the case within the jurisdictional boundaries of
regular Courts. That claim for damages is interwoven with a
labor dispute existing between the parties and would have to
be ventilated before the administrative machinery established
for the expeditious settlement of those disputes. To allow the
action filed below to prosper would bring about "split
jurisdiction" which is obnoxious to the orderly administration
of justice (Philippine Communications, Electronics and
Electricity Workers Federation vs. Hon. Nolasco, L-24984, 29
July 1968, 24 SCRA 321)."
6Yusen Air and Sea Service Phils, v. Villamor, G.R, No. 154060, August 16,
2005, 504 Phil. 437, 446-447, citing Ocheda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
85517, October 16, 1992, 214 SCRA 629.
7 G.R. No. L-47739, June 22, 1983,122 SCRA 671, 676.
8
G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 771, 774.

G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015 - ARSENIO A. 9 Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS, Respondent.
10Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
G.R. No. 210616, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE
SALIBAD Y DILO, Accused-Appellant.
compensate the latter for damages.

11G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 466, 479-480, citing Globe
G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 -
PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A), BENJAMIN R. Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262,
PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO S. August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 778, 783-784.
NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C.
CARPIO, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 - REYNALDO

NOBLADO, JIMMY ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO, Back to Home | Back to Main
MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON, JOSE
ESTRIL, DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA,
ROMULO RECOMES, ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD
RON A, RUBEN MIRAFUENTES, ARNULFO MALAYO, QUICK SEARCH
JAIME REMIAS, JELMER BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO,
FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL VICTORIA, DANIEL
MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA RAYTA,
RAFAEL TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA,
ERNESTO VICTORIA, CERIA ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
VICENTE CUACHIN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
HEIRS, NAMELY: LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L.
CUACHIN, LEONARDO L. CUACHIN, JUDITH L. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
CUACHIN, VILMA CUACHIN LLANZANA, ELVIE
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA,
LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA, AIDA CUACHIN 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
MIRANDILLA, JULIET CUACHIN AWA, Petitioners, v.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO, Respondent.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
SIMBULAN ARCEO, Accused-Appellant. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 162032, November 25, 2015 - RURAL
BANK OF MALASIQUI, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO M. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
CERALDE AND EDUARDO M. CERALDE, JR.,
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Respondent.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 175378, November 11, 2015 - MULTI-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DATA SYSTEM, INC.,
Petitioner, v. RUEL MARTINEZ, Respondent. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

A.M. No. P-11-2992 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-156-

RTC), November 09, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ROGER D. COREA,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39,
POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTOBATO, Respondent.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1004 4/5
8/31/2019 G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE…

G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015 - MARLOW

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC., MARLOW
NAVIGATION CO. LTD./ CYPRUS, LIGAYA C. DELA
CRUZ AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v.
BRAULIO A. OSIAS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015 - EDITHA B.

SAGUIN AND LANI D. GRADO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209284, November 10, 2015 - RENEE B.

TANCHULING, AND THE HEIRS OF VICENTE N. Y.
TANCHULING, NAMELY REBECCA TANCHULING-TAN,
RITA TANCHULING-MAPA, ROSEMARIE TANCHULING-
SALINAS, AND VINCENT RAYMOND B. TANCHULING,
Petitioners, v. SOTERO C. CANTELA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO B.
ASIGNAR, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213679, November 25, 2015 - JAY H.

LICAYAN, Petitioner, v. SEACREST MARITIME
MANAGEMENT, INC., CLIPPER FLEET MANAGEMENT,
A/S AND/OR REDENTOR ANAYA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192629, November 25, 2015 - FILINVEST

LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. EDUARDO R. ADIA, LITO M.
ADIGUE, CANDIDO M. AMPARO, MARINO S. AMPARO,
RODOLFO S. AMPARO, FLORDELIZA L. ARIAS,
BALBINO M. ATIENZA, PEDRO M. ATIENZA,
DALMACIO C. AVANILLA, PASTOR M. AVANILLA,
VENACIO P. BAUTISTA, RODOLFO S. BERGADO,
ENRIQUE R. BRABANTE, EMMA D. BUBAN, JUANITO A.
CANDARE, ROMEO O. CANDARE, ANTONIO M.
CATAPANG, EDUARDO A. CATAPANG, GRACIANO C.
CATAPANG, HERMINIO V. CATAPANG, JUANA P.
CATAPANG, REYNALDO P. CATAPANG, ROMEO A.
CATAPANG, RODOLFO A. CATAPANG, VICTORIANO A.
CATAPANG, JUAN D. CENTOS, FERNANDO B.
CERNETCHEZ, EDUARDO C. CREENCIA, ARNEL N. M.
CREMA, REYNALDO B. CRISTAL, MOISES CUBCUBIN,
DELSO POBLETO, SALVADOR M. DE LEON,
MELQUIADES P. DESCALSO, GREGORIO P. DINO,
ROBERTO L. DOMINO, CELSO R. ESCALLAR, ARMAND
P. ESCUADRO, ELISA C. FELICIANO, PASTOR C.
FERRER, ERLINDO M. FORMARAN, LEONARDO D.
GARINO, RAFAEL R. GRANADO, ALMARIO IBANEZ,
CASIMIRO P. IBANEZ, CEFERINO P. IBANEZ, MIGUEL
V. IBANEZ, MONTANO V. IBANEZ, CESAR N. JECIEL,
ALFREDO B. LAURENTE, EFIGENIA B. LAURENTE,
CELSO C. MEDINA, EDUARDO A. PANGANIBAN,
ROMEO C. PASCUA, DANILO L. PAULMINO, LAURO A.
PEGA, LEONARDO M. PEREZ, FELIPE V. PETATE,
LEONARDO V. PETATE, ESTANISLAO PORTO, MAXIMO
D. PORTO, GREGORIO L. REYES, JOSE L. REYES,
LEONARDO M. SALINGYAGA, DEMETRIO A. SALONGA,
MANOLITO G. SORILLA, HERMOGENES L. TORRES,
JUANITO M. TORRES, MARIANO B. TAGLE, MARIO D.
TAGLE, AND SANCHO V. VILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015 - JOVITA S.

MANALO, Petitioner, v. ATENEO DE NAGA
UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL TABORA AND MR. EDWIN
BERNAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO
CUESTA Y ASTORGA A.K.A BOYET CUBILLA Y
QUINTANA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015 -

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner,
v. G & P BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, SPOUSES
ELPIDIO AND ROSE VIOLET PARAS, SPOUSES JESUS
AND MA. CONSUELO PARAS AND VICTORIA PARAS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 208844, November 10, 2015 - F & S

VELASCO COMPANY, INC., IRWIN J. SEVA, ROSINA B.
VELASCO-SCRIBNER, MERCEDEZ SUNICO, AND JOSE
SATURNINO O. VELASCO, Petitioners, v. DR. ROMMEL
L. MADRID, PETER PAUL L. DANAO, MANUEL L.
ARIMADO, AND MAUREEN R. LABALAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 170458, November 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ASSET
PRIVATIZATION TRUST, NOW PRIVATIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO
M. TATLONGHARI, DOMINGO P. UY, GUILLERMO P.
UY, HINOSAN MOTORS CORPORATION, AND
WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION, Respondents.

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

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1004 5/5