11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL.

: AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2006 > August 2006 Decisions > G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE
DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL.:

Custom Search
Search G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 159208 : August 18, 2006]

RENNIE DECLARADOR, Petitioner, v. HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, Presiding Judge, Branch 14,
Roxas City, and FRANK BANSALES, Respondents.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari seeking to nullify the portion of the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Roxas City, Branch 14, in Criminal Case No. C-1419-10-2002, suspending the sentence of
respondent Frank Bansales and ordering his commitment to the Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth
at Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras.

Frank Bansales was born on June 3, 1985. He was a student at the Cabug-Cabug National High School in
President Roxas, Capiz. At around 9:45 a.m. on July 25, 2002, Yvonne Declarador was stabbed to death.
After conducting the autopsy on the cadaver, Rural Health Physician Pilar Posadas prepared a Post-
Mortem Certificate indicating that the victim sustained 15 stab wounds on different parts of the body.2

On October 10, 2002, an Information charging Frank Bansales with murder was filed by the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor with the Family Court. The accusatory portion reads:

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
That on or about 9:45 o'clock in the morning of July 25, 2002, inside a classroom in Cabug-Cabug
National High School in President Roxas, Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused armed with a knife and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said knife [his] teacher, one YVONNE DECLARADOR, thereby
hitting and inflicting upon the latter multiple fatal stab wounds in the different parts of the body which
caused the immediate death of the said Yvonne Declarador.

The crime was committed with the attendance of the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength considering that the attack was made by the accused using
a long knife which the latter carried along with him from his house to the school against his lady teacher
who was unarmed and defenseless at that time and by inflicting upon the latter about fifteen (15) fatal
knife wounds resulting to her death.3

In view of the plea of the accused and the evidence presented, the RTC rendered judgment on May 20,
2003 finding Bansales guilty of murder. However, the court suspended the sentence of the accused and
ordered his commitment to the Regional Rehabilitation for Youth at Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

In view of the Plea of Guilty by the accused and the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court
finds CICL Frank Bansales GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder being charged. Being
a minor, 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense charged, he is entitled to a special
mitigating circumstance of minority, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) month of reclusion temporal and to pay
the heirs of Yvonne Declarador, a civil indemnity of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), Fifty
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for moral damages, Forty-Three Thousand Pesos (P43,000.00) for funeral
expenses, attorney's fee of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and unearned income of One
Division Million Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P1,370,000.70).

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058 1/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
August-2006 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 6010 - ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY and STAFF vs
ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ
A.C. No. 5839 - ARTURO C. SAMPANA vs ATTY.
EDGARDO J. ANGARA, ET AL.
A.C. No. 6317 - LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO vs ATTY.
ROGELIO P. TERRADO
A.C. No. 6501 - CBD Case Nos. 03-1076, 03-1108,
03-1109, 03-1125 - ATTY. LEON L. ASA, ET AL vs
ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.
A.C. No. 6968 - XCX
A.M. No. 03-6-349-RTC and A.M. NO. 03-07-376-
RTC - In re: transfer of venue of all Ilusorio cases
from the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City to Metro
manila
A.M. No. CA-05-19-P - ATTY. VICTORIANO S.
MURING, JR. vs ATTY. MANUEL T. GATCHO, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1399 - ALBERTO GUINTO vs
JUDGE RODRIGO R. FLORES, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1565 - ROLANDO GASPAR vs
JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG
A.M. No. P-04-1783 - Leticia S.A. Resurreccion v.
Rustico I. Ibuna, Jr
A.M. No. P-04-1818 - JUDGE ELEUTERIA BADOLES-
ALGODON vs RENE D. ZALDIVAR, ETC.
A.M. No. P-04-1838 - Re: Audit Report on
Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court,
Branch 32, Manila
A.M. No. P-05-1950 and A.M. No. MTJ-1612 - JUDGE
CRISPIN B. BRAVO vs ATTY. MIGUEL C. MORALES
A.M. No. P-05-1997 - EDITHA S. SANTUYO vs
HERBERTO R. BENITO, ETC.
A.M. No. P-05-2073 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-
2144-P - RUTH A. COLLADO vs ADONIS L. SEVIDAL
A.M. No. P-06-2151 - MARIA RAQUEL R. BAJAR vs
VICTORIANO P. BATERISNA
A.M. No. P-06-2194 - OCA-IPI No. 05-2342-RTJ -
ORIEL G. GONZALES vs ARNALDO V. CABIGAO
A.M. No. P-06-2205 - OCA-IPI No. 05-2250-P -
FELICIDAD D. PALABRICA vs ATTY. CECILIA T.
FAELNAR, ETC.
A.M. No. P-06-2218 - ALBERT S. DELA PEÑA vs
ILUMINADO R. HUELMA
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823 - ARCELY Y. SANTOS vs
JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2001 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-
2234-RTJ - EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC. vs JUDGE
CELSO D. LAVIÑA
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058
The parents (father and mother of juvenile Frank Bansales) and his teacher-in-charge at the Cabug-
Cabug National High School of President Roxas, Capiz, are jointly subsidiarily liable in case of insolvency,
as the crime was established to have been committed inside the classroom of Cabug-Cabug National High
School and during school hours.
Pursuant to the provision of P.D. 603, as amended, the sentence is suspended and the Child in conflict
with the law (CICL), Frank Bansales is ordered committed to the Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth
at Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras.
Furnish copies of this decision the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the Private Prosecutors, the DSWD
Capiz Provincial Office, Roxas City, the Regional Rehabilitation for Youth, Concordia, Guimaras, the
accused and his counsel, Atty. Ramcez John Honrado.
SO ORDERED.4
On June 2, 2003, the RTC set a preliminary conference for 10:00 a.m. of June 10, 2003 with the Public
Prosecutor, the Social Welfare Officer of the court, and the Officer-in-Charge of the Regional
Rehabilitation Center for Youth, considering that the accused would turn 18 on June 3, 2003.5
Rennie Declarador, the surviving spouse of the deceased, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court assailing that portion of the decision of the trial court's decision suspending the
sentence of the accused and committing him to the rehabilitation center.
Petitioner claimed that under Article 192 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603, as well as A.M. No. 02-1-
18-SC (otherwise known as the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law), the benefit of a suspended
sentence does not apply to a juvenile who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, 6 reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. Citing the ruling of this Court in People v. Ondo, 7 petitioner avers that
since Bansales was charged with murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, he is disqualified
from availing the benefits of a suspended sentence.
In his Comment, Bansales avers that petitioner has no standing to file the petition, considering that the
offense charged is a public crime brought in the name of the People of the Philippines; only the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) is authorized to file a petition in court assailing the order of the RTC which
suspended the service of his sentence. He further avers that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC entitles
the accused to an automatic suspension of sentence and allows the court to commit the juvenile to the
youth center; hence, the court did not abuse its discretion in suspending the sentence of the accused.
In reply, petitioner maintains that he has sufficient personality to file the petition.
The OSG, for its part, posits that respondent's sentence cannot be suspended since he was charged with
a capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It insists that the entitlement of a juvenile to
a suspended sentence does not depend upon the sentence actually imposed by the trial court but upon
the imposable penalty for the crime charged as provided for by law.
The issues for resolution are the following: (1) whether petitioner has standing to file the petition; (2)
whether petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing his petition with this Court; and (3)
whether respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
in ordering the suspension of the sentence of respondent Bansales and his commitment to the Regional
Rehabilitation Center for the Youth.
The petition is granted.
On the first issue, we rule for the petitioner. Being the surviving spouse of the deceased and the offended
party, he has sufficient personality to file the instant special civil action for certiorari .8 This is in line with
the underlying spirit of the liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote their object.9
Moreover, the OSG has filed its comment on the petition and has joined the petitioner in his plea for the
nullification of the assailed portion of the RTC decision.
On the second issue, the rule is that a Petition for Review on Certiorari which seeks to nullify an order of
the RTC should be filed in the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.10 A direct invocation of
the original jurisdiction of the Court to issue writs of certiorari may be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the petition.11 This is an
established policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention which
are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding
of the Court's docket.12
However, in Fortich v. Corona, 13 the Court held that considering the nature and importance of the issues
raised and in the interest of speedy justice, and to avoid future litigations, the Court may take cognizance
of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.14 Moreover, this Court has suspended its own rules and
excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the interests of justice so require.
In this case, we resolve to take cognizance of the case, involving as it does a juvenile and the application
of the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
The charge against respondent Bansales was murder with the qualifying circumstance of either evident
premeditation or abuse of superior strength. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 7659, the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death. The
trial court found him guilty of murder.
Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, provides:
Art. 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender. - If after hearing the evidence in
the proper proceedings, the court should find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged
against him, the court, shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability chargeable
against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court, upon application of the
youthful offender and if it finds that the best interest of the public, as well as that of the offender will be
served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings and commit such minor to the custody or care of
the Department of Social Welfare and Development or to any training institution operated by the
government or any other responsible person until he shall have reached twenty-one years of age, or for a
shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or the government training institution or responsible
person under whose care he has been committed.
Upon receipt of the application of the youthful offender for suspension of his sentence, the court may
require the Department of Social Welfare and Development to prepare and submit to the court a social
case study report over the offender and his family.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by the representative of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or government training institution as the court may
designate subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender who has once enjoyed suspension of
sentence under its provisions or to one who is convicted for an offense punishable by death or life
imprisonment or to one who is convicted for an offense by the Military Tribunals.
2/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2011 - Imelda S. Enriquez v. Judge
Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2012 - IGNACIO E. MAYLAS, JR. vs
JUDGE MANUEL L. SESE
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2013 - OCA-IPI No. 06-2509-RTJ -
LEONARDO L. RIVERA vs JUDGE BERNABE B.
MENDOZA, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 - LUZ ARRIEGO vs JUDGE
FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
G.R. No. 119280 - UNILEVER PHILIPPINES (PRC),
INC. vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111495 and G.R. No. 122404 - AGRIPINO
VILLEGAS, ET AL. vs THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125793 - JOEVANIE ARELLANO TABASA vs
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128509 - ROBLE ARRASTRE, INC. vs HON.
ALTAGRACIA VILLAFLOR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129434 - TRANS MIDDLE EAST (PHILS.)
EQUITIES, INC. vs SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 130838 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION
vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 130974 - MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC vs
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132856 - AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN vs COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133429 - SPOUSES VIRGILIO G. TAMAYO,
JR. and LUCINDA F. TAMAYO vs HEIRS OF GAVINO
DOMINGUEZ
G.R. No. 133834 - COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE
SUCRES ET DENREES vs COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 136963 - MARIA JUMAMIL BALANAY, ET
AL. vs ATTY. JORGE PADERANGA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 137187 - Carmelita V. Lim, et al. v. Hon.
Benjami Vianzon et al.
G.R. No. 137247 - Anatalia B. Ramos v. Spouses
Domingo A. Dizon and Edna Medina Dizon
G.R. No. 137534 and G.R. NO. 138624 - EFREN
AQUINO, ET AL. vs QUEZON CITY, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140091 - FELICIANO G. MANANSAN vs
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 141431 - AMALIO L. SARMIENTO, ETC. vs
CELERINO YU
G.R. No. 140422 - Mercedes Cristobal Cruz, et al. v.
Eufrosina Cristobal, et al.
G.R. No. 141860 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC.
vs IPIL INTERNATIONAL INC.,ET AL.
G.R. No. 142262 - GERARDO BIONG vs PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 142961 - RHODA REGINA REYES-RARA, ET
AL. vs BRENDA CHAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 143442 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. vs
LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
G.R. No. 144268 - DATALIFT MOVERS, INC. vs
BELGRAVIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 144339 - TIU HIONG GUAN, ET AL. vs
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO.
G.R. No. 144696 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE vs PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.
G.R. No. 145006 - DAVID TAN vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 145357 - PEDRO S. GIRON, JR., ET AL vs
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 145795 - BIENVENIDO DE GUZMAN vs
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 145848 - NAGKAHIUSANG NAMUMUO SA
DASUCECO-NATIONAL, ET AL. vs DAVAO SUGAR
CENTRAL CO. INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. 146061 - SUMALO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF HERMOSA vs JAMES T. LITTON, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 146068 - DR. REY C. TAMBONG vs R.
JORGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 146385 - ESTEFANIO BIASURA vs
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058
The law was reproduced in A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC where, except for those under paragraph 3, Section 32
of the law, the sentence of the accused is automatically suspended:
Sec. 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. - The sentence shall be suspended
without need of application by the juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set the case for
disposition conference within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of sentence which shall be attended
by the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile, and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall
proceed to issue any or a combination of the following disposition measures best suited to the
rehabilitation and welfare of the juvenile: care, guidance, and supervision orders; Drug and alcohol
treatment; Participation in group counseling and similar activities; Commitment to the Youth
Rehabilitation Center of the DSWD or other centers for juvenile in conflict with the law authorized by the
Secretary of DSWD.
The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance by the
juvenile in conflict with the law with the disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the Family
Court a status and progress report on the matter. The Family Court may set a conference for the
evaluation of such report in the presence, if practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian, and
other persons whose presence may be deemed necessary.
The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has once
enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already
eighteen (18) years of age or over.
Thus, it is clear that a person who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or
reclusion perpetua is disqualified from availing the benefits of a suspended sentence. "Punishable" is
defined as "deserving of, or capable, or liable to punishment; liable to be punished; may be punished;
liable to punishment." 15 The word "punishable" does not mean "must be punished," but "liable to be
punished" as specified.16 In U.S. v. Villalon, 17 the Court defined punishable as "deserving of, or liable
for, punishment." Thus, the term refers to the possible, not to the actual sentence. It is concerned with
the penalty which may be, and not which is imposed.
The disqualification is based on the nature of the crime charged and the imposable penalty therefor, and
not on the penalty imposed by the court after trial. It is not the actual penalty imposed but the possible
one which determines the disqualification of a juvenile.18 Despite the disqualification of Bansales,
respondent Judge, nevertheless, ordered the suspension of the sentence meted against him. By this act,
respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
We note that, in the meantime, Rep. Act No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006. Section 38 of the law
reads:
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However,
instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law.
The law merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the
suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603,
as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act
No. 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in
Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles who
have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment
or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.
Case law has it that statutes in pari materia should be read and construed together because enactments
of the same legislature on the same subject are supposed to form part of one uniform system; later
statutes are supplementary or complimentary to the earlier enactments and in the passage of its acts the
legislature is supposed to have in mind the existing legislations on the subject and to have enacted the
new act with reference thereto.19 Statutes in pari materia should be construed together to attain the
purpose of an expressed national policy.20
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Order of the respondent Judge
suspending the sentence of respondent Frank Bansales is NULLIFIED.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Judge Salvador S. Gubaton; rollo, pp. 26-31.
2 Exhibit "B," records pp. 7-8.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id. at 235-236.
5
Id. at 243.
6 Under Republic Act No. 9346 (An act prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the
Philippines), the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited.
7 G.R. No. 101361, November 8, 1993, 227 SCRA 562.
8 Paredes v. Gopengco, 140 Phil. 81, 93 (1969).
9 Narciso v. Sta. Romana Cruz, 385 Phil. 208, 222 (2000); Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank,
Inc., 384 Phil. 322, 335 (2000).
10 Rule 65, Section 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
11 People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 67787, April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 415, 424.
3/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
12Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. 154599, January 21,
G.R. No. 146964 - ROSA C. RODOLFO vs PEOPLE OF 2004, 420 SCRA 562, 572.
THE PHILIPPINES
13 352 Phil. 461, 481 (1998).
G.R. No. 146616 - SIAIN ENTERPRISES, INC. vs F.F.
CRUZ & CO., INC. 14 Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, 438 Phil. 417, 438 (2002).
G.R. No. 148247 - AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION
15 People v. Superior Court of the City and Country of San Francisco, 116 Cal. App. 412,
vs ENRICO E. ZAMORA
2P.2d 843 (1931).
G.R. No. 149013 - HOUSE OF SARA LEE vs CYNTHIA
F. REY 16 The Thrasher 173 F. 258 (1909).

G.R. No. 149019 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. 17 37 Phil. 322 (1917).
v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION
18 People v. Hughes, 32 N.E. 1105 (1893).
G.R. No. 149074 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., ET AL.
vs DANILO MARBELLA, ET AL. 19 Agpalo, R. Statutory Construction, p. 212 (1995).
G.R. No. 149285 - GODOFREDO MORALES vs SKILLS 20
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 420, 427.

G.R. No. 149576 - Republic of the Philippines v.

Kenrick Development Corporation

G.R. No. 149615 - ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER

vs HELMUT MULLER Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 150128 - LAUREANO T. ANGELES vs

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ET AL.
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 150274 - IN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT HON. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG

G.R. No. 150325 - EDGARDO V. QUESADA vs THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 150350 - KOJI YASUMA vs HEIRS OF
CECILIO S. DE VILLA, ET AL. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 150429 - ROBERTO G. FAMANILA vs THE
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 150644 - EDWARD V. LACSON vs MAOWEE
DABAN LACSON, ET AL. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 150711 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. vs
PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 150812 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE vs CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 150862 - THE HEIRS OF ATTY. JOSE C.
REYES, ET AL. vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 150959 - UNITED PARAGON MINING
CORPORATION vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

G.R. No. 151030 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND

GAMING CORPORATION vs RICHARD SYHONGPAN

G.R. No. 151312 - HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES

PEDRO S. PALANCA, ET AL. vs REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. 151458 - JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN

GULAM vs SPOUSES CATALINO and RICARDA SANTOS

G.R. No. 152251 - MANUEL VALDEZ, ET AL. vs

GUILLERMO REYES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 152471 - FIESTA WORLD MALL

CORPORATION v. LINBERG PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 152651 - ANDABAI T. ARIMAO vs SAADEA

P. TAHER

G.R. No. 152652 - TEODORO STA. ANA vs LOURDES

PANLASIGUE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 152714 - PANGASINAN FIVE STAR BUS

CO., INC. vs SPOUSES LEON & LUISA BARREDO

G.R. No. 152809 - MERCEDES MORALIDAD vs SPS.

DIOSDADO PERNES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 152950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET

AL. vs CHRISTOPHER CHOI

G.R. No. 153057 - MR. & MRS. GEORGE R. TAN vs

G.V.T. ENGINEERING SERVICES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153468 - PAUL LEE TAN, ET AL. vs PAUL

SYCIP, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153650 - FIDEL V. AMARILLO, JR. vs THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153785 - VERONIQUE T. HUIBONHOA v.

ANGEL D. CONCEPCION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153795 - MA. ESTRELITA D. MARTINEZ vs

Director General LEANDRO MENDOZA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153793 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE vs JULIANE BAIER-NICKEL

G.R. No. 153824 - BERNABE FALCO, ET AL. vs

MERCURY FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058 4/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 153850 - JOVENDO DEL CASTILLO vs
ABUNDIO ORCIGA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153925 - FOOD TERMINAL, INC., ET AL. vs

SHOPPERS PARADISE FTI CORPORATION

G.R. No. 153875 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs

ROLANDO DAGANI y REYES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 153974 - Miguel Beluso, et al. v. The

Municipality of Panay (Capiz)

G.R. No. 154019 - JULIAN ELBIÑA vs FELISA,

CELESTINO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 154132 - HIYAS SAVINGS and LOAN BANK,

INC. vs HON. EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 154156 - JMA House Incorporated v. Sta.

Monica Industrial and Development Corporation, et al.

G.R. NOS. 154218 & 154372 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES vs HON. JUDGE JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 154235 - ALFREDO O. ESTRERA vs THE

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 154322 - EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA vs

CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 154386 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE

INSURANCE SYSTEM vs ERNESTO A. VILLAMAYOR

G.R. No. 155066 - HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PEDRO

AVENDAÑO, ET AL. vs DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 155088 - DR. MUSSOLINI C. BARILLO, ET

AL. vs HON. MARGARITO GERVACIO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 155150 - EMELITA A. RAMIREZ vs

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 155224 - VINSON B. PINEDA vs ATTY.

CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 156336 - PNB CREDIT CARD

CORPORATION vs MATILDE M. RODRIGUEZ

G.R. No. 157064 - BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES,

INC. vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 157318 - Generoso Villanueva, et al. v.

Estate of Gerardo L. Gonzaga, et al.

G.R. No. 158370 - SPOUSES MICHAEL UY & BONITA

UY vs EDUARDO ARIZA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 158867 - JIMMY BANTING, ET AL. vs SPS.

JOSE MAGLAPUZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON.

SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 158930 and G.R. No. 158944-45 - UNION

OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, ET AL. vs NESTLÉ
PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED

G.R. No. 159245 - GV DIVERSIFIED

INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 159786 - EDGARDO V. GUEVARA vs BPI

SECURITIES CORPORATION

G.R. No. 159813 - Tony Figueroa, et al. v. The Pp

G.R. No. 160053 - SPS. RENATO & ANGELINA vs

HON. JANE AURORA C. LANTION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 160174 - FRANCISCO SILVA vs

LEOVIGILDO T. MATIONG

G.R. No. 160358 - LYDIA LAO, ET AL. vs PHILIP

KING

G.R. No. 160211 - VENANCIO R. NAVA vs RODOLFO

G. PALATTAO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 160913 - EUROTECH HAIR SYSTEMS, INC.,

ET AL. vs ANTONIO S. GO

G.R. No. 160769 - CITY TRUCKING, INC. / JOHN

EDLES vs ANTONIO BALAJADIA

G.R. No. 161433 - SUSAN D. DEGOLLACION vs

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAVITE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 162037 - HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ vs

ELINOR A. VIRATA

G.R. No. 162240 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING

CORPORATION vs LEONARDO BITHAO

G.R. No. 162734 - MARIE ANTONETTE ABIGAIL C.

SALIENTES, ET AL. vs LORAN S.D. ABANILLA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 162759 - LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, ET AL.

vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058 5/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 162895 - MA. ELIZABETH KING, ET AL. vs
MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC.

G.R. No. 163167 - JINALINAN TECHNICAL SCHOOL,

INC. vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(Fourth Division), ET AL.

G.R. No. 163935 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS
(NASECORE) vs ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(ERC)

G.R. No. 163980 - HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS

ASSO., INC., ET AL. vs SEC. MICHAEL DEFENSOR, ET
AL.

CONCURRING OPINION - CALLEJO, SR., J.: G.R. No.

164007 - LT. (SG) EUGENE GONZALES, ET AL. vs GEN.
NARCISO ABAYA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 164007 - LT. (SG) EUGENE GONZALES, ET

AL. vs GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, ET AL.

SEPARATE OPINION - CONCURRING AND

DISSENTING - TINGA, J.: G.R. No. 164007 - LT. (SG)
EUGENE GONZALES, ET AL. vs GEN. NARCISO ABAYA,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 164561 - CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL

CORPORATION, ET AL. vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 164633 - GERONIMO S. BANQUERIGO, ET

AL. vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 164871 - TRUST INTERNATIONAL PAPER

CORPORATION vs MARILOU R. PELAEZ

G.R. No. 165382 - UNION BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 165500 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF

COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. vs ELENITA B. TRAZO

G.R. No. 165661 - SPS. MARIO & CORAZON

VILLALVA vs RCBC SAVINGS BANK

G.R. No. 166136 - MARIO DANILO B. VILLAFLORES

vs RAM SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 166521 - PEDRO GENEROSA, ET AL. vs

PACITA PRANGAN-VALERA

G.R. No. 166899 - HEIRS OF PASTORA LOZANO, ET

AL. vs THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 166924 - GLAXOSMITHKLINE

PHILIPPINES, INC. vs KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 166933 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT

G.R. No. 167103 - MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F.

GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 168118 - THE MANILA BANKING

CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

G.R. No. 167767 and G.R. No. 167799 - SPOUSES

WILLIAM AND JEANETTE YAO vs CARLOMAGNO B.
MATELA

G.R. No. 168384 - CHARLES BERNARD H. REYES vs

ANTONIO YULO BALDE II, ET AL.

G.R. No. 168414 - BENEDICTO S. AZCUETA vs LA

UNION TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 168438 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO G. TUAZON

and RUTH A. TUAZON vs VICENTE G. TUAZON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 168550 - URBANO M. MORENO vs

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 168794 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES vs GLORIA C. BALLESTEROS

G.R. No. 169029 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs

ROGELIO Q. TONGSON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 169464 - ROQUE D.A. DATOR vs

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 169727 - BRIG. GEN. (Ret.) JOSE S.

RAMISCAL, JR. vs SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 169996 - ABLO Q. DE LEON, ET AL. vs

JOSEFINA BALINAG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 170087 - ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 170396 - ROBERTH B. TOLENTINO vs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 170165 - B/Gen. (Ret.) Francisco V.

Gudani, et al. v. Lt./Gen. Generoso S. Senga, et al.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058 6/7
11/14/2018 G.R. No. 159208 - RENNIE DECLARADOR vs HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, ET AL. : AUGUST 2006 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME CO…
G.R. No. 171271 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA y PAHILANGA

G.R. No. 171731 - People of the Philippines v.

Joven Ocampo, et al.

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006augustdecisions.php?id=1058 7/7