QUITORIANO, PATRICK JOHN R.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1ST YEAR JURIS DOCTOR- NWU

Case 1

DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, Petitioner vs. JUANITO c. BERNARDO, Respondent, G.R. No.
190809, February 13, 2017- [T]he age of sixty-five (65) is declared as the compulsory retirement age
under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended. When the compulsory retirement age is reached
by an employee or official, he is thereby effectively separated from the service (UST Faculty Union v.
National Labor Relations Commission, University of Santo Tomas, G.R. No. 89885, August 6, 1990). In
this connection, it would be worthy to mention that the Labor Code contains a specific provision that
deals with money claims arising out of employer-employee relationships. Article 291 of the Labor
Code as amended (DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, Petitioner vs. JUANITO c. BERNARDO,
Respondent, G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017)

Case 2

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL, Petitioner. vs. DMCI HOMES, INC., DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., CITY OF
MANILA, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, NATIONAL HISTORICAL
COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017- In statutory
construction principle, Articles 130655 and 140956 of the Civil Code - which prescribes that acts not
contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are allowed if also not contrary to
law. Therefore, There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila. This principle is
fundamental in a democratic society, to protect the weak against the strong, the minority against
the majority, and the individual citizen against the government. (KNIGHTS OF RIZAL, Petitioner. vs.
DMCI HOMES, INC., DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., CITY OF MANILA, NATIONAL COMMISSION
FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017)

Case 3

VIVENNE K. TAN, Petitioner vs.VINCENT "BINGBONG" CRISOLOGO, Respondent, G.R. No. 193993,
November 8, 2017- there is this constitutional provision is reflected in R.A. No. 8189 this way: all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of
age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein
they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election, may register as
a voter."22 Although the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 does not contain a similar provision like
R.A. No. 918923 that disqualifies non-Filipino citizens from voting, it does, however, provide that the
ERB shall deactivate the registration and remove the registration records of any person who has lost
his or her Filipino citizenship. (VIVENNE K. TAN, Petitioner vs.VINCENT "BINGBONG" CRISOLOGO,
Respondent, G.R. No. 193993, November 8, 2017)
Case 4

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), Respondents, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017- the consolidated
petitions for certiorari were improper remedies in light of Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
expressly prohibiting the review of the denial of their demurrer prior to the judgment in the case
either by appeal or by certiorari; that the Court has thereby limited its own power, which should
necessarily prevent the giving of due course to the petitions for certiorari, as well as the undoing of
the order denying the petitioners' demurrer to evidence; that the proper remedy under the Rules of
Court was for the petitioners to proceed to trial and to present their evidence-in-chief thereat; and
that even if there had been grave abuse of discretion attending the denial, the Court's certiorari
powers should be exercised only upon the petitioners' compliance with the stringent requirements
of Rule 65, particularly with the requirement that there be no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, which they did not establish.Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court,
pertinently provides: Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. (GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), Respondents, G.R. No.
220598, April 18, 2017)

Case 5

MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent,

G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017- An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer
assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine
the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the
correct amount of tax. 25 An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has
already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly
authorized representatives. Section 6 of the NIRC. (MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017)

Case 6

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner vs. APOLINARIO C. PAUIG,

Respondent, G.R. No. 210328, January 30, 2017- Declaring the Premium-Based Policy under
Resolution No. 90 and Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 171-03, both dated April 2, 2013, of the
Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) as in accordance with law and thus lawful, valid,
binding and effective.Directing the GSIS to credit under Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 171-03.
No pronouncement as to Damages and Cost. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS),
Petitioner vs. APOLINARIO C. PAUIG, Respondent, G.R. No. 210328, January 30, 2017)
Case 7

TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA, Petitioners,vs. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A.

CARBONILLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017- The Petition has no merit. The Court
has time and again held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of
due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply
with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. Article 223 of the
Labor Code and ART. 223. Appeal. (TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA, Petitioners,vs.
FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A. CARBONILLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017)

Case 8

DIVINA PALAO, Petitioner vs. FLORENTINO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent, G.R. No. 186967,
January 18, 2017- The need for a certification of non-forum shopping to be attached to respondent's
appeal before the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office is established.
Section 3 of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform Rules on Appeal.Section 3. Appeal
Memorandum. Reference Code 127 or 128, provided in the IPO Fee Structure.Section 4. specifies the
need for a certification of non-forum shopping. These requirements notwithstanding, the Intellectual
Property Office's own Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings specify that the Intellectual Property
Office "shall not be bound by the strict technical rules of procedure and evidence. This rule is in
keeping with the general principle that administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical
rules of procedure. (DIVINA PALAO, Petitioner vs. FLORENTINO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent,
G.R. No. 186967, January 18, 2017)

Case 9

FERTILIZER and PESTICIDE AUTHORITY (FPA), Petitioner,vs.MANILA PEST CONTROL COMPANY

(MAPECON) and WOODROW CATAN, Respondents. G.R. No. 161594, February 8, 2007- In
interpreting the meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a review of the whole law must be
made, and its intendment must be given effect.10 The various provisions of P.D. No. 1144 show its
consistent intent to apply the term "pesticides" only to agricultural use. Thus, urban pest control
operators and their urban pesticides are excluded from its coverage. Petitioner FPA, through House
Bill No. 18740 filed in 1991, attempted to amend certain provisions of P.D. No. 1144 to expand its
powers and functions by including urban pest control in its jurisdictional scope. Unfortunately for
petitioner, House Bill No. 18740 did not pass. It was rejected by the bicameral committee. The
amendment would result in petitioner FPA’s usurpation of other governmental agencies’ authority.
(FERTILIZER and PESTICIDE AUTHORITY (FPA), Petitioner,vs.MANILA PEST CONTROL COMPANY
(MAPECON) and WOODROW CATAN, Respondents. G.R. No. 161594, February 8, 2007)
Case 10

U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO, Petitioners, vs.VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO,

Respondent. G.R. No. 199660, July 13, 2015- The Petition has no merit. Perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory and jurisdictional and failure
to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.
Mainly because of Article 223 of the Labor Code. (U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. BRAVO,
Petitioners, vs.VALERIE ANNE H. HOLLERO, Respondent. G.R. No. 199660, July 13, 2015)

Case 11

YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.TRANS-ASIA OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015- Rights pertaining to mining patents
issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and existing prior to November 15, 1935 are vested
rights that cannot be impaired. (YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.TRANS-ASIA OIL
AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 207942)

Case 12

OMAR ERASMO GONOWON AMPONGAN, Petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AND OMBUDSMAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents, G.R. No. 234670-71, August
14, 2019- Where the issue presented was whether the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over
the petitioner therein, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City with salary grade
26, who was charged with violation of Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019, we answered in the affirmative and
held: Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as defined in
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606(OMAR ERASMO GONOWON AMPONGAN, Petitioner vs. HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND OMBUDSMAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
Respondents, G.R. No. 234670-71, August 14, 2019)

Case 13

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND

HIGHWAYS, Petitioners, vs. ARLENE R. SORIANO, Respondent. G.R. No. 211666, February 25, 2015-
the interest involved is in the nature of damages rather than earnings from loans, then Art. 2209 of
the Civil Code, which fixes legal interest at 6%, shall apply.( REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioners, vs. ARLENE R.
SORIANO, Respondent. G.R. No. 211666)

Case 14

MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017- An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer
assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine
the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the
correct amount of tax. 25 An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has
already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly
authorized representatives. Section 6 of the NIRC. (MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017)

Case 15

FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO GERMAR, and ROGELIO
P. SANTOS, JR., Respondents. G.R. No. 216572, September 1, 2015- The controversy revolves around
the interpretation of Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and the complementary Sec. 6, Rule
18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.( FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ALFREDO GERMAR, and ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondents. G.R. No. 216572,
September 1, 2015)

Case 16

EMETERIA LIWAG, Petitioner,Vs. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Respondent. G.R. No. 189755, July 4, 2012- This Rule 45 Petition assails the Decision1 and
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 100454. The CA affirmed with modification
the Decision3 and Order4 of the Office of the President (O.P.) in OP Case No. 05-G-224, which had
set aside the Decision5 of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) in HLURB Case No. REM-A-041210-0261 and affirmed the Decision6 of the Housing
and Land Use Arbiter in HLURB Case No. REM-030904-12609. (EMETERIA LIWAG, Petitioner,Vs.
HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. G.R. No. 189755, July 4, 2012)

Case 17
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (PHILIPPINES), INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEL MONTE FRESH SUPERVISORS
UNION, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 225115, January 27, 2020- The petition lacks merit.Being essentially
procedural, the first and second issues are addressed summarily. The more substantive third and
fourth issues are discussed more fully.The CA erred in giving due course to the petition for review of
respondent. Paragraph 4 of Article 262-A of the Labor Code requires that an appeal from a decision
of the Voluntary Arbitrator must be filed within 10 days from notice,26 and that the Supreme Court,
in Philippine Electric Corporation v. Court of Appeals,27 has held that this statutory period must
prevail over the 15-day period allowed under Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.28
Respondent's petition for review was belatedly filed on the 12th day from notice of decision of the
Voluntary Arbitrator; the s a me should not have been entertained, much less given due course. (DEL
MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (PHILIPPINES), INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEL MONTE FRESH SUPERVISORS
UNION, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 225115, January 27, 2020)

Case 18

ARMANDO BARCELLANO, Petitioner, vs. DOLORES BAÑAS, represented by her son and Attorney-in-
fact CRISPINO BERMILLO, Respondent. G.R. No. 165287, September 14, 2011- The written notice
required under Art. 1623 to be given to adjoining owner was no longer necessary because there was
already actual notice. Further, he asserts that the appellate court erred in ruling that the tender of
payment of the redemption price and consignation are not required in this case, effectively affirming
that the respondents had validly exercised their right of redemption. Lastly, he questions as
erroneous the application of Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as "Establishing a
System of Amicably Settling Disputes at the Barangay Level," thereby ruling that the filing by the
heirs of the complaint before the Barangay was an exercise of right of redemption. (ARMANDO
BARCELLANO, Petitioner, vs. DOLORES BAÑAS, represented by her son and Attorney-in-fact
CRISPINO BERMILLO, Respondent. G.R. No. 165287, September 14, 2011)

Case 19

H. VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC., HL VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC., HRV VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC.
AND VILLARICA PAWNSHOP,INC., Petitioners vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM, AMADOR M. MONTEIRO, SANTIAGO DIONISIO R. AG DEPP A, MA. LUZ N. BARROS-
MAGSINO, MILAGROS N. CASUGA AND JOCELYN Q. GARCIA, Respondents, G.R. No. 228087, January
24, 2018- This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
petitioners H. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc., HL Villarica Pawnshop, Inc., HRV Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. and
Villarica Pawnshop, Inc., (petitioners) seeking to. reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated February
26, 2016 and Resolution2 dated November 2, 2016, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
140916, which affirmed the Resolution3 dated November 6, 2013, and Order4 dated January 21,
2015, of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying petitioners' claim for refund. (H. VILLARICA
PAWNSHOP, INC., HL VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC., HRV VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC. AND VILLARICA
PAWNSHOP,INC., Petitioners vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
AMADOR M. MONTEIRO, SANTIAGO DIONISIO R. AG DEPP A, MA. LUZ N. BARROS-MAGSINO,
MILAGROS N. CASUGA AND JOCELYN Q. GARCIA, Respondents, G.R. No. 228087, January 24, 2018)
Case 20

COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION)
and PETRON CORPORATION,* Respondents. G.R. No. 207843, July 15, 2015- Assailed in this petition
for certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated February 13, 20132 and May 8, 20133 of the Court of Tax
Appeals, Second Division (CTA) in CTA Case No. 8544 reversing and setting aside the earlier dismissal
of the petition for review filed by private respondent Petron Corporation (Petron) in the said case on
the bases of prematurity and lack of jurisdiction. (COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) and PETRON CORPORATION,* Respondents. G.R. No.
207843, July 15, 2015)

Case 21

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee vs. GLORIA CAIZ y TALVO, Accused-appellent, G.R. No.
215340, July 13, 2016- violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory
portion of the Information for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee vs. GLORIA CAIZ y TALVO, Accused-appellent, G.R. No. 215340, July
13, 2016)

Case 22

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), Respondents, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017- the State argues'
that the consolidated petitions for certiorari were improper remedies in light of Section 23, Rule 119
of the Rules of Court expressly prohibiting the review of the denial of their demurrer prior to the
judgment in the case either by appeal or by certiorari; that the Court has thereby limited its own
power, which should necessarily prevent the giving of due course to the petitions for certiorari, as
well as the undoing of the order denying the petitioners' demurrer to evidence; that the proper
remedy under the Rules of Court was for the petitioners to proceed to trial and to present their
evidence-in-chief thereat; and that even if there had been grave abuse of discretion attending the
denial, the Court's certiorari powers should be exercised only upon the petitioners' compliance with
the stringent requirements of Rule 65, particularly with the requirement that there be no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which they did not establish.( GLORIA
MACAPAGAL ARROYO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First
Division), Respondents, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017)

Case 23

AIR CANADA, Petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. No. 169507,
January 11, 2016- An offline international air carrier selling passage tickets in the Philippines,
through a general sales agent, is a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. As
such, it is taxable under Section 28(A)(l), and not Section 28(A)(3) of the 1997 National Internal
Revenue Code, subject to any applicable tax treaty to which the Philippines is a signatory. Pursuant
to Article 8 of the Republic of the Philippines-Canada Tax Treaty, Air Canada may only be imposed a
maximum tax of 1 ½% of its gross revenues earned from the sale of its tickets in the Philippines.( AIR
CANADA, Petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. No. 169507,
January 11, 2016)

Case 24

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., Respondent. G.R. No.
164679, July 27, 2011- The provisions of Section 20(5) are merely directory; the Ombudsman is not
prohibited from conducting an investigation a year after the supposed act was committed. The issue
of whether Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770 is mandatory or discretionary has been settled by
jurisprudence.34 In Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun,35 the Court, speaking through Justice
Austria-Martinez. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR.,
Respondent. G.R. No. 164679, July 27, 2011)

Case 25

ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No.
209387, January 11, 2016- In the Information dated November 19, 2003, Dela Cruz was charged with
violation of Republic Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of firearms.( ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ,
Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016)

Case 26

WHITE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner vs.GRANDWOOD FURNITURE &

WOODWORK, INC., Respondent , G.R. No. 222407, November 23, 2016- This Petition for Review on
Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the June 22, 2015 Decision1 and the December 28, 2015
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103488, which reversed and set aside the
July 21, 2014 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City (RTC), in a case involving
the issue on the applicable redemption period. (WHITE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner vs.GRANDWOOD FURNITURE & WOODWORK, INC., Respondent , G.R. No. 222407,
November 23, 2016)

Case 27

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR MIGUEL LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE,

PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 227926, March 10, 2020- In
asserting non-culpability, the petitioner attacks the validity of DECS-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 1-A,
alleging that it constitutes an invalid exercise of the administrative rule-making power of the
concerned agencies and violates the principle of local autonomy granted to LGUs. Under Section 4,
Article X of the Constitution. (PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR MIGUEL
LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 227926,
March 10, 2020)

Case 28

FRANCISCO C. EIZMENDI, JR., JOSE S. TAYAG, JR., JOAQUIN L. SAN AGUSTIN, EDUARDO V.
FRANCISCO, EDMIDIO V. RAMOS, JR., ALBERT G. BLANCAFLOR, REY NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG,
MANUEL H. ACOSTA, JR., AND VALLE VERDE COUNTRY CLUB, INC., PETITIONERS, V. TEODORICO P.
FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 215280, November 27, 2019- Section 2, Rule 6 of the Interim
Rules on Intra-Corporate Controversies defines an election contest as "any controversy or dispute
involving title or claim to any elective office in a stock or non-stock corporation, the validation of
proxies, the manner and validity of elections, and the qualifications of candidates, including the
proclamation of winners, to the office of director, trustee or other officer directly elected by the
stockholders in a close corporation or by members of a non-stock corporation where the article of
incorporation or by-laws so provide."( FRANCISCO C. EIZMENDI, JR., JOSE S. TAYAG, JR., JOAQUIN L.
SAN AGUSTIN, EDUARDO V. FRANCISCO, EDMIDIO V. RAMOS, JR., ALBERT G. BLANCAFLOR, REY
NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG, MANUEL H. ACOSTA, JR., AND VALLE VERDE COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
PETITIONERS, V. TEODORICO P. FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 215280, November 27, 2019)
Case 29

Cipriano Enriquez, Raymundo Enriquez, Concepcion Enriquez, assisted by her husband Matias
Quitanes, Tomas Enriquez, Luis Diaz, Cesar Diaz, Manuel Diaz, Domingo Enriquez, Elpidio Enriquez,
Filipina Enriquez, Casimira Dizon, Saturnino Dizon, Jose Ramos, Amado Mislang, Antonio Quitaneg,
Villamor Quitaneg, Jimmy Clavo, Oscar Laborce, Sevilla Pizarro, Angelita Pizzaro, Isidro Rico, Pio
Famisan, Pantaleon Abille, Beinvenido Corum, Martina Hisole, Erna D. Enriquez, assisted by her
husband Ritchie Flauta, and Ignacio Enriquez, Jr., Petitioners,vs. MAXIMO ENRIQUEZ (now
deceased), substituted by CARMEN AGANA, IGMIDIO ENRIQUEZ, CONCEPCION ENRIQUEZ, CIPRIANO
ENRIQUEZ, DIONISIONENRIQUEZ, MAXIMO ENRIQUEZ, CLEOFE ENRIQUEZ, TOMAS ENRIQUEZ,
RAYMUNDO ENRIQUEZ and NICOLAS ENRIQUEZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 139303 August 25, 2005- the
issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure of the petitioners to
pay appellate court docket fee. In dismissing petitioners’ appeal, the Court of Appeals cited Section
1(c), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides: "Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of
appeal. – An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee. (Cipriano Enriquez, Raymundo Enriquez, Concepcion Enriquez, assisted by her husband
Matias Quitanes, Tomas Enriquez, Luis Diaz, Cesar Diaz, Manuel Diaz, Domingo Enriquez, Elpidio
Enriquez, Filipina Enriquez, Casimira Dizon, Saturnino Dizon, Jose Ramos, Amado Mislang, Antonio
Quitaneg, Villamor Quitaneg, Jimmy Clavo, Oscar Laborce, Sevilla Pizarro, Angelita Pizzaro, Isidro
Rico, Pio Famisan, Pantaleon Abille, Beinvenido Corum, Martina Hisole, Erna D. Enriquez, assisted by
her husband Ritchie Flauta, and Ignacio Enriquez, Jr., Petitioners,vs. MAXIMO ENRIQUEZ (now
deceased), substituted by CARMEN AGANA, IGMIDIO ENRIQUEZ, CONCEPCION ENRIQUEZ, CIPRIANO
ENRIQUEZ, DIONISIONENRIQUEZ, MAXIMO ENRIQUEZ, CLEOFE ENRIQUEZ, TOMAS ENRIQUEZ,
RAYMUNDO ENRIQUEZ and NICOLAS ENRIQUEZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 139303 August 25, 2005)

Case 30

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, vs.JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents. G.R. No. 202242,July 17, 2012- the petition is
GRANTED. The current numerical composition of the Judicial and Bar Council IS declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby enjoined to reconstitute itself so that
only one ( 1) member of Congress will sit as a representative in its proceedings, in accordance with
Section 8( 1 ), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. This disposition is immediately executory.
(FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, vs.JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents. G.R. No. 202242,July 17, 2012)

Case 31

CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and

TECLA PADUA, respondents. G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987- The only real question in this case,
therefore, is the correct interpretation and application of the pertinent law as invoked, interestingly
enough, by both the petitioners and the private respondents. This is Article 1088 of the Civil Code.
(CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
TECLA PADUA, respondents. G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987)

Case 32

ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, Petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. No.

190779, March 26, 2010- Resolution No. 8714 contains the implementing rules and regulations of
Sec. 32 (Who May Bear Firearms) and Section 33 (Security Personnel and Bodyguards) of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7166, entitled An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for
Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other Purposes.( ATTY. REYNANTE
B. ORCEO, Petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. No. 190779, March 26,
2010)

Case 33

PNOC ALTERNATIVE FUELS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 224936, September 04, 2019- According to Section 4, Rule 67 of
the Rules of Court, if the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to
expropriate the property are overruled, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that
the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or
purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of
the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. In the
assailed Order of Expropriation, the RTC denied the objections and defenses raised by petitioner
PAFC and Orica for lack of merit. The RTC held that respondent NGCP "has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be expropriated for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon
payment of just compensation."27 The RTC also ordered the parties to submit the names of three
Commissioners to be appointed by the RTC, and set the case for reception of evidence with respect
to payment of just compensation. (PNOC ALTERNATIVE FUELS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 224936, September 04,
2019)

Case 34

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILEE CASABUENA Y FRANCISCO AND KEVIN

FORMARAN Y GILERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020- this ruling does not
apply when the robber is killed by a third person, a responding police officer. This is the clear and
logical import of the language of Article 294 of the RPC, which reads: ARTICLE 294. Robbery with
Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use
of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILEE CASABUENA Y FRANCISCO AND KEVIN FORMARAN Y GILERA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020)

Case 35

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILEE CASABUENA Y FRANCISCO AND KEVIN

FORMARAN Y GILERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. No. 246580, June 23, 2020- To sustain a
conviction for robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the
prosecution must prove the following elements:1. The taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;2. The property taken belongs to another; 3. The taking is
with the intent to gain or animo lucrandi; and 4. By reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is
committed. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILEE CASABUENA Y
FRANCISCO AND KEVIN FORMARAN Y GILERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. G.R. No. 246580, June 23,
2020)

Case 36

ESTER B. VELASQUEZ, JUAN V. BOLO, ELADIO C. DIOKO, AND GLEN M. PESOLE, AS FORMER
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE CEBU NORMAL UNIVERSITY, PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 243503, September 15, 2020- In this regard,
petitioners' insistence on the prospective application of the Court's declaration in the Benguet State
University case is hinged on the fact that such case was promulgated only in 2007, after the approval
of the Board Resolutions granting the quarterly rice subsidy and the Kalampusan Award in 2003 and
2004.The authority of the BOR of CNU to disburse funds is found in Section 4(d) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8292 (ESTER B. VELASQUEZ, JUAN V. BOLO, ELADIO C. DIOKO, AND GLEN M. PESOLE, AS
FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE CEBU NORMAL UNIVERSITY, PETITIONERS,
VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 243503, September 15, 2020-)

Case 37

FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.COLON HERITAGE REALTY

CORPORATION, operator of Oriente Group Theaters, represented by ISIDORO A. CANIZARES,
Respondent.

x-----------------------x

FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.CITY OF CEBU and SM PRIME

HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents. G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015- The Constitution is the basic law to
which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge
of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield
obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.
(FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.COLON HERITAGE REALTY
CORPORATION, operator of Oriente Group Theaters, represented by ISIDORO A. CANIZARES,
Respondent.

x-----------------------x

FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.CITY OF CEBU and SM PRIME

HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents. G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015)

Case 38

PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION (PSC), Petitioner vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT,
PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, and SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION,
Respondents G.R. No. 196110, February 6, 2017- Upon review of the records, agreed with the
appellate court's stance that public respondent SOLE committed no grave abuse of discretion in its
resolution that while there was an authorized cause for the closure of PSC's operations and the
subsequent termination of its employees, it however failed to comply with the procedural
requirements set forth under Article 283 of the Labor Code, that is, by serving notices of termination
upon the employees and the DOLE at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. The
provision of Article 283 of the Labor Code is instructive on the notice requirement. (PNCC SKYWAY
CORPORATION (PSC), Petitioner vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, PNCC SKYWAY
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, and SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION, Respondents G.R. No.
196110, February 6, 2017)

Case 39

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS (I/AME), Petitioner vs. LITTON AND
COMPANY, INC., Respondent, G.R. No. 191525, December 13, 2017- There was no violation of due
process against I/AME. Petitioner avers that its right to due process was violated when it was
dragged into the case and its real property made an object of a writ of execution in a judgment
against Santos. It argues that since it was not impleaded in the main case, the court a quo never
acquired jurisdiction over it. Indeed, compliance with the recognized modes of acquisition of
jurisdiction cannot be dispensed with even in piercing the veil of corporation. In a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law shall be entertained. This Court considers the
determination of the existence of any of the circumstances that would warrant the piercing of the
veil of corporate fiction as a question of fact which ordinarily cannot be the subject of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. We will only take cognizance of factual issues if the findings of
the lower court are not supported by the evidence on record or are based on a misapprehension of
facts. Once the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court, such findings are deemed final and
conclusive and thus, may not be reviewed on appeal, unless the judgment of the CA depends on a
misapprehension of facts, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Such
exception however, is not applicable in this case. (INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT
AND ECONOMICS (I/AME), Petitioner vs. LITTON AND COMPANY, INC., Respondent, G.R. No. 191525,
December 13, 2017)

Case 40

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner vs.SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION,

Respondent, G.R. No. 202922, June 19, 2017- Tax exemptions under PD No. 972.Contrary to the CIR's
contention, SMC's claim for VAT exemption is anchored not on the paragraph deleted by RA No.
9337 from the list of VAT exempt transactions under Section 109 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,
but on the tax incentives granted to operators of COCs executed pursuant to PD No. 972.The COC
implements the declared state policy in PD No. 972 to "accelerate the exploration, development,
exploitation, production and utilization of the country's coal resources" through the "participation of
the private sector with sufficient capital, technical and managerial resources,"39 who shall
undertake to perform all coal operations and provide all necessary services, technology and
financing in connection therewith. 40 In furtherance of this policy, Section 16 of PD No. 972 provides
various incentives to COC operators, including tax exemptions. (COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner vs.SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION, Respondent, G.R. No. 202922, June 19,
2017)

Case 41

TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA, Petitioners, vs.FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A.

CARBONILLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 207156, January 17, 2017- The Court has time and again held
that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of the law. "The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the
rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost." Article 223 of the Labor Code, which sets forth the
rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiter's monetary award. (TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM
ZEÑAROSA, Petitioners, vs.FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A. CARBONILLA, Respondents. G.R. No.
207156, January 17, 2017)

Case 42

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitionervs.HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, in his capacity

as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE
CORPORATION, DABAY ABAD, HATAB ABAD, OMAR ABAS, HANAPI ABDULLAH, ROJEA AB ABDULLAH,
ABDULLAH ABEDIN, ALEX ABEDIN, et al., represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, MR. MANUEL L. TE,
Respondents, G.R. No. 195450, February 1, 2017- it may file an action for damages based on Article
19 of the New Civil Code against respondents for unlawfully taking the certificates of title, which
served as security for their loan. In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
(DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitionervs.HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, in his capacity
as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE
CORPORATION, DABAY ABAD, HATAB ABAD, OMAR ABAS, HANAPI ABDULLAH, ROJEA AB ABDULLAH,
ABDULLAH ABEDIN, ALEX ABEDIN, et al., represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, MR. MANUEL L. TE,
Respondents, G.R. No. 195450, February 1, 2017)

Case 43

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), Petitioner,vs.CITY OF LAPU-LAPU

and ELENA T. PACALDO, Respondents. G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015- Under Section 2(10) and (13)
of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which governs the legal relation and
status of government units, agencies and offices within the entire government machinery, MIAA is a
government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Under Section
133(o) of the Local Government Code, MIAA as a government instrumentality is not a taxable person
because it is not subject to "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind" by local governments. The only
exception is when MIAA leases its real property to a "taxable person" as provided in Section 234(a)
of the Local Government Code, in which case the specific real property leased becomes subject to
real estate tax. Thus, only portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings leased to taxable persons like
private parties are subject to real estate tax by the City of Parañaque. (MACTAN-CEBU
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), Petitioner,vs.CITY OF LAPU-LAPU and ELENA T.
PACALDO, Respondents. G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015)

Case 44

GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. and FRUTO SAYSON, JR., Petitioners,vs.NISSIN-UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 181517, July 6, 2015- It argues that under Section 11, Rule 14
of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides the rule on service of summons upon a juridical entity, in
cases where the defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC, summons may be served only
through its officers. (GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. and FRUTO SAYSON, JR., Petitioners,vs.NISSIN-
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 181517, July 6, 2015)

Case 45

SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.JAYNE YU, Respondent. G.R. No.

207133, March 9,2015- This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision. (SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.JAYNE YU, Respondent. G.R. No. 207133, March 9,2015)

Case 46

MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS and ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, vs.FORTUNATO
CAJUCOM, Respondent. G.R. No. 171095, June 22, 2015- Clearly, nothing in the writ alters or varies
the judgment, the dispositive portion of which it faithfully reproduces. Equally, nothing in it
necessarily limits the judgment obligations to an order to demolish the subject houses. Purely, the
writ merely commands compliance by petitioners with the following legal provisions: First, the law
itself, or the Local Government Code, Book III, Title II, Chapter III, Article I, Section 444(b) (3).
(MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS and ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, vs.FORTUNATO
CAJUCOM, Respondent. G.R. No. 171095, June 22, 2015)

Case 47
DR. REY B. AQUINO, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 211789-90,
March 17, 2015- As a Rule 64 petition (viewed from a Rule 65 approach), the Court’s standard of
review is "grave abuse of discretion" or such "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; the abuse of discretion
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." A lower court or tribunal’s
violation of the Constitution, law or existing jurisprudence or their use of wrong or irrelevant
considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint their action with grave abuse of discretion.
( DR. REY B. AQUINO, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 211789-90,
March 17, 2015)

Case 48

DANILO A. DUNCANO, Petitioner, vs.HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd DIVISION), and HON. OFFICE OF
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents. G.R. No. 191894, July 15, 2015- The creation of the
Sandiganbayan was mandated by Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution. By virtue of the
powers vested in him by the Constitution and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September
21, 1972, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued P.D. No. 1486. The decree was later amended
by P.D. No. 1606,Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,P.D. No. 1860, and P.D. No. 1861.With the
advent of the 1987 Constitution, the special court was retained as provided for in Section 4, Article
XI thereof. Aside from Executive Order Nos. 14 and 14-a, and R.A. 7080, which expanded the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606 was further modified by R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No.
8249, and just this year, R.A. No. 10660. (DANILO A. DUNCANO, Petitioner, vs.HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd DIVISION), and HON. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
G.R. No. 191894, July 15, 2015)

Case 49

MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent. G.R. No.

185812,January 13, 2015- The Resident Auditor issued notices of disallowance on the allowances
and incentives received by the officers and employees of Maritime Industry Authority. The Legal and
Adjudication Office of the Commission on Audit upheld the notices of disallowance issued.The
Commission on Audit affirmed the notices of disallowance. Thus, this petition for certiorari was filed
by Maritime Industry Authority. Maritime Industry Authority is an attached agency of the
Department of Transportation and Communication and created under Presidential Decree No. 474.
( MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent. G.R. No.
185812,January 13, 2015)
Case 50

THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), Petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAGUIRAN, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondents. G.R. No. 199027,
June 9, 2014- The OSG’s powers and functions are defined in the Administrative Code of 1987
(Administrative Code), particularly in Section 35, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof. On the matter
of counsels’ representation for the government, the Administrative Code is not the only law that
delves on the issue.1âwphi1 Specifically for local government units, the LGC limits the lawyers who
are authorized to represent them in court actions, as the law defines the mandate of a local
government unit’s legal officer. Book III, Title V, Article XI, Section 481 of the LGC (THE OFFICE OF
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), Petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAGUIRAN, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondents. G.R. No. 199027,
June 9, 2014)