8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v.

er, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2018 > July 2018 Decisions > G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 -
ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND
DANGEROUS DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES AND MGEN. JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, Respondents.:
Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
HUMAN RIGHTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES
AND MGEN. JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS,
Respondents.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018

ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC

ORDER AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES AND
MGEN. JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS,
Respondents.

DECISION

GESMUNDO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking to annul, set aside and enjoin the implementation of
Senate P.S. Reso1ution (SR) No. 5041 and the October 18, 2017 Order2 (Contempt Order) of the Senate
Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs citing Arvin Balag (petitioner) in contempt.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. The Antecedents

On September 17, 2017, Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III (Horacio III),3 a first year law student of the
University of Sto. Tomas (UST), died allegedly due to hazing conducted by the Aegis Juris Fraternity (AJ
Fraternity) of the same university.

On September 19, 2017, SR No. 504,4 was filed by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri (Senator Zubiri)5
condemning the death of Horacio III and directing the appropriate Senate Committee to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, to hold those responsible accountable.

On September 20, 2017, SR No. 510, entitled: "A Resolution Directing the Appropriate Senate
Committees to Conduct An Inquiry, In Aid of Legislation, into the Recent Death of Horacio Tomas Castillo
III Allegedly Due to Hazing-Related Activities" was filed by Senator Paolo Benigno Aquino IV.6

On the same day, the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs chaired by Senator
Panfilo Lacson (Senator Lacson) together with the Committees on Justice and Human Rights and
Constitutional Amendment and Revision of Codes, invited petitioner and several other persons to the
Joint Public Hearing on September 25, 2017 to discuss and deliberate the following: Senate Bill Nos. 27,7
199,8 223,9 1161,10 1591,11 and SR No. 504.

Petitioner, however, did not attend the hearing scheduled on September 25, 2017. Nevertheless, John
Paul Solano, a member of AJ Fraternity, Atty. Nilo T. Divina, Dean of UST Institute of Civil Law and

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 1/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
July-2018 Jurisprudence           
     
A.M. No. P-16-3595 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-
4446-P), June 26, 2018 - HON. DENNIS PATRICK Z.
PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Complainant, v.
ALMIRA L. ROXAS, CLERK III, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-18-3842 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3965-P), June 11, 2018 - CONSTANCIA BENONG-
LINDE, Complainant, v. FELADELFA L. LOMANTAS,
SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGBILARAN
CITY, BOHOL, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018 - OLIVER FABUGAIS,
Complainant, v. ATTY. BERARDO C. FAUNDO JR.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 225219, June 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICO DE ASIS Y
BALQUIN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 218244, June 13, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDIN CUESTA
CADAMPOG, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 234499, June 06, 2018 - RUDY L. RACPAN,
Petitioner, v. SHARON BARROGA-HAIGH, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218253, June 20, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVELYN
SEGUIENTE Y RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 223141, June 06, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY SUAREZ Y
CABUSO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LULU BATTUNG Y
NARMAR, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 212413, June 06, 2018 - MA. ROSARIO
AGARRADO, RUTH LIBRADA AGARRADO AND ROY
AGARRADO, FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THEIR SIBLINGS AND CO-OWNERS ROBERTO
AGARRADO, REUEL ANDRES AGARRADO, HEIRS OF
THE LATE RODRIGO AGARRADO, JR., REX AGARRADO
AND JUDY AGARRADO, Petitioners, v. CRISTITA
LIBRANDO-AGARRADO AND ANA LOU AGARRADO-
KING, Respondents.
A.M. No. P-16-3617, June 06, 2018 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
GILBERT T. INMENZO, CLERK OF COURT III,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52,
CALOOCAN CITY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 224115, June 20, 2018 - MAGSAYSAY
MARITIME CORP./AIR-SEA HOLIDAY GMBH STABLE
ORGANIZATION ITALIA/ MARLON R. ROÑO,
Petitioners, v. ELMER V. ENANOR, Respondent.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586
Arthur Capili, UST Faculty Secretary, attended the hearing and were questioned by the senate committee
members.
On the same date, Spouses Carmina T. Castillo and Horacio M. Castillo, Jr. (Spouses Castillo), parents of
Horacio III, filed a Criminal Complaint12 for Murder and violation of Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8049,13 before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against several members of the AJ Fraternity, including
petitioner. On October 9, 2017, Spouses Castillo filed a Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit14 before the
DOJ citing the relevant transcripts of stenographic notes during the September 25, 2017 Senate Hearing.
On October 11, 2017, Senator Lacson as Chairman of Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous
Drugs, and as approved by Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum15
addressed to petitioner directing him to appear before the committee and to testify as to the subject
matter under inquiry.16 Another Subpoena Ad Testificandum17 was issued on October 17, 2017, which
was received by petitioner on the same day, requiring him to attend the legislative hearing on October
18, 2017.
On said date, petitioner attended the senate hearing. In the course of the proceedings, at around 11:29
in the morning, Senator Grace Poe (Senator Poe) asked petitioner if he was the president of AJ Fraternity
but he refused to answer the question and invoked his right against self-incrimination. Senator Poe
repeated the question but he still refused to answer. Senator Lacson then reminded him to answer the
question because it was a very simple question, otherwise, he could be cited in contempt. Senator Poe
retorted that petitioner might still be clinging to the supposed "Code of Silence" in his alleged text
messages to his fraternity. She manifested that petitioner's signature appeared on the application for
recognition of the AJ Fraternity and on the organizational sheet, indicating that he was the president.
Petitioner, again, invoked his right against self-incrimination. Senator Poe then moved to cite him in
contempt, which was seconded by Senators Joel Villanueva (Senator Villanueva) and Zubiri. Senator
Lacson ruled that the motion was properly seconded, hence, the Senate Sergeant-at-arms was ordered
to place petitioner in detention after the committee hearing. Allegedly, Senator Lacson threatened to
order the detention of petitioner in Pasay City Jail under the custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-arms and
told him not to be evasive because he would be merely affirming school records.
A few minutes later, at around 12:09 in the afternoon, Senators Lacson and Poe gave petitioner another
chance to purge himself of the contempt charge. Again, he was asked the same question twice and each
time he refused to answer.18
Thereafter, around 1:19 in the afternoon, Senator Villanueva inquired from petitioner whether he knew
whose decision it was to bring Horacio III to the Chinese General Hospital instead of the UST Hospital.
Petitioner apologized for his earlier statement and moved for the lifting of his contempt. He admitted that
he was a member of the AJ Fraternity but he was not aware as to who its president was because, at that
time, he was enrolled in another school.
Senator Villanueva repeated his question to petitioner but the latter, again, invoked his right against self-
incrimination. Petitioner reiterated his plea that the contempt order be lifted because he had already
answered the question regarding his membership in the AJ Fraternity. Senator Villanueva replied that
petitioner's contempt would remain. Senator Lacson added that he had numerous opportunities to
answer the questions of the committee but he refused to do so. Thus, petitioner was placed under the
custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-arms. The Contempt Order reads:
RE: PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SEN. JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI ON THE DEATH OF HORATIO
"ATIO" CASTILLO III DUE TO HAZING DELIVERED ON 20 SEPTEMBER 2017;
PS RES. NO. 504: RESOLUTION CONDEMNING IN THE STRONGEST SENSE THE DEATH OF
FRESHMAN LAW STUDENT HORATIO TOMAS CASTILLO III AND DIRECTING THE
APPROPRIATE SENATE COMMITTEES TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS SENSELESS ACT
(SEN. ZUBIRI); AND
SENATE BILLS NOS. 27, 199, 223, 1161, AND 1591.
xxx
For testifying falsely and evasively before the Committee on [October 18, 2017] and
thereby delaying, impeding and obstructing the inquiry into the death of Horacio "Atio"
Castillo III. Thereupon the motion of Senator Grace Poe and seconded by Senator Joel
Villanueva and Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri, the Committee hereby cites MR. ARVIN BALAG
in contempt and ordered arrested and detained at the Office of the Sergeant at-Arms until
such time that he gives his true testimony, or otherwise purges himself of that contempt.
The Sergeant-at-Arms is hereby directed to carry out and implement this Order and make
a return hereof within twenty-four (24) hours from its enforcement.
SO ORDERED.19
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WHETHER RESPONDENT SENATE COMMITTEES ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN CONDUCTING THE LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY AND CITING
PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT.
Petitioner chiefly argues that the legislative inquiry conducted by respondent committees was not in aid
of legislation; rather, it was in aid of prosecution. He posits that the purpose of SR No. 504 was to hold
accountable those responsible for the senseless act of killing Horacio III, and not to aid legislation.
Petitioner underscores that the transcripts during the September 25, 2017 committee hearing were used
in the criminal complaint filed against him, which bolsters that the said hearings were in aid of
prosecution. He insists that the senate hearings would violate his right to due process and would pre-
empt the findings of the DOJ with respect to the criminal complaint filed against him.
Petitioner also asserts that he properly invoked his right against self incrimination as the questions
propounded by Senator Poe regarding the officers, particularly the presidency of the AJ Fraternity, were
incriminating because the answer thereto involves an element of the crime of hazing. Despite the
questions being incriminating, he, nonetheless, answered them by admitting that he was a member of
the AJ Fraternity but he did not know of its current president because he transferred to another school.
He adds that his right to equal protection of laws was violated because the other resource persons who
refused to answer the questions of the Senate committees were not cited in contempt.
Finally, petitioner prays for the issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction because the Senate
illegally enforced and executed SR No. 504 and the Contempt Order, which caused him grave and
irreparable injury as he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law. He contends that
respondents did not exercise their power of contempt judiciously and with restraint.
In their Comment,20 respondents, through the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel, countered that the
purpose of the hearing was to re-examine R.A. No. 8049; that several documents showed that the
legislative hearing referred to Senate Bill Nos. 27, 199, 223, 1161, and 1591; that the statement of the
2/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
G.R. No. 222645, June 27, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL DELIMA,
ALLAN DELIMA, JOHN DOE, PAUL DOE AND PETER
DOE ACCUSED, MICHAEL DELIMA AND ALLAN DELIMA,
Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 225125, June 06, 2018 - MARLON L.
ARCILLA, Petitioner, v. ZULISIBS, INC., PIANDRE
SALON, AND ROSALINDA FRANCISCO, Respondents.
A.M. No. 18-04-79-RTC, June 20, 2018 - RE:
DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. FLORANTE B.
SUMANGIL, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PASAY CITY, BRANCH 119.
G.R. No. 200899, June 20, 2018 - HEIRS OF PAZ
MACALALAD, NAMELY: MARIETA MACALALAD, ARLENE
MACALALAD-ADAY, JIMMY MACALALAD, MA.
CRISTINA MACALALAD, NENITA MACALALAD-PAPA,
AND DANNY MACALALAD, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK
OF POLA, INC. AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondents.
A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018 - LEAH B. TADAY,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR.,
Respondent.
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018 - RE: SHOW
CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018
IN G.R. NO. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.
CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO)
A.C. No. 12137, July 09, 2018 - PHENINAH* D.F.
WASHINGTON, Complainant, v. ATTY. SAMUEL D.
DICEN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221439, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RASHID
BINASING Y DISALUNGAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 212034, July 02, 2018 - COLEGIO MEDICO-
FARMACEUTICO DE FILIPINAS, INC., Petitioner, v.
LILY LIM AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HER,
Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2484, July 23, 2018 - THE OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
HON. SELMA P. ALARAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
62, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 223553, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO
BAGUION A.K.A. "ROGEL," Defendant-Appellant.
G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO OLARBE
Y BALIHANGO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 179148, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEXIS DINDO
SAN JOSE Y SUICO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 178591, July 30, 2018 - SM SYSTEMS
CORPORATION (FORMERLY SPRINGSUN
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION), Petitioner,
v. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO
MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ AND HEIRS OF
NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCIANO
UBUNGEN Y PULIDO, Accused-Appellant.
A.M. No. RTJ-13-2350 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-
3507-RTJ), July 23, 2018 - SPS. ALBERTO AND LILIAN
PACHO, Complainants, v. JUDGE AGAPITO S. LU,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 88, CAVITE CITY,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 222297, July 09, 2018 - FORTUNATO
ANZURES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERLINDA
VENTANILLA AND ARTURO VENTANILLA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 222563, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO ROJAS
Y VILLABLANCA, JR., Accused-Appellants.
G.R. Nos. 235937-40, July 23, 2018 - JOHANNE
EDWARD B. LABAY, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
THIRD DIVISION, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 218721, July 10, 2018 - BINGA
HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED
BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, ERWIN T. TAN,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206800, July 02, 2018 - STRADCOM
CORPORATION AND JOSE A. CHUA, Petitioners, v.
JOYCE ANNABELLE L. ORPILLA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 227502, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY GAJILA Y
SALAZAR, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 199802, July 03, 2018 - CONGRESSMAN
HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS; MAYOR EFREN B.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586
senators during the hearing demonstrated that the legislative inquiry was conducted in aid of legislation;
and that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (Senate Rules) were duly
published.
Respondents emphasized that petitioner was first asked on October 18, 2017, around 11:29 in the
morning, whether he was the president of the AJ Fraternity, based on school records, and he denied it;
he was asked again at 12:09 in the afternoon whether he was the president of the AJ Fraternity but he
still refused to answer the question; at 1:19 in the afternoon, he admitted that he was a member of the
fraternity but still he refused to say whether or not he was the president, only saying that he is already
studying in another school. On November 6, 2017, at the resumption of the hearing, petitioner was still
unresponsive. According to respondents, these acts were contemptuous and were valid reasons to cite
petitioner in contempt.
Respondents highlighted that there were numerous documents showing that petitioner was the president
of the AJ Fraternity but he continually refused to answer. They added that petitioner cannot purge
himself of contempt by continually lying.
Further, respondents underscored that the question propounded to petitioner was not incriminating
because an admission that he was an officer of the AJ Fraternity would not automatically make him liable
under R.A. No. 8049. They emphasized that the Senate respected petitioner's right to due process
because the hearing was conducted in aid of legislation; that the senators explained why he would be
cited in contempt; that he was given several chances to properly purge himself from contempt; and that
no incriminating question was asked. Respondents concluded that there was no violation of petitioner's
right to equal protection of laws because the other resource persons did not invoke their right against
self-incrimination when asked if they were the officers of the AJ Fraternity.
Respondents likewise explained that the legislative inquiry in aid of legislation may still continue in spite
of any pending criminal or administrative cases or investigation. They countered that the actions for
certiorari and prohibition were not proper because there were existing remedies that petitioner could
have availed of, particularly: a motion to reverse the contempt charge filed within 7 days under Section
18 of the Senate Rules; and a petition for habeas corpus as petitioner ultimately would seek for his
release from detention.
Finally, respondents asserted that the recourse for the issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary
injunction was not proper because petitioner was actually asking to be freed from detention, and this was
contemplated under a status quo ante order. For invoking the wrong remedy, respondents concluded that
a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued.
In its Resolution21 dated December 12, 2017, the Court ordered in the interim the immediate release of
petitioner pending resolution of the instant petition.
In its Manifestation22 dated February 20, 2018, respondents stated that on January 23, 2018, the
Committees on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs and Justice and Human Rights jointly submitted
Committee Report Nos. 232 and 233 recommending that Senate Bill No. 1662 be approved in
substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 27, 199, 223, 1161, 1591, and 1609. The said committee reports were
approved by the majority of their members.23 On February 12, 2018, the Senate passed on 3rd reading
Senate Bill No. 1662, entitled: An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8049 to Strengthen the Law on Hazing
and Regulate Other Forms of Initiation Rites of Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Organizations,
Providing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes, with its short title as "Anti-Hazing Act of 2018."
The Court's Ruling
The petition is moot and academic.
The existence of an actual case or controversy is a necessary condition precedent to the court's exercise
of its power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or
an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution.
In the negative, a justiciable controversy must neither be conjectural nor moot and academic. There
must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse
legal interests. The reason is that the issue ceases to be justiciable when a controversy becomes moot
and academic; otherwise, the court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the law
would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.24
In this case, the Court finds that there is no more justiciable controversy. Petitioner essentially alleges
that respondents unlawfully exercised their power of contempt and that his detention was invalid. As
discussed earlier, in its resolution dated December 12, 2017, the Court ordered in the interim the
immediate release of petitioner pending resolution of the instant petition. Thus, petitioner was no longer
detained under the Senate's authority.
Then, on January 23, 2018, the Committees on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs and Justice and
Human Rights jointly adopted Committee Report Nos. 232 and 233 and submitted the same to the
Senate. Committee Report No. 232 referred to the findings of respondent committees in the inquiry
conducted in aid of legislation; while Committee Report No. 233 referred to the recommendation that
Senate Bill No. 1662 be approved in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 27, 199, 223, 1161, 1591, and 1609.
On February 12, 2018, the Senate passed on yd reading Senate Bill No. 1662.
Evidently, respondent committees have terminated their legislative inquiry upon the approval of
Committee Report Nos. 232 and 233 by the majority of its members. The Senate even went further by
approving on its 3rd reading the proposed bill, Senate Bill No. 1662, the result of the inquiry in aid of
legislation. As the legislative inquiry ends, the basis for the detention of petitioner likewise ends.
Accordingly, there is no more justiciable controversy regarding respondents' exercise of their
constitutional power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, their power of contempt, and the validity of
petitioner's detention. Indeed, the petition has become moot and academic.
Nevertheless, there were occasions in the past when the Court passed upon issues although supervening
events had rendered those petitions moot and academic. After all, the moot and academic principle is not
a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a case. Courts will decide
cases, otherwise moot and academic.25 This Court may assume jurisdiction over a case that has been
rendered moot and academic by supervening events when any of the following instances are present:
(1)
Grave constitutional violations;
(2)
Exceptional character of the case;
(3)
Paramount public interest;
(4)
The case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or
(5)
The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.26
In David v. Arroyo,27 several petitions assailed the constitutionality of the declaration of a state of
national emergency by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. During the pendency of the suits, the
3/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
DIONA; MAYOR ANTONINO A. AURELIO; KAGAWAD
MARIO ILAGAN; BARANGAY CHAIR PERLITO MANALO;
BARANGAY CHAIR MEDEL MEDRANO; BARANGAY
KAGAWAD CRIS RAMOS; BARANGAY KAGAWAD ELISA
D. BALBAGO, AND ATTY. JOSE MALVAR VILLEGAS,
Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N.
OCHOA, JR.; SECRETARY CESAR PURISIMA,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; SECRETARY FLORENCIO
H. ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT; COMMISSIONER KIM JACINTO-
HENARES, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND
NATIONAL TREASURER ROBERTO TAN, BUREAU OF
THE TREASURY, Respondents.; G.R. No. 208488, July
3, 2018 - HONORABLE ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., IN
HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 2ND DISTRICT OF THE
PROVINCE OF BATAAN, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE
[PAQUITO] N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY;
HONORABLE CESAR V. PURISIMA, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; HONORABLE FLORENCIO
H. ABAD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT; HONORABLE KIM S. JACINTO-
HENARES, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE; AND HONORABLE ROZZANO RUFINO B.
BIAZON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 225604, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIONESIO ROY Y
PERALTA, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 213446, July 03, 2018 - CONFEDERATION
FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE); JUDICIARY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
(JUDEA-PHILS); SANDIGANBAYAN EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (SEA); SANDIGAN NG MGA
EMPLEYADONG NAGKAKAISA SA ADHIKAIN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG ORGANISASYON (S.E.N.A.D.O.);
ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES
(ACAE); DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); SOCIAL
WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT (SWEAP-DSWD); DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION (DTI-EU);
KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAWANI
NG METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (KKK-
MMDA); WATER SYSTEM EMPLOYEES RESPONSE
(WATER); CONSOLIDATED UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF
THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES (CUE-NHA);
AND KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI
NG QUEZON CITY (KASAMA KA-QC), Petitioners, v.
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
AND THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Respondents.; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE (NAFEDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ROMAN M. SANCHEZ,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DAEA-
OSEC), REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING PRESIDENT
ROWENA GENETE, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AND
FISHERIES COUNCIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(NAFCEA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SOLIDAD B. BERNARDO, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
EMPLOYEES UNION (COMELEC EU), REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT MARK CHRISTOPHER D. RAMIREZ,
MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION CENTRAL OFFICE (MGBEA CO),
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MAYBELLYN A.
ZEPEDA, LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (LDCEA), REPRESENTED
BY ITS PRESIDENT JOVITA M. GONZALES,
ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF
PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(ACE OF PFDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
ROSARIO DEBLOIS, Intervenors.; G.R. No. 213658,
July 3, 2018 - JUDGE ARMANDO A. YANGA, IN HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT OF THE RTC JUDGES ASSOCIATION OF
MANILA, AND MA. CRISTINA CARMELA I. JAPZON, IN
HER PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF
COURT EMPLOYEES-MANILA CHAPTER, Petitioners, v.
HON. COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, IN
HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; THE MEMBERS
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
JUDGES IN ILOILO CITY, Intervenors.
G.R. No. 197908, July 04, 2018 - VISITACION R.
REBULTAN, CECILOU R. BAYONA, CECILIO REBULTAN,
JR., AND VILNA R. LABRADOR, Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES EDMUNDO DAGANTA AND MARVELYN P.
DAGANTA, AND WILLIE VILORIA, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10557 (Formerly CBD Case No. 07-1962),
July 10, 2018 - JERRY M. PALENCIA, Complainant, v.
ATTY. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, ATTY. GERARD M.
LINSANGAN, AND ATTY. GLENDA M. LINSANGAN-
BINOYA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 221813, July 23, 2018 - MARICALUM
MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELY G.
FLORENTINO, GLENN BUENVIAJE, RUDY J. GOMEZ,
REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS THELMA GOMEZ,
ALEJANDRO H. SITCHON, NENET ARITA, FERNANDO
SIGUAN, DENNIS ABELIDA, NOEL S. ACCOLADOR,
WILFREDO TAGANILE, SR., MARTIR S. AGSOY, SR.,
MELCHOR APUCAY, DOMINGO LAVIDA, JESUS
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586
said declaration was lifted. However, the Court still decided the cases on the merits because the issues
involved a grave violation of the Constitution and it affected public interest.
Similarly, in Republic v. Principalia Management and Personnel Consultants, Inc.,28 the controversy
therein was whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had jurisdiction over an injunction complaint filed
against the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) regarding the cancellation of the
respondent's license. The respondent then argued that the case was already moot and academic because
it had continuously renewed its license with the POEA. The Court ruled that although the case was moot
and academic, it could still pass upon the main issue for the guidance of both bar and bench, and
because the said issue was capable of repetition.
Recently, in Regulus Development, Inc. v. Dela Cruz,29 the issue therein was moot and academic due to
the redemption of the subject property by the respondent. However, the Court ruled that it may still
entertain the jurisdictional issue of whether the RTC had equity jurisdiction in ordering the levy of the
respondent's property since it posed a situation capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.
In this case, the petition presents a critical and decisive issue that must be addressed by Court: what is
the duration of the detention for a contempt ordered by the Senate?
This issue must be threshed out as the Senate's exercise of its power of contempt without a definite
period is capable of repetition. Moreover, the indefinite detention of persons cited in contempt impairs
their constitutional right to liberty. Thus, paramount public interest requires the Court to determine such
issue to ensure that the constitutional rights of the persons appearing before a legislative inquiry of the
Senate are protected.
The contempt order issued against petitioner simply stated that he would be arrested and detained until
such time that he gives his true testimony, or otherwise purges himself of the contempt. It does not
provide any definite and concrete period of detention. Neither does the Senate Rules specify a precise
period of detention when a person is cited in contempt.
Thus, a review of the Constitution and relevant laws and jurisprudence must be conducted to determine
whether there is a limitation to the period of detention when the Senate exercises its power of contempt
during inquiries in aid of legislation.
Period of imprisonment for contempt
during inquiries in aid of legislation
The contempt power of the legislature under our Constitution is sourced from the American system.30 A
study of foreign jurisprudence reveals that the Congress' inherent power of contempt must have a
limitation. In the 1821 landmark case of Anderson v. Dunn,31 the Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) held that although the offense committed under the inherent power of contempt by Congress
may be undefinable, it is justly contended that the punishment need not be indefinite. It held that as the
legislative body ceases to exist from the moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution, then it
follows that imprisonment under the contempt power of Congress must terminate with adjournment.
As the US Congress was restricted of incarcerating an erring witnesses beyond their adjournment under
its inherent power of contempt, it enacted a statutory law that would fix the period of imprisonment
under legislative contempt. Section 102 of the Revised Statutes, enacted on January 24, 1857, provided
that the penalty of imprisonment for legislative contempt was a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars nor less than one hundred dollars, and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one (1)
month nor more than twelve (12) months.32 The legislative contempt under the statutes must be
initiated for criminal prosecution and it must heard before the courts in order to convict the contumacious
witness.33
The case of In re Chapman34 involved the constitutionality of the statutory power of contempt of the US
Congress. There, the SCOTUS ruled that the said statute was valid because Congress, by enacting this
law, simply sought to aid each of the Houses in the discharge of its constitutional functions.
Subsequently, in Jurney v. MacCracken,35 the SCOTUS clarified that the power of either Houses of
Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment of the 1857 statute. The said law
was enacted, not because the power of both Houses to punish for a past contempt was doubted, but
because imprisonment limited to the duration of the session was not considered sufficiently drastic as a
punishment for contumacious witnesses. The purpose of the statutory contempt was merely to
supplement the inherent power of contempt by providing for additional punishment. On June 22, 1938,
Section 102 of the Revised Statutes was codified in Section 192, Title II of the U.S. Code.36
In our jurisdiction, the period of the imprisonment for contempt by Congress was first discussed in Lopez
v. De Los Reyes37 (Lopez). In that case, on September 16, 1930, the petitioner therein was cited in
contempt by the House of Representatives for physically attacking their member. However, the assault
occurred during the Second Congress, which adjourned on November 8, 1929. The Court ruled therein
that there was no valid exercise of the inherent power of contempt because the House of Representatives
already adjourned when it declared the petitioner in contempt.
It was held therein that imprisonment for a term not exceeding the session of the deliberative body in
which the contempt occurred was the limit of the authority to deal directly by way of contempt, without
criminal prosecution. Citing foreign jurisprudence, it was thoroughly discussed therein that the power of
contempt was limited to imprisonment during the session of the legislative body affected by the
contempt. The Court also discussed the nature of Congress' inherent power of contempt as follows:
xxx We have said that the power to find in contempt rests fundamentally on the
power of self-preservation. That is true even of contempt of court where the power to
punish is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Where more is
desired, where punishment as such is to be imposed, a criminal prosecution must
be brought, and in all fairness to the culprit, he must have thrown around him all
the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Proceeding a step further, it is evident
that, while the legislative power is perpetual, and while one of the bodies composing the
legislative power disappears only every three years, yet the sessions of that body mark
new beginnings and abrupt endings, which must be respected.38 (emphases supplied)
The Court ruled therein that if the House of Representatives desires to punish the person cited in
contempt beyond its adjournment, then criminal prosecution must be brought. In that instance, the said
person shall be given an opportunity to defend himself before the courts.
Then came Arnault v. Nazareno39 (Arnault), where the Senate's power of contempt was discussed. In
that case, the Court held that the Senate "is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon
the periodical dissolution of Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time
[with] the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be
exerted xxx"40 It was ruled therein that had contempt been exercised by the House of Representatives,
the contempt could be enforced until the final adjournment of the last session of the said Congress.41
Notably, Arnault gave a distinction between the Senate and the House of Representatives' power of
contempt. In the former, since it is a continuing body, there is no time limit in the exercise of its power
to punish for contempt; on the other hand, the House of Representatives, as it is not a continuing body,
4/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
MOSQUEDA, RUELITO A. VILLARMIA, SOFRONIO M.
AYON, EFREN T. GENISE, ALQUIN A. FRANCO, PABLO
L. ALEMAN, PEPITO G. HEPRIANA, ELIAS S.
TRESPECES, EDGAR SOBRINO, Respondents.; G.R. No.
222723, July 23, 2018 - ELY FLORENTINO, GLENN
BUENVIAJE, RUDY J. GOMEZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS
HEIRS THELMA GOMEZ, FERNANDO SIGUAN, DENNIS
ABELIDA, NOEL S. ACCOLADOR,WILFREDO TAGANILE,
SR., MARTIR S. AGSOY, SR., MELCHOR APUCAY,
DOMINGO LAVIDA, JESUS MOSQUEDA, RUELITO A.
VILLARMIA, SOFRONIO M. AYON, EFREN T. GENISE,
ALQUIN A. FRANCO, PABLO L. ALEMAN, PEPITO G.
HEPRIANA, ELIAS S. TRESPECES, EDGAR SOBRINO,
ALEJANDRO H. SITCHON, NENET ARITA, WELILMO T.
NERI, ERLINDA FERNANDEZ, AND EDGARDO
PEÑAFLORIDA, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION - 7TH DIVISION, CEBU
CITY, "G" HOLDINGS, INC., AND TEODORO G.
BERNARDINO, ROLANDO DEGOJAS, MARICALUM
MINING CORPORATION. Respondents.
G.R. No. 192285, July 11, 2018 - MATEO
ENCARNACION (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
HEIRS, NAMELY: ELSA DEPLIAN-ENCARNACION,
KRIZZA MARIE D. ENCARNACION, LORETA
ENCARNACION, CARMELITA E. STADERMAN,
CORAZON S. ENCARNACION, RIZALINA
ENCARNACION-PARONG, VICTORIA ENCARNACION-
DULA, MARIA HELEN ENCARNACION-DAY, TERESITA
ENCARNACION-MANALANG, GEORGE ENCARNACION,
MARY MITCHIE E. EDWARDSON, ERNESTO
ENCARNACION, MATEO ENCARNACION, JR., AND
GRACE WAGNER, Petitioners, v. THOMAS JOHNSON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 233334, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN CARLO
SALGA AND RUEL "TAWING" NAMALATA, Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 207711, July 02, 2018 - MARIA C. OSORIO
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 198916-17, July 23, 2018 - MALAYAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ST.
FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION,
Respondent.; G.R. Nos. 198920-21 - ST. FRANCIS
SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 224588, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODEL BELMONTE
Y SAA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 222837, July 23, 2018 - MACARIO LIM
GAW, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 216748, July 25, 2018 - DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, Petitioner, v. NIXON Q. DELA TORRE,
BENHUR Q. DELA TORRE, QUINTIN DELA TORRE
(DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE CATALINA
DELA TORRE AND HIS CHILDREN STELLA T. NAGDALE,
DWIGHT DELA TORRE, VIVIAN T. SUPANGCO, NIXON
DELA TORRE AND BENHUR DELA TORRE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 221427, July 30, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN J.
LABAGALA AND ROMEO LABAGALA, Accused-
Appellant.
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-
2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018 - ANONYMOUS,
Complainant, v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA
VIZCAYA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018 - EVELYN T. GOOPIO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. ARIEL D. MAGLALANG,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 12005, July 23, 2018 - ACHERNAR B.
TABUZO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M.
GOMOS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 225605, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VENERANDO
GOZO Y VELASQUEZ, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 222337, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHERNIEL
UNGRIANO ASCARRAGA A.K.A.SERGIO ONGRIANO
ASCARRAGA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 210838, July 03, 2018 - DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 203249, July 23, 2018 - SAN ROQUE
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191495, July 23, 2018 - NIPPON EXPRESS
(PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018 - DANILO A.
LIHAYLIHAY, Petitioner, v. THE TREASURER OF THE
PHILIPPINES ROBERTO C. TAN, SECRETARY OF
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586
has a limit in the exercise of its power to punish for contempt, which is on the final adjournment of its
last session. In the same case, the Court addressed the possibility that the Senate might detain a witness
for life, to wit:
As against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the power may be
abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate which might keep the witness in prison
for life. But we must assume that the Senate will not be disposed to exert the power
beyond its proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption, proper limitations are
disregarded, the portals of this Court are always open to those whose rights might thus be
transgressed.42
Further, the Court refused to limit the period of imprisonment under the power of contempt of the Senate
because "[l]egislative functions may be performed during recess by duly constituted committees charged
with the duty of performing investigations or conducting hearings relative to any proposed legislation. To
deny to such committees the power of inquiry with process to enforce it would be to defeat the very
purpose for which that power is recognized in the legislative body as an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to its legislative function. xxx."43
Later, in Neri v. Senate44 (Neri), the Court clarified the nature of the Senate as continuing body:
On the nature of the Senate as a "continuing body", this Court sees fit to issue a
clarification. Certainly, there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is "continuing",
as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition
of its members. However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of each
Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the Congress before it. The
Rules of the Senate itself confirms this when it states:
RULE XLIV
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the session shall be taken up at
the next session in the same status.
All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the expiration of
one (1) Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if
present for the first time.
Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills
and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are considered
terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of
the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters, not in the same status, but
as if presented for the first time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is readily
apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding Congress (which will typically have
a different composition as that of the previous Congress) should not be bound by the acts
and deliberations of the Senate of which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing
body even with respect to the conduct of its business, then pending matters will not be
deemed terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of course,
continue into the next Congress with the same status.45
Based on the above-pronouncement, the Senate is a continuing institution. However, in the conduct of its
day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the
Congress before it. Due to the termination of the business of the Senate during the expiration of one (1)
Congress, all pending matters and proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even legislative
investigations, of the Senate are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress
and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters,
not in the same status, but as if presented for the first time.
The termination of the Senate's business and proceedings after the expiration of Congress was utilized by
the Court in ruling that the Senate needs to publish its rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress.
The pronouncement in Neri was reiterated in Garcillano v. House of Representatives46 and Romero II v.
Estrada.47
The period of detention under the
Senate's inherent power of contempt is
not indefinite.
The Court finds that there is a genuine necessity to place a limitation on the period of imprisonment that
may be imposed by the Senate pursuant to its inherent power of contempt during inquiries in aid of
legislation. Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that Congress, in conducting
inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of persons appearing in or affected
therein. Under Arnault, however, a witness or resource speaker cited in contempt by the Senate may be
detained indefinitely due to its characteristic as a continuing body. The said witness may be detained for
a day, a month, a year, or even for a lifetime depending on the desire of the perpetual Senate. Certainly,
in that case, the rights of persons appearing before or affected by the legislative inquiry are in jeopardy.
The constitutional right to liberty that every citizen enjoys certainly cannot be respected when they are
detained for an indefinite period of time without due process of law.
As discussed in Lopez, Congress' power of contempt rests solely upon the right of self-preservation and
does not extend to the infliction of punishment as such. It is a means to an end and not the end itself.48
Even arguendo that detention under the legislative's inherent power of contempt is not entirely punitive
in character because it may be used by Congress only to secure information from a recalcitrant witness
or to remove an obstruction, it is still a restriction to the liberty of the said witness. It is when the
restrictions during detention are arbitrary and purposeless that courts will infer intent to punish. Courts
will also infer intent to punish even if the restriction seems to be related rationally to the alternative
purpose if the restriction appears excessive in relation to that purpose.49 An indefinite and unspecified
period of detention will amount to excessive restriction and will certainly violate any person's right to
liberty.
Nevertheless, it is recognized that the Senate's inherent power of contempt is of utmost importance. A
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislations are intended to affect or change. Mere requests for such information are
often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so
some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed through the power of contempt during
legislative inquiry.50 While there is a presumption of regularity that the Senate will not gravely abuse its
power of contempt, there is still a lingering and unavoidable possibility of indefinite imprisonment of
witnesses as long as there is no specific period of detention, which is certainly not contemplated and
envisioned by the Constitution.
Thus, the Court must strike a balance between the interest of the Senate and the rights of persons cited
in contempt during legislative inquiries. The balancing of interest requires that the Court take a conscious
and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation.
These interests usually consist in the exercise by an individual of his basic freedoms on the one hand,
and the government's promotion of fundamental public interest or policy objectives on the other.51
5/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
FINANCE MARGARITO B. TEVES, SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, AND THE GOVERNOR OF BANGKO
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), Respondents.
G.R. No. 210204, July 10, 2018 - ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES, INC.
(ARCAJI), REPRESENTED BY TEODORO P. REGINO,
Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO ABAD, JR., AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 222964, July 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAJETO
CABILIDA, JR. Y CANDAWAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 189723, July 11, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALAMINOS ICE PLANT
AND COLD STORAGE, INC., REPRESENTED BY SAMUEL
C. CHUA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199162, July 04, 2018 - PHIL-MAN
MARINE AGENCY, INC., AND DOHLE (10M) LIMITED,
Petitioners, v. ANIANO P. DEDACE, JR., SUBSTITUTED
BY HIS SPOUSE LUCENA CAJES DEDACE, FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF THEIR THREE [3] CHILDREN, NAMELY,
ANGELICA, ANGELO AND STEVE MAC, ALL SURNAMED
DEDACE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195905, July 04, 2018 - THE CITY
GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO REPRESENTED BY
MAURICIO G. DOMOGAN, CITY MAYOR, CITY
BUILDINGS AND ARCHITECTURE OFFICE
REPRESENTED BY OSCAR FLORES, AND PUBLIC
ORDER AND SAFETY DIVISION REPRESENTED BY
FERNANDO MOYAEN AND CITY DEMOLITION TEAM
REPRESENTED BY NAZITA BAÑEZ, Petitioners, v.
ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, REGIONAL HEARING
OFFICER-NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES-CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION,
MAGDALENA GUMANGAN, MARION T. POOL, LOURDES
C. HERMOGENO, JOSEPH LEGASPI, JOSEPH BASATAN,
MARCELINO BASATAN, JOSEPHINE LEGASPI,
LANSIGAN BAWAS, ALEXANDER AMPAGUEY, JULIO
DALUYEN, SR., CONCEPCION PADANG AND CARMEN
PANAYO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 226392, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR "TONY"
CALIAO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESMAEL GERVERO,
FLORENCIO ARBOLONIO, DANILO CASTIGADOR,
CELSO SOLOMON AND EDUARDO BAÑES, Accused.;
ESMAEL GERVERO (DECEASED), DANILO
CASTIGADOR, CELSO SOLOMON AND EDUARDO
BAÑES, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 229861, July 02, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO
EJERCITO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 225590, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL
CABUHAY, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG,
Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND DANGEROUS
DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN
RIGHTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES AND MGEN.
JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 219582, July 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENITO PALARAS
Y LAPU-OS, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 224293, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN LUMAGUI Y
MALIGID, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 237804, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCINDO
BOBOTIOK, JR. Y LONTOC, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 202129, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVELYN PATRICIO
Y CASTILLO, ALIAS "NINGNAY", Accused-Appellants.
G.R. Nos. 212761-62, July 31, 2018 - SENATOR
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIELD
INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, AND ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 213473-74 - JOHN
RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND
SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, Respondents.;
G.R. NOS. 213538-39 - JANET LIM NAPOLES,
Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH
DIVISION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 218232, July 24, 2018 - RAMON "BONG" B.
REVILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586
The Court finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the
Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the
legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked. In Arnault, it was stated that obedience
to its process may be enforced by the Senate Committee if the subject of investigation before it was
within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed testimony called relates to that
subject.52 Accordingly, as long as there is a legitimate legislative inquiry, then the inherent power of
contempt by the Senate may be properly exercised. Conversely, once the said legislative inquiry
concludes, the exercise of the inherent power of contempt ceases and there is no more genuine necessity
to penalize the detained witness.
Further, the Court rules that the legislative inquiry of the Senate terminates on two instances:
First, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Sections 22 and 23 of Senate Rules
state:
Sec. 22. Report of Committee. Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the
inquiry, the Committee shall meet to begin the consideration of its Report.
The Report shall be approved by a majority vote of all its members. Concurring and
dissenting reports may likewise be made by the members who do not sign the majority
report within seventy-two (72) hours from the approval of the report. The number of
members who sign reports concurring in the conclusions of the Committee Report shall be
taken into account in determining whether the Report has been approved by a majority of
the members: Provided, That the vote of a member who submits both a concurring and
dissenting opinion shall not be considered as part of the majority unless he expressly
indicates his vote for the majority position.
The Report, together with any concurring and/or dissenting opinions, shall be
filed with the Secretary of the Senate, who shall include the same in the next
Order of Business.
Sec. 23. Action on Report. The Report, upon inclusion in the Order of Business, shall be
referred to the Committee on Rules for assignment in the Calendar. (emphases supplied)
As gleaned above, the Senate Committee is required to issue a Committee Report after the conduct of
the legislative inquiry. The importance of the Committee Report is highlighted in the Senate Rules
because it mandates that the committee begin the consideration of its Report within fifteen (15) days
from the conclusion of the inquiry. The said Committee Report shall then be approved by a majority vote
of all its members; otherwise, it is disapproved. The said Report shall be the subject matter of the next
order of business, and it shall be acted upon by the Senate. Evidently, the Committee Report is the
culmination of the legislative inquiry. Its approval or disapproval signifies the end of such legislative
inquiry and it is now up to the Senate whether or not to act upon the said Committee Report in the
succeeding order of business. At that point, the power of contempt simultaneously ceases and the
detained witness should be released. As the legislative inquiry ends, the basis for the detention of the
recalcitrant witness likewise ends.
Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also terminates upon the expiration of one (1) Congress. As
stated in Neri, all pending matters and proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even legislative
investigations, of the Senate are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is
merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters, not in the
same status, but as if presented for the first time. Again, while the Senate is a continuing institution, its
proceedings are terminated upon the expiration of that Congress at the final adjournment of its last
session. Hence, as the legislative inquiry ends upon that expiration, the imprisonment of the detained
witnesses likewise ends.
In Arnault, there have been fears that placing a limitation on the period of imprisonment pursuant to the
Senate's power of contempt would "deny to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance."53
Also, in view of the limited period of imprisonment, "the Senate would have to resume the investigation
at the next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the
investigation is completed xxx."54
The Court is of the view that these fears are insufficient to permit an indefinite or an unspecified period
of imprisonment under the Senate's inherent power of contempt. If Congress believes that there is a
necessity to supplement its power of contempt by extending the period of imprisonment beyond the
conduct of its legislative inquiry or beyond its final adjournment of the last session, then it can enact a
law or amend the existing law that penalizes the refusal of a witness to testify or produce papers during
inquiries in aid of legislation. The charge of contempt by Congress shall be tried before the courts, where
the contumacious witness will be heard. More importantly, it shall indicate the exact penalty of the
offense, which may include a fine and/or imprisonment, and the period of imprisonment shall be specified
therein. This constitutes as the statutory power of contempt, which is different from the inherent power
of contempt.
Congress' statutory power of contempt has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as reflected in the
cases of In re Chapman and Jurney v. MacCracken. Similarly, in this jurisdiction, the statutory power of
contempt of Congress was also acknowledged in Lopez. It was stated therein that in cases that if
Congress seeks to penalize a person cited in contempt beyond its adjournment, it must institute a
criminal proceeding against him. When his case is before the courts, the culprit shall be afforded all the
rights of the accused under the Constitution. He shall have an opportunity to defend himself before he
can be convicted and penalized by the State.
Notably, there is an existing statutory provision under Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code, which
penalizes the refusal of a witness to answer any legal inquiry before Congress, to wit:
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or
subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one
thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person
who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly,
(Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission
or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without
legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative
or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation
or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or
records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their
functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another
from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to
be sworn by any such body or official. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Verily, the said law may be another recourse for the Senate to exercise its statutory power of contempt.
The period of detention provided therein is definite and is not limited by the period of the legislative
inquiry. Of course, the enactment of a new law or the amendment of the existing law to augment its
power of contempt and to extend the period of imprisonment shall be in the sole discretion of Congress.
6/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Moreover, the apprehension in Arnault – that the Senate will be prevented from effectively conducting
Respondents.; G.R. No. 218235 - RICHARD A. CAMBE, legislative hearings during recess – shall be duly addressed because it is expressly provided herein that
Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), the Senate may still exercise its power of contempt during legislative hearings while on recess provided
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND OFFICE OF THE that the period of imprisonment shall only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry, specifically,
OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.; G.R. No. 218266 - JANET
upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent power of
LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST
contempt is still potent and compelling even during its recess. At the same time, the rights of the
DIVISION), CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER
CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE
persons appearing are respected because their detention shall not be indefinite.
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 218903 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
In fine, the interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry are balanced.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), RAMON "BONG" The Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of contempt during the legislative inquiry
B. REVILLA, JR., AND RICHARD A. CAMBE, against recalcitrant witnesses, even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate
Respondents.; G.R. No. 219162 - RAMON "BONG" B. immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules and the
REVILLA, JR., Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST constitutional rights of the said witness.
DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. In addition, if the Congress decides to extend the period of imprisonment for the contempt committed by
a witness beyond the duration of the legislative inquiry, then it may file a criminal case under the existing
G.R. No. 205688, July 04, 2018 - VALENTINO S. statute or enact a new law to increase the definite period of imprisonment.
LINGAT AND APRONIANO ALTOVEROS, Petitioners, v.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., MONTE WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic. However, the period of
DAPPLES TRADING, AND DAVID LYONS,* imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation
Respondents. should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.
G.R. No. 220492, July 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE The December 12, 2017 Resolution of the Court ordering the temporary release of Arvin R. Balag from
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CCC, Accused- detention is hereby declared FINAL.
Appellant.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018 - IN RE:
CORRECTION/ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTY PURSUANT Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen,
TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951, IN RELATION TO
Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
HERNAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN – ROLANDO
Martires, J., no part, related to one of the parties.
ELBANBUENA Y MARFIL, Petitioner.

G.R. No. 234160, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALJON GUADAÑA
Y ANTIQUERA, Accused-Appellant.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
G.R. Nos. 230950-51, July 23, 2018 - ELPIDIO
TAGAAN MAGANTE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, Sirs/Mesdames:
(THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. Please take notice that on July 3, 2018 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the
Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 24,
G.R. No. 226405, July 23, 2018 - OFFICE OF THE 2018 at 3:30 p.m.
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. EFREN BONGAIS,
HOUSING AND HOMESITE REGULATION OFFICER IV, Very truly yours,
CITY HOUSING AND SETTLEMENTS OFFICE, CALAMBA
CITY, Respondent.
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE Clerk of Court
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICIA
CABRELLOS Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant. Endnotes:

G.R. No. 225332, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEL JAIME ALIAS 1Rollo,pp. 53-54; Entitled Condemning in the Strongest Sense the Death of Freshman Law
"TORNING," Accused-Appellant. Student Horacio Tomas Castillo III and Directing the Appropriate Senate Committees to
Conduct an Investigation, in Aid of Legislation, to Hold Accountable Those Responsible for
G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018 - LAMBERTO this Senseless Act.
MARIÑAS Y FERNANDO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 2 Id. at 55.
G.R. No. 225322, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONELO 3 Id.; referred to as Horatio "ATIO" Castillo III in the Order.
BERMUDO Y MARCELLANO, ROMMEL BERMUDO Y
CAPISTRANO AND ROLANDO BERMUDO Y 4 Id. at 53; supra note 1.
CAPISTRANO, ACCUSED, ROMMEL BERMUDO Y
CAPISTRANO, Accused-Appellant. 5 Id. at 774.
G.R. No. 224678, July 03, 2018 - SPOUSES JOSE 6
MANUEL AND MARIA ESPERANZA RIDRUEJO
Id.
STILIANOPOULOS, Petitioners, v. THE REGISTER OF
7Senate Bill No. 27. An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8049 entitled An Act Regulating
DEEDS FOR LEGAZPI CITY AND THE NATIONAL
TREASURER, Respondents. Hazing and Other Forms of Initiation Rites in Fraternities, Sororities and other
Organizations and Providing Penalties Therefor, and for other Purposes.
G.R. No. 233477, July 30, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOWIE ALLINGAG 8Senate Bill No. 199. An Act Prohibiting Hazing and Regulating other Forms of Initiation
Y TORRES AND ELIZABETH ALLINGAG Y TORRES, Rites of Fraternities, Sororities, and other Organizations and Providing Penalties for
Accused-Appellants. Violation thereof, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8049.
G.R. No. 216999, July 04, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE 9Senate Bill No. 223. An Act Amending Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8049, otherwise
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RONALD M. COSALAN,
Known as An Act Regulating Hazing and other Forms of Initiation Rites in Fraternities,
Respondent.
Sororities and other Organizations and Providing Penalties Therefor.
A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018 - JULIETA DIMAYUGA, 10Senate
Complainant, v. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, Respondent. Bill No. 1161. An Act Prohibiting Hazing and Regulating other Forms of
Initiation Rites of Fraternities, Sororities, and other Organizations, and Providing Penalties
G.R. No. 235652, July 09, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE for Violation thereof, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8049.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX AND YYY,*
Accused-Appellants. 11Senate Bill No. 1591. An Act Prohibiting Hazing and Regulating other Forms of
Initiation Rites of Fraternities, Sororities, and other Organizations, and Providing Penalties
G.R. No. 221684, July 30, 2018 - MARIA T. CALMA, for Violation thereof, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8049.
Petitioner, v. MARILU C. TURLA, Respondent.
12Rollo, pp. 56-71.
G.R. No. 235498, July 30, 2018 - RENALYN A.
MASBATE AND SPOUSES RENATO MASBATE AND 13
MARLYN MASBATE, Petitioners, v. RICKY JAMES
Otherwise Known as An Act Regulating Hazing and Other Forms of Initiation Rites in
RELUCIO, Respondent. Fraternities, Sororities, and other Organizations and Providing Penalties Therefor.
14 Id. at 90-105.
G.R. No. 221624, July 04, 2018 - NATIONAL
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MA.
MAGDALENA LOURDES LACSON-DE LEON, MA. 15 Id. at 1091-1092.
ELIZABETH JOSEPHINE L. DE LEON, RAMON LUIS
EUGENIO L. DE LEON, MA. TERESA CECILIA L. DE 16 Id.
LEON, MA. BARBARA KATHLEEN L. DE LEON, MARY
GRACE HELENE L. DE LEON, JOSE MARIA LEANDRO L. 17 Id. at 532-533.
DE LEON, MA. MARGARETHE ROSE OLSON, AND
HILDEGARDE MARIE OLSON, Respondents. 18 Id. at 775.
G.R. No. 231130, July 09, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE 19
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD TAMAYO Supra note 2.
CORDOVA AND MARCIAL DAYON EGUISO, Accused-
20 Id. at 772.
Appellants.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 7/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
21Rollo, p. 1625.
G.R. No. 226013, July 02, 2018 - LUZVIMINDA
DELA CRUZ MORISONO, Petitioner, v. RYOJI* 22 Id. at 1640.
MORISONO AND LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON
CITY, Respondents. 23 Id. at 1642.
G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018 - THE PROVINCIAL
24Lim Bio Hian v. Lim Eng Tian, G.R. Nos. 195472 & 195568, January 8, 2018.
BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
(PBOAP), THE SOUTHERN LUZON BUS OPERATORS
25Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco, et al., 582 Phil. 492, 501 (2008).
ASSOCIATION, INC. (SO-LUBOA), THE INTER CITY
BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (INTERBOA), AND
THE CITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE BUS OPERATORS 26 Supra note 24.
ASSOCIATION (CSJDMBOA), Petitioners, v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) 27 522 Phil. 705 (2006).
AND LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND
REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB), Respondents. 28 768 Phil. 334 (2015).
A.C. No. 8962, July 09, 2018 - JILDO A. GUBATON, 29
Complainant, v. ATTY. AUGUSTUS SERAFIN D.
779 Phil. 75 (2016).
AMADOR, Respondent. 30 See Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950).
G.R. No. 229920, July 04, 2018 - SAMUEL
31 19 U.S. 204 (1821).
MAMARIL, Petitioner, v. THE RED SYSTEM COMPANY,
INC., DANILO PADRIGON, AGNES TUNPALAN,
ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ, JODERICK LOZANO, ENRIQUE 32In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 (1897).
ROMMEL MIRAFLORES, DOMINGO RIVERO,
Respondents. 33Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
G.R. No. 232624, July 09, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE 34 Supra note 32.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO CARIÑO
Y GOCONG AND ALVIN AQUINO Y RAGAM*, Accused- 35
Appellants.
294 U.S. 125 (1935).

36 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

G.R. No. 189800, July 09, 2018 - PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v.
HON. MA. MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ, IN HER Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of
CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, RENATO D. TAYAG, Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before
ISMAEL REINOSO, JUAN TRIVINO, JUAN PONCE either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the
ENRILE, MARIO ORTIZ, GENEROSO TANSECO, two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes
FAUSTINO SY CHANGCO, VICENTE ABAD SANTOS, default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question
EUSEBIO VILLATUYA, MANUEL MORALES, JOSE ROÑO, under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
TROADIO T. QUIAZON, RUBEN ANCHETA, FERNANDO than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one
MARAMAG, JR., GERONIMO VELASCO, EDGARDO L. month nor more than twelve months.
TORDESILLAS, JAIME C. LAYA, GERARDO P. SICAT,
ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., PLACIDO L. MAPA, JR., 37 55 Phil. 170 (1930).
PANFILO DOMINGO, VICTORINO L. OJEDA, TEODORO
DE VERA, ALEJANDRO LUKBAN, JR., ROMEO TAN, LUIS 38
RECATO, BENITO S. DYCHIAO, ELPIDIO M. BORJA, Id. at 184.
Respondents.
39 Supra note 30.
G.R. No. 225199, July 09, 2018 - ALLIED BANKING
CORPORATION (NOW PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK), 40 Id. at 62.
Petitioner, v. EDUARDO DE GUZMAN, SR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SURETY TO THE VARIOUS CREDIT 41 Id.
ACCOMMODATIONS GRANTED TO YESON
INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. 42 Id. at 63.
A.C. No. 12062, July 02, 2018 - HEIR OF 43 Supra note 30.
HERMINIGILDO* A. UNITE, REPRESENTED BY HIS
SOLE HEIR, FLORENTINO S. UNITE, Complainant, v. 44
ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN, Respondent. 586 Phil. 135 (2008).

45 Id. at 196-197.
G.R. No. 200712, July 04, 2018 - MARIO A. ABUDA,
RODOLFO DEL REMEDIOS, EDWARDO DEL REMEDIOS,
RODOLFO L. ZAMORA, DIONISIO ADLAWAN, ELPIDIO 46 595 Phil. 775 (2008).
GARCIA, JR., ROGELIO ZAMORA, SR., JIMMY TORRES,
POLICARPIO OBANEL, JOSE FERNANDO, JOHNNY 47 602 Phil. 312 (2009).
BETACHE, JAYSON GARCIA, EDWIN ESPE, NEMENCIO
CRUZ, LARRY ABANES, ROLANDO SALEN, JOSEPH 48 Supra note 37 at 184.
TORRES, FRANCISCO LIM, ARNALDO GARCIA,
WILFREDO BRONOLA, GLENN MORAN, JOSE 49Alejano v. Cabuay, 505 Phil. 298, 314 (2005).
GONZALES, ROGER MARTINEZ, JAIME CAPELLAN,
RICHARD ORING, JEREMIAS CAPELLAN, ARNEL 50
CAPELLAN, MELCHOR CAPELLAN, ROLLY PUGOY, JOEY See Arnault v. Nazareno, supra note 30 at 45.
GADONES, ARIES CATIANG, LEONEL LATUGA,
51Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, et al., 397 Phil. 423, 437 (2000).
CAPILLAN, Petitioners, v. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY
FARMS, JULIANA NATIVIDAD, AND MERLINDA
NATIVIDAD, Respondents. 52 Supra note 30 at 45 & 48.

G.R. No. 220898, July 23, 2018 - MON C. ANUAT, 53 Id. at 62.
Petitioner, v. PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC./TRAS
STAR SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION, MASSOEL 54 Id. at 63.
MERIDIAN LTD. AND/OR HERNANDO S. EUSEBIO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 225803, July 02, 2018 - SHERYLL R.

CABAÑAS, Petitioner, v. ABELARDO G. LUZANO LAW
OFFICE/ABELARDO G. LUZANO, Respondents.
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 233542, July 09, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIDEL G.
LAGUERTA, Accused-Appellant.
QUICK SEARCH
A.C. No. 11185 [Formerly CBD No. 12-3619], July
04, 2018 - JAIME S. DE BORJA, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RAMON R. MENDEZ, JR., Respondent.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 227147, July 30, 2018 - RADIOWEALTH
FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. ALFONSO O. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
PINEDA, JR., AND JOSEPHINE C. PINEDA, 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
Respondents.
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 204361, July 04, 2018 - CECILIA T. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
JAVELOSA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, MA. DIANA J. JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. EZEQUIEL 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
TAPUS, MARIO MADRIAGA, DANNY M. TAPUZ,1 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
JUANITA TAPUS AND AURORA MADRIAGA,
Respondents. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. 222436, July 23, 2018 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. EURO- 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 8/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
PHILIPPINES AIRLINE SERVICES, INC., Respondent. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

G.R. No. 233974, July 02, 2018 - CATALINA F. ISLA, 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
ELIZABETH ISLA, AND GILBERT F. ISLA, Petitioners, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
v. GENEVIRA P. ESTORGA, Respondent.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 214794, July 23, 2018 - NARCISO 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
VICTORIANO, Petitioner, v. JUNIPER DOMINGUEZ,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 224972, July 09, 2018 - NG CHING TING,

Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK, INC.
Respondent.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 234154, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY ARBUIS Y
COMPRADO A.K.A. "ONTET", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 229955, July 23, 2018 - MELCHOR

BARCENAS DEOCARIZA, Petitioner, v. FLEET
MANAGEMENT SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.,
MODERN ASIA SHIPPING CORPORATION, A.B.F.
GAVIOLA, JR., AND MA. CORAZON CRUZ,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 197831, July 09, 2018 - PHILIPPINE

NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ANGEL AND
BUENVENIDA ANAY, AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND
DOLORES LEE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 209166, July 09, 2018 - DEMETRIO ELLAO

Y DELA VEGA, Petitioner, v. BATANGAS I ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC. (BATELEC I), RAQUEL ROWENA
RODRIGUEZ BOARD PRESIDENT, Respondents.

G.R. No. 223125, July 11, 2018 - IBM DAKSH

BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.
(NOW KNOWN AS CONCENTRIX DAKSH BUSINESS
PROCESS SERVICES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. ROSALLIE S. RIBAS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 228503, July 25, 2018 - HEIRS OF RAMON

ARCE, SR., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY VIRGILIO
DELOS REYES, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 231655 and 231670, July 02, 2018 -

FELISA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (HAVING
BEEN SUBSTITUTED IN LIEU OF THE NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION), Respondent.

G.R. No. 209289, July 09, 2018 - COMMISSIONER

OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND METROPOLITAN CEBU
WATER DISTRICT (MCWD), Respondents.

G.R. No. 217744, July 30, 2018 - JOSE Z. MORENO,

Petitioner, v. RENE M. KAHN, CONSUELO MORENO
KAHN-HAIRE, RENE LUIS PIERRE KAHN, PHILIPPE
KAHN, MA. CLAUDINE KAHN MCMAHON, AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MUNTINLUPA CITY,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 232275, July 23, 2018 - SOLPIA MARINE

AND SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v.
MICHAEL V. POSTRANO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 233033, July 23, 2018 - ROMEO IGDALINO

AND ROSITA IGDALINO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197624, July 23, 2018 - ABACUS CAPITAL

AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DR.
ERNESTO G. TABUJARA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210286, July 23, 2018 - WELBIT

CONSTRUCTION CORP., WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM
CORP., AND SPOUSES EUGENIO JUAN GONZALEZ AND
MATILDE GONZALEZ, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF
CRESENCIANO C. DE CASTRO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 211450, July 23, 2018 - OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LOVING F. FETALVERO,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 222710, July 24, 2018 - PHILIPPINE

HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G.
AGUINALDO, DIRECTOR JOSEPH B. ANACAY AND
SUPERVISING AUDITOR ELENA L. AGUSTIN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 203217, July 02, 2018 - JOSE L. DIAZ,

Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 224015, July 23, 2018 - STEPHEN I.

JUEGO-SAKAI, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

A.C. No. 5473, July 03, 2018 - GENE M. DOMINGO,

Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 207040, July 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SHELDON ALCANTARA Y
LI, JUNNELYN ILLO Y YAN, NATIVIDAD ZULUETA Y
YALDUA, MA. REYNA OCAMPO Y CRUZ, MAILA TO Y
MOVILLON, MA. VICTORIA GONZALES Y DEDIOS,
ELENA PASCUAL Y ROQUE, MARY ANGELIN ROMERO Y

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 9/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
BISNAR AND NOEMI VILLEGAS Y BATHAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 205294, July 04, 2018 - ELMER P. LEE,

Petitioner, v. ESTELA V. SALES, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER LEGAL AND INSPECTION GROUP;
EFREN P. MARTINEZ, CHIEF PERSONNEL INQUIRY
DIVISION; NESTOR S. VALEROSO, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REVENUE REGION NO. 8; AND ALL OF THE
BIR AND ALL PERSONS ACTING ON THEIR ORDERS OR
BEHALF, Respondents.

A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC, July 03, 2018 - RE:

MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 10, 2017 FROM
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO; A.M. No. 18-02-13-SC - RE: LETTER OF
RESIGNATION OF ATTY. BRENDA JAY ANGELES
MENDOZA, PHILJA CHIEF OF OFFICE FOR THE
PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER

G.R. No. 225896, July 23, 2018 - CARMEN ALEDRO-

RUÑA, Petitioner, v. LEAD EXPORT AND AGRO-
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 229192, July 23, 2018 - MAGSAYSAY MOL

MARINE,INC. AND/OR MOL SHIP MANAGEMENT
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., Petitioners, v. MICHAEL
PADERES ATRAJE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 232272, July 24, 2018 - SECRETARY

MARIO G. MONTEJO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(DOST), Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA),
AND THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
SECTOR, CLUSTER B - GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES II
AND DEFENSE, COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 227388, July 23, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA
MANAHAN-JAZMINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 232395, July 03, 2018 - PEDRO S.

AGCAOILI, JR., ENCARNACION A. GAOR, JOSEPHINE
P. CALAJATE, GENEDINE D. JAMBARO, EDEN C.
BATTULAYAN, EVANGELINE C. TABULOG, Petitioners,
MARIA IMELDA JOSEFA "IMEE" R. MARCOS, Co-
Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVE
RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS, THE HONORABLE
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNNY T. PIMENTEL, CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, AND LT. GEN. ROLAND
DETABALI (RET.), IN HIS CAPACITY AS SERGEANT-
AT-ARMS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Respondents, THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, Co-
Respondent.

A.C. No. 11724 (Formerly CBD No. 14-4109), July

31, 2018 - HDI HOLDINGS PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Complainant, v. ATTY. EMMANUEL N. CRUZ,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMADO BALUBAL
Y PAGULAYAN, Accused-Appellant.

A.C. No. 5580, July 31, 2018 - SAN JOSE

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AS REPRESENTED
BY REBECCA V. LABRADOR, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 219774, July 23, 2018 - MANILA HOTEL

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROSITA DE LEON,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 178696, July 30, 2018 - BANGKO SENTRAL

NG PILIPINAS AND ITS MONETARY BOARD,
Petitioners, v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND
MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 192607 -
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK,
Petitioner, v. CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF
LIQUIDATORS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217682, July 17, 2018 - JOSE "JINGGOY"

P. EJERCITO ESTRADA AND MA. PRESENTACION
VITUG EJERCITO, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN
(FIFTH DIVISION); ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING
COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, JULIA C. BACAY-ABAD; AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

G.R. No. 230107, July 24, 2018 - DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (DOTR), MARITIME INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY (MARINA), AND PHILIPPINE COAST
GUARD (PCG), Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE
PETROLEUM SEA TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, HERMA
SHIPPING TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ISLAS
TANKERS SEATRANSPORT CORPORATION, MIS
MARITIME CORPORATION, PETROLIFT, INC., GOLDEN
ALBATROSS SHIPPING CORPORATION, VIA MARINE
CORPORATION, AND CARGOMARINE CORPORATION,
Respondents.

A.C. No. 12012, July 02, 2018 - GERONIMO J.

JIMENO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. FLORDELIZA M.
JIMENO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 225059, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX*, Accused-

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 10/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
Appellant.

A.M. No. RTJ-17-2491 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-

3448-RTJ), July 04, 2018 - LUCIO L. YU, JR.,
Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 112, PASAY CITY,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 220949, July 23, 2018 - RICKMERS

MARINE AGENCY PHILS., INC., GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
LIMITED AND/OR GEORGE C. GUERRERO, Petitioners,
v. EDMUND R. SAN JOSE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 219291, July 04, 2018 - MICHAEL V.

RACION, Petitioner, v. MST MARINE SERVICES
PHILIPPINES, INC., ALFONSO RANJO DEL CASTILLO
AND/OR THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 223155, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANILO JAPAG
AND ALVIN LIPORADA, Accused; DANILO JAPAG,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 227738, July 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACINTO ANDES Y
LORILLA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 227216, July 04, 2018 - YIALOS MANNING

SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS SHIPMANAGEMENT S.A.,
RAUL VICENTE PEREZ, AND MINERVA ALFONSO,
Petitioners, v. RAMIL G. BORJA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 218914, July 30, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HENRY DE VERA Y
MEDINA, Accused-Appellant.

A.C. No. 12044, July 23, 2018 - MARTIN J. SIOSON,

Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 212786, July 30, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner,
v. ESTRELLA R. DECENA, MARIETA DECENA BRAZIL,
NOLAND D. BRAZIL, HEIRS OF EDITA R. DECENA, AS
REPRESENTED BY VIRGILIO C. BRAZIL, SR.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 229153, July 09, 2018 - EDILBERTO R.

PALERACIO, Petitioner, v. SEALANES MARINE
SERVICES, INC., SPLIETHOFF GROUP MANILA, INC.
AND/OR CHRISTOPHER DINO C. DUMATOL AND CAPT.
RUBEN AGMATA, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018 -

CESAR MATAS CAGANG, Petitioner, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, QUEZON CITY;
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents; G.R. Nos. 210141-42 -
CESAR MATAS CAGANG, Petitioner, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, QUEZON CITY;
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 205698, July 31, 2018 - HOME

DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF) PAG-IBIG
FUND, Petitioner, v. CHRISTINA SAGUN, Respondent;
G.R. No. 205780 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REP. BY
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE
M. VILLANUEVA, AND PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO
A. ARELLANO, AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (NBI), Petitioners, v. CHRISTINA
SAGUN, Respondent; G.R. No. 208744 - DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. DELFIN S. LEE, Respondent;
G.R. No. 209424 - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL
FUND (HDMF), Petitioner, v. GLOBE ASIATIQUE
REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DELFIN S. LEE, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CORPORATION, AND TESSIE G. WANG, Respondents;
G.R. No. 209446 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. ALEX M. ALVAREZ, Respondent; G.R. No.
209489 - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND,
Petitioner, v. ATTY. ALEX M. ALVAREZ, Respondent;
G.R. No. 209852 - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL
FUND, (HDMF), Petitioner, v. DELFIN S. LEE,
Respondent; G.R. No. 210095 - DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. DELFIN S. LEE, Respondent;
G.R. No. 210143 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PETITIONER, VS. DELFIN S. LEE, Respondent; G.R. No.
228452 - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND
(HDMF), Petitioner, v. DEXTER L. LEE, Respondent;
G.R. No. 228730 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. DEXTER L. LEE, Respondent; G.R. No.
230680 -CRISTINA SALAGAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HOME DEVELOPMENT
MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), Respondents.

G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LIBERATO P. MOLA CRUZ,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 197945, July 09, 2018 - COMMISSIONER

OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS
SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent; G.R.
Nos. 204119-20 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL
PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRON
CORPORATION, Respondents.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 11/12
8/19/2019 G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018 - ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDE…
G.R. No. 208004, July 30, 2018 - LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PRADO VERDE
CORPORATION, Respondent; G.R. No. 208112 -
PRADO VERDE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent; G.R. No.
210243 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. PRADO VERDE CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018 - ALFREDO A.

RAMOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018 - ALFREDO A.

RAMOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

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

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018julydecisions.php?id=586 12/12