Seludo Case

1/16/2020 [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
E, INC. (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COM…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search
Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 >

April 2012 Decisions > [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25,
ChanRobles On-Line 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
Bar Review (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
COMPOSED OF DEBORAH T. MARCO (IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT), ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA, ENGR. MANUEL
C. OREJOLA, ALFONSO F. QUILAPIO, RAUL DE GUZMAN
AND PONCIANO R. ROSALES (GENERAL MANAGER AND
EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR), PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS D.
SELUDO, JR., RESPONDENT.:
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012]
SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

(SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
COMPOSED OF DEBORAH T. MARCO (IMMEDIATE
PAST PRESIDENT), ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA,
ENGR. MANUEL C. OREJOLA, ALFONSO F.
April-2012
QUILAPIO, RAUL DE GUZMAN AND PONCIANO R.
Jurisprudence
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012aprildecisions.php?id=356 1/42
1/16/2020 [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COM…
ROSALES (GENERAL MANAGER AND EX OFFICIO

DIRECTOR), PETITIONERS, VS. ANANIAS D.
[A.M. No. P-09- SELUDO, JR., RESPONDENT.
2720 [Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 09-3259-P] : DECISION
April 07, 2012] JUDGE
SALVADOR R. PERALTA, J.:
SANTOS, JR.,
PRESIDING JUDGE, Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari
MUNICIPAL TRIAL under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision[1]
COURT, ANGAT,
and Resolution[2] dated January 26, 2006 and July 12,
BULACAN,
2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
COMPLAINANT, VS.
G.R. CEB SP No. 01175. The CA Decision dismissed
EDITHA R.
petitioners' petition for certiorari and affirmed the Orders
MANGAHAS, COURT
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbiga, Samar,
STENOGRAPHER OF
Branch 33, dated May 6, 2005 and September 15, 2005,
THE SAME COURT,
while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for
RESPONDENT.
Reconsideration. cralaw
[G.R. No. 174489 :

Herein petitioner Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc.
April 07, 2012]
(SAMELCO II) was organized under the provisions of
ANTONIO B.
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 269, otherwise known as
BALTAZAR,
the “National Electrification Administration Decree,” as
SEBASTIAN M.
amended by P.D. No. 1645. The individual petitioners are
BALTAZAR, ANTONIO
members of SAMELCO II's Board of Directors.
L. MANGALINDAN,
Respondent was also a member of the SAMELCO II
ROSIE M. MATEO,
Board of Directors having been elected thereto in 2002
NENITA A. PACHECO,
and whose term of office expired in May 2005.
VIRGILIO REGALA,
JR., AND RAFAEL
The antecedent facts, as summarized by the CA, are as
TITCO, PETITIONERS,
follows:
VS. LORENZO LAXA,
RESPONDENT.
As members of the Board of Directors (BOD)
[A.M. No. RTJ-10- of the petitioner Samar II Electric
2232 : April 10, 2012] Cooperative, Inc. (SAMELCO II), an electric
OFFICE OF THE cooperative providing electric service to all
COURT members-consumers in all municipalities
ADMINISTRATOR, within the Second Congressional District of
COMPLAINANT, VS. the Province of Samar, individual petitioners

JUDGE CADER P. passed Resolution No. 5 [Series] of 2005 on
INDAR, PRESIDING January 22, 2005.
JUDGE AND ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE OF The said resolution disallowed the private
THE REGIONAL TRIAL respondent to attend succeeding meetings of
COURT, BRANCH 14, the BOD effective February 2005 until the
COTABATO CITY AND end of his term as director. The same
BRANCH 15, SHARIFF resolution also disqualified him for one (1)
AGUAK, term to run as a candidate for director in the
MAGUINDANAO, upcoming district elections.
RESPECTIVELY,
RESPONDENT. Convinced that his rights as a director of
petitioner SAMELCO II had been curtailed by
[G.R. Nos. 147036- the subject board resolution, private
37 : April 10, 2012] respondent filed an Urgent Petition for
PETITIONER- Prohibition against petitioner SAMELCO II,
ORGANIZATIONS, impleading individual petitioners as directors
NAMELY: thereof, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
PAMBANSANG Calbiga, Samar. The case was docketed as
KOALISYON NG MGA Special Civil Case No. C-2005-1085 and was
SAMAHANG raffled to Branch 33 of the said court x x x.
MAGSASAKA AT
MANGGAGAWA SA In his petition, private respondent prayed for
NIYUGAN (PKSMMN), the nullification of Resolution No. 5, [Series]
COCONUT INDUSTRY of 2005, contending that it was issued
REFORM MOVEMENT without any legal and factual bases. He
(COIR), BUKLOD NG likewise prayed that a temporary restraining
MALAYANG order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary
MAGBUBUKID, injunction be issued to enjoin the individual
PAMBANSANG petitioners from enforcing the assailed board
KILUSAN NG MGA resolution.
SAMAHANG
MAGSASAKA Granting private respondent's prayer for a
(PAKISAMA), CENTER TRO, the public respondent issued one,
FOR AGRARIAN effective for seventy-two (72) hours which
REFORM, effectivity was later on extended for another
EMPOWERMENT AND seventeen (17) days.
TRANSFORMATION
(CARET), In their answer to the petition for prohibition,

PAMBANSANG individual petitioners raised the affirmative
KATIPUNAN NG MGA defense of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over
SAMAHAN SA the subject matter of the case. Individual
KANAYUNAN (PKSK); petitioners assert that, since the matter
PETITIONER- involved an electric cooperative, SAMELCO II,
LEGISLATOR: primary jurisdiction is vested on the National
REPRESENTATIVE Electrification Administration (NEA).
LORETA ANN
ROSALES; AND In her assailed Order dated May 6, 2005, [the
PETITIONER- RTC judge] sustained the jurisdiction of the
INDIVIDUALS, court over the petition for prohibition and
NAMELY: VIRGILIO V. barred the petitioners and/or their
DAVID, JOSE MARIE representatives from enforcing Resolution No.
FAUSTINO, JOSE 5 [Series] of 2005.
CONCEPCION, ROMEO
ROYANDOYAN, JOSE x x x[3]
V. ROMERO, JR., ATTY.
CAMILO L. SABIO,
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the
AND ATTY. ANTONIO
same was denied by the RTC in its September 15, 2005
T. CARPIO,
Order.
PETITIONERS, VS.
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA via a special
SECRETARY OF civil action for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of
AGRICULTURE, discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing its assailed
SECRETARY OF Orders.
AGRARIAN REFORM,
On January 26, 2006, the CA rendered its Decision
PRESIDENTIAL
dismissing petitioners' petition for certiorari and
COMMISSION ON
affirming the assailed Orders of the RTC.
GOOD GOVERNMENT,
THE SOLICITOR
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
GENERAL, PHILIPPINE
denied by the CA in its July 12, 2006 Resolution.
COCONUT
PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, INC. Hence, the instant petition with the following assigned
(COCOFED), AND errors:
UNITED COCONUT
PLANTERS BANK
(UCPB), (1)
RESPONDENTS.
IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
[A.M. No. P-11- OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
2912 : April 10, 2012] JURISDICTION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF
OFFICE OF THE APPEALS COMMITTED LEGAL ERRORS IN
COURT LIMITING THE DOCTRINE TO “CERTAIN
ADMINISTRATOR, MATTERS IN CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING
COMPLAINANT, VS. SPECIALIZED DISPUTES” AND IN
MARY LOU C. UPHOLDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
SARMIENTO, TRIAL COURT OVER THE URGENT PETITION
INTERPRETER II, FOR PROHIBITION FILED BY RESPONDENT
BRANCH 57, SELUDO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUES
METROPOLITAN TRIAL RAISED THEREIN “DO NOT REQUIRE THE
COURT, SAN JUAN TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OF THE NEA”
CITY, AND ARTURO F.
ANATALIO, SHERIFF, (2)
BRANCH 58,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN
COURT, SAN JUAN SUSTAINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
CITY, RESPONDENTS. TRIAL COURT, COMMITTED AN ERROR OF
LAW BY HOLDING THAT “A PERUSAL OF THE
[A.M. No. MTJ-07- LAW CREATING THE NEA DISCLOSES THAT
1667 : April 10, 2012] THE NEA WAS NOT GRANTED THE POWER TO
OFFICE OF THE HEAR AND DECIDE CASES INVOLVING THE
COURT VALIDITY OF BOARD RESOLUTIONS
ADMINISTRATOR, UNSEATING ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
COMPLAINANT, VS. DIRECTORS” AND THAT “NEITHER WAS IT
JUDGE JAMES v. GO GRANTED JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS
AND CLERK OF COURT FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION OR
MA. ELMER M. MANDAMUS.”
ROSALES, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT IN (3)
CITIES (MTCC),
BRANCH 2, BUTUAN THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
CITY, RESPONDENTS. COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT
SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION OF [THE]
[G.R. No. 173320 : TRIAL COURT OVER THE PETITION FOR
April 11, 2012] PROHIBITION DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF
EDUARDO B. APPEAL OR OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND

MANZANO, ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THEREIN
PETITIONER, VS. PETITIONER SELUDO.[4]
ANTONIO B. LAZARO,
RESPONDENT.
In their first assigned error, petitioners contend that the
CA erred in interpreting the doctrine of primary
[A.M. No. P-12-
jurisdiction in a very limited sense. Petitioners aver that
3053 (formerly A.M.
No. 06-3-88-MTCC) : in a number of cases, this Court applied the doctrine of
April 11, 2012] primary jurisdiction even in cases where the issues
OFFICE OF THE involved do not require the technical expertise of
COURT administrative bodies.
ADMINISTRATOR,
Petitioners also argue, in their second assignment of
COMPLAINANT, VS.
error, that it is wrong for the CA to rule that there is
CARPIO,
nothing under the law creating the National
(CHAIRPERSON),
Electrification Administration (NEA), which grants the
BRION, ABAD,*
said administrative body the power to ascertain the
SERENO, AND REYES,
validity of board resolutions unseating any member of
JJ. MANUEL Z. ARAYA,
JR., UTILITY WORKER, the Board of Directors of an electric cooperative. Citing
MTCC, BRANCH 2, the provisions of P.D. Nos. 269 and 1645, petitioners
OZAMIS CITY, aver that the NEA is empowered to determine the

validity of resolutions passed by electric cooperatives.
RESPONDENT.
In their third assigned error, petitioners assert that

[G.R. No. 174118 :
April 11, 2012] THE respondent is precluded from filing a petition for
prohibition considering that, under the applicable laws, it
ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
REPRESENTED BY THE
The Court finds the petition meritorious. As the assigned
ARCHBISHOP OF
errors are interrelated, the Court will discuss them
CACERES,
jointly.
PETITIONER, VS.
REGINO PANTE,
Section 10, Chapter II of P.D. No. 269, as amended by
RESPONDENT.
Section 5 of P.D. No. 1645, provides:
[G.R. No. 186141 :

April 11, 2012]
Section 5. Section 10, Chapter II of
PEOPLE OF THE
Presidential Decree No. 269 is hereby
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, amended to read as follows:

VS. JESUSA
FIGUEROA Y Section 10. Enforcement Powers and
CORONADO, Remedies. - In the exercise of its power
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. of supervision and control over electric
cooperatives and other borrower,
[G.R. No. 175303 : supervised or controlled entities, the NEA is
April 11, 2012] empowered to issue orders, rules and
PACIFIC ACE FINANCE regulations and motu proprio or upon
LTD. (PAFIN), petition of third parties, to conduct
PETITIONER, VS. investigations, referenda and other
EIJI* YANAGISAWA, similar actions in all matters affecting
RESPONDENT. said electric cooperatives and other
borrower, or supervised or controlled entities.
[G.R. No. 173844 :
April 11, 2012] If the electric cooperative concerned or other
LIGAYA P. CRUZ, similar entity fails after due notice to comply
PETITIONER, VS. with NEA orders, rules and regulations and/or
HON. RAUL M. decisions, or with any of the terms of the
GONZALEZ, ETC., Loan Agreement, the NEA Board of
DEVELOPMENT BANK Administrators may avail of any or all of the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, following remedies:
AND COURT OF
APPEALS.
x x x x.
RESPONDENTS.
(e) Take preventive and/or

[G.R. No. 188661 :
disciplinary measures including
April 11, 2012]
suspension and/or removal and
ESTELITA VILLAMAR,
replacement of any or all of the
PETITIONER, VS.
members of the Board of
BALBINO MANGAOIL,
Directors, officers or employees of
RESPONDENT.
the Cooperative, other borrower
institutions or supervised or
[A.M. No. P-11-
controlled entities as the NEA
3002 (Formerly A.M.
Board of Administrators may
No. 11-9-96-MTCC) :
deem fit and necessary and to
April 11, 2012]
take any other remedial measures
OFFICE OF THE
as the law or the Loan Agreement
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, may provide.

COMPLAINANT, VS.
MS. ESTRELLA NINI, x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
CLERK OF COURT II,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
In addition, Subsection (a), Section 24, Chapter III of
COURT IN CITIES-
P.D. No. 269, as amended by Section 7 of P.D. No. 1645,
BOGO, CITY OF CEBU,
states:
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 164457 : Section 7. Subsection (a), Section 24,

April 11, 2012] ANNA Chapter III of Presidential Decree No. 269 is
LERIMA PATULA, hereby amended to read as follows:
PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE Section 24. Board of Directors. - (a) The
PHILIPPINES, Management of a Cooperative shall be
RESPONDENT. vested in its Board, subject to the
supervision and control of NEA which
[G.R. No. 175763 : shall have the right to be represented
April 11, 2012] HEIRS and to participate in all Board meetings
OF BIENVENIDO AND and deliberations and to approve all
ARACELI TANYAG, policies and resolutions.
NAMELY: ARTURO
TANYAG, AIDA T. The composition, qualifications, the manner
JOCSON AND of elections and filling of vacancies, the
ZENAIDA T. VELOSO, procedures for holding meetings and other
PETITIONERS, VS. similar provisions shall be defined in the by-
SALOME E. GABRIEL, laws of the Cooperative subject to NEA
NESTOR R. GABRIEL, policies, rules and regulations.
LUZ GABRIEL-ARNEDO
MARRIED TO ARTURO x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
ARNEDO, NORA
GABRIEL-CALINGO
A comparison of the original provisions of Sections 10
MARRIED TO FELIX
and 24 of P.D. No. 269 and the amendatory provisions
CALINGO, PILAR M.
under Sections 5 and 7 of P.D. No. 1645 would readily
MENDIOLA, MINERVA
show that the intention of the framers of the amendatory
GABRIEL-NATIVIDAD
law is to broaden the powers of the NEA.
MARRIED TO
EUSTAQUIO
A clear proof of such expanded powers is that, unlike
NATIVIDAD, AND
ERLINDA VELASQUEZ P.D. No. 269, P.D. No. 1645 expressly provides for the
MARRIED TO authority of the NEA to exercise supervision and control
HERMINIO over electric cooperatives. In administrative law,
VELASQUEZ, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority
RESPONDENTS. of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform
their duties.[5] If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them,

[G.R. No. 167057 : the former may take such action or step as prescribed by
April 11, 2012]
law to make them perform their duties.[6] Control, on
NERWIN INDUSTRIES
the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or
CORPORATION,
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer
PETITIONER, VS.
had done in the performance of his duties and to
PNOC-ENERGY
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
DEVELOPMENT
latter.[7] Section 38 (1), Chapter 7, Book 4 of Executive
CORPORATION, AND
Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative
ESTER R. GUERZON,
Code of 1987 provides, thus:
CHAIRMAN, BIDS AND
AWARDS COMMITTEE,
RESPONDENTS. Supervision and control shall include the
authority to act directly whenever a specific
[G.R. No. 193509 : function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
April 11, 2012] subordinate; direct the performance of duty;
PEOPLE OF THE restrain the commission of acts; review,
PHILIPPINES, approve, reverse or modify acts and
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, decisions of subordinate officials or
VS. IRENEO GANZAN, units; determine priorities in the execution of
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. plans and programs; and prescribe
standards, guidelines, plans and programs x
[G.R. No. 181544 : x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
April 11, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE
The Court, therefore, finds it erroneous on the part of
PHILIPPINES,
the CA to rule that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
does not apply in the present case. It is true that the
VS. JULIUS TAGUILID
RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition filed
Y BACOLOD,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. by respondent.[8] However, the basic issue in the present
case is not whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the
[G.R. No. 188322 : petition for prohibition filed by respondent; rather, the
April 11, 2012] issue is who between the RTC and the NEA has primary
PEOPLE OF THE jurisdiction over the question of the validity of the Board
PHILIPPINES, Resolution issued by SAMELCO II. A careful reading of

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, the above-quoted provisions of P.D. No. 1645 clearly
VS. JOSEPH ASILAN Y show that, pursuant to its power of supervision and
TABORNAL, ACCUSED- control, the NEA is granted the authority to conduct
APPELLANT. investigations and other similar actions as well as to
issue orders, rules and regulations with respect to all
[G.R. No. 170290 : matters affecting electric cooperatives. Certainly, the
April 11, 2012] matter as to the validity of the resolution issued by the
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT Board of Directors of SAMELCO II, which practically
INSURANCE removed respondent from his position as a member of
CORPORATION, the Board of Directors and further disqualified him to run
PETITIONER, VS. as such in the ensuing election, is a matter which affects
CITIBANK, N.A. AND the said electric cooperative and, thus, comes within the
BANK OF AMERICA, ambit of the powers of the NEA as expressed in Sections
S.T. & N.A., 5 and 7 of P.D. No. 1645.
RESPONDENTS.
In this regard, the Court agrees with petitioners'
[A.M. No. P-12- argument that to sustain the petition for prohibition filed
3028 [Formerly OCA by respondent with the RTC would constitute an
IPI No. 11-3649-P] : unnecessary intrusion into the NEA's power of
April 11, 2012] ATTYS. supervision and control over electric cooperatives.
RICARDO D.
GONZALES & Based on the foregoing discussions, the necessary
ERNESTO D. conclusion that can be arrived at is that, while the RTC
ROSALES, has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition filed by
COMPLAINANTS, VS. respondent, the NEA, in the exercise of its power of
ARTHUR G. CALO, supervision and control, has primary jurisdiction to
SHERIFF IV, determine the issue of the validity of the subject
REGIONAL TRIAL C, resolution.
BRANCH 5, BUTUAN
CITY RESPONDENT. It may not be amiss to reiterate the prevailing rule that
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim
[A.C. No. 7880 : is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play
April 11, 2012] whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
WILLIAM HECTOR resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme,
MARIA, PETITIONERS, has been placed within the special competence of an
VS. ATTY. WILFREDO administrative agency.[9] In such a case, the court in
R. CORTEZ, which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend
RESPONDENTS. the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view or, if the parties would

[A.C. No. 5098 : not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without
April 11, 2012] prejudice.[10]
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON,
COMPLAINANT, VS. Corollary to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is the
ATTY. CLEMENCIO principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
SABITSANA, JR.,
Court, in a long line of cases,[11] has held that before a
RESPONDENT.
party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it
is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all
[G.R. No. 179936 :
administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a
April 11, 2012]
remedy within the administrative machinery can be
PEOPLE OF THE
resorted to by giving the administrative officer every
PHILIPPINES,
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted first
VS. JAMAD ABEDIN Y
before the court’s power of judicial review can be sought.
JANDAL, ACCUSED-
[12] The premature resort to the court is fatal to one’s
APPELLANT.
cause of action.[13] Accordingly, absent any finding of
waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed for lack of
[G.R. No. 177224 :
April 11, 2012] cause of action.[14]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, based on practical and legal reasons.[15] The availment

VS. JIMMY BIYALA of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and
VELASQUEZ, provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.[16]
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity
and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the
[G.R. No. 184926 : system of administrative redress has been completed
April 11, 2012] and complied with, so as to give the administrative
PEOPLE OF THE agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error
PHILIPPINES,
and dispose of the case.[17]
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. EDMUNDO
True, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion
VILLAFLORES Y
of administrative remedies are subject to certain
OLANO, ACCUSED-
exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is estoppel on the
APPELLANT.
part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the
challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
[G.R. No. 184282 :
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is
April 11, 2012]
FRANCISCO SORIANO unreasonable delay or official inaction that will

AND DALISAY irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the
SORIANO, amount involved is relatively so small as to make the
PETITIONERS, VS. rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question
REPUBLIC OF THE involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
PHILIPPINES, decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial
(REPRESENTED BY intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the
THE OFFICE OF THE doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h)
SOLICITOR where the controverted acts violate due process; (i)
GENERAL), where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
RESPONDENT. remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where
[G.R. No. 197807 : strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto
April 16, 2012] proceedings.[18]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent, however, failed to show that the instant
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, case falls under any of the above-enumerated
VS. CECILIA LAGMAN exceptions. While respondent alleged in his Urgent
Y PIRING, ACCUSED- Petition for Prohibition that the subject resolution was
APPELLANT. issued with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of
his right to due process, mere allegation of arbitrariness
[G.R. No. 193443 : will not suffice to vest in the trial court the power that
April 16, 2012] JEAN has been specifically granted by law to special
TAN, ROSELLER C.
government agencies.[19] Moreover, the issues raised in
ANACINTO, CARLO
the petition for prohibition, particularly the issue of
LOILO ESPINEDA AND
whether or not there are valid grounds to disallow
DAISY ALIADO
respondent from attending SAMELCO's Board meetings
MANAOIS,
and to disqualify him from running for re-election as a
REPRESENTED IN
director of the said Board, are not purely legal questions.
THIS ACT BY THEIR
Instead, they involve a determination of factual matters
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
which fall within the competence of the NEA to ascertain.
MA. WILHELMINA E.
TOBIAS,
Finally, the Court agrees with petitioners' contention that
PETITIONERS, VS.
the availability of an administrative remedy via a
REPUBLIC OF THE
complaint filed before the NEA precludes respondent
PHILIPPINES,
from filing a petition for prohibition before the court. It is
RESPONDENT.
settled that one of the requisites for a writ of prohibition
to issue is that there is no plain, speedy and adequate
[G.R. No. 173951 : remedy in the ordinary course of law.[20] In order that
April 16, 2012] prohibition will lie, the petitioner must first exhaust all
DANIEL M. ISON,
administrative remedies.[21] Thus, respondent's failure
PETITIONER, VS.
to file a complaint before the NEA prevents him from
CREWSERVE, INC.,
filing a petition for prohibition before the RTC. cralaw
ANTONIO GALVEZ,
JR., AND MARLOW
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
NAVIGATION CO.,
questioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of
LTD., RESPONDENTS.
Appeals dated January 26, 2006 and July 12, 2006,
respectively, as well as the Orders of the Regional Trial
[G.R. No. 173820 :
Court of Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33, dated May 6, 2005
April 16, 2012]
and September 15, 2005, are REVERSED and SET
PRODUCERS BANK OF
ASIDE. A new judgment is entered DISMISSING the
THE PHILIPPINES,
Urgent Petition for Prohibition (Special Civil Action No. C-
PETITIONER, VS.
2005-1085) filed by respondent Ananias D. Seludo, Jr.
EXCELSA
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
SO ORDERED.
RESPONDENT.
Velasco, (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza, and

[A.C. No. 6903 :
Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
April 16, 2012]
SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, Endnotes:
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. ARNEL C. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P.
CAPISTRANO, Dicdican, with Associate Justices Ramon M.
RESPONDENT. Bato, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr..,
concurring; rollo, pp. 50-55.
[A.C. No. 6332 :
April 17, 2012] IN RE: [2] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P.
SUPREME COURT
Dicdican, Jr., with Associate Justices
RESOLUTION DATED
Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Marlene
28 APRIL 2003 IN
Gonzales-Sison, concurring, id. at 56-57.
G.R. NOS. 145817
AND 145822 [3] Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[G.R. No. 175139 :

[4] Id. at 30, 36 and 40.
April 18, 2012]
HERMOJINA ESTORES,
[5] Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza,
PETITIONER, VS.
SPOUSES ARTURO Jr., G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008, 545
AND LAURA SCRA 92, 152; Veterans Federation of the
SUPANGAN, Philippines v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155027,
RESPONDENTS. February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 526, 564;
Mondano v. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143, 147-148
[G.R. No. 180177 : (1955).
April 18, 2012]
ROGELIO S. REYES, [6] Id.
PETITIONER, VS. THE
HONORABLE COURT [7] Id.
OF APPEALS,
RESPONDENT.
[8] Section 21(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129 provides that the RTC shall exercise
[G.R. No. 185918 :
original jurisdiction in the issuance, among
April 18, 2012]
others, of a writ of prohibition.
LOCKHEED
DETECTIVE AND
[9] Rosito Bagunu v. Spouses Francisco
WATCHMAN AGENCY,
Aggabao and Rosenda Acerit, G.R. No.
INC., PETITIONER, VS.
186487, August 15, 2011; Phil
UNIVERSITY OF THE
Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer
PHILIPPINES,
(Phil.) Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17,
RESPONDENT.
2010, 635 SCRA 140, 153; Euro-Med
Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. The Province of
[G.R. No. 171995 :
Batangas, G.R. No. 148106, July 17, 2006,
April 18, 2012]
495 SCRA 301, 305.
STEELCASE, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
[10] Id.
DESIGN
INTERNATIONAL
[11] City Engineer of Baguio v. Baniqued, G.R.
SELECTIONS, INC.,
RESPONDENT. No. 150270, November 26, 2008, 571 SCRA
617, 627-628; Buston-Arendain v. Gil, G.R.
[G.R. No. 194677 : No. 172585, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 561,
April 18, 2012] ALEN 572; Province of Zamboanga del Norte v.
H. SANTIAGO, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109853, October
PETITIONER, VS. 11, 2000, 342 SCRA 549, 557.
PACBASIN
SHIPMANAGEMENT, [12] Id.
INC. AND/OR
MAJESTIC CARRIERS, [13] Id.

INC., RESPONDENTS.
[14] Id.
[G.R. No. 167735 :
April 18, 2012] LAND
[15] Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna
BANK OF THE
Lake Development Authority v. SM Prime
PHILIPPINES,
Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 170599, September
PETITIONER, VS.
22, 2010, 631 SCRA 73, 79; Montanez v.
HEIRS OF SALVADOR
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
ENCINAS AND
(PARAD), G.R. No. 183142, September 17,
JACOBA DELGADO,
2009, 600 SCRA 217, 230.
RESPONDENTS.
[16] Id.
[G.R. No. 177761 :
April 18, 2012]
[17] Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Lake Development Authority v. SM Prime
APPELLEE, VS. Holdings, Inc., supra, at 79-80; Montanez v.
REMEDIOS Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
TANCHANCO Y (PARAD), supra, at 230-231.
PINEDA, APPELLANT.
[18] Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388,
[G.R. No. 200030 : January 18, 2011, 639 SCRA 772, 777, citing
April 18, 2012] Republic of the Philippines v. Lacap, G.R. No.
PEOPLE OF THE 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255, 265-
PHILIPPINES, 266.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. NELSON BAYOT Y [19] Province of Zamboanga del Norte v.
SATINA, ACCUSED- Court of Appeals, supra note 10, at 559.
APPELLANT.
[20] Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his official
[G.R. No. 193415 :
capacity as The Executive Secretary v. Hon.
April 18, 2012]
Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino, Presiding
SPOUSES DAISY AND
Judge, Branch 137, Regional Trial Court,
SOCRATES M.
Makati City, Association of Petrochemical
AREVALO,
Manufacturers of the Philippines, representing
PETITIONERS, VS.
JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation, et al.,
PLANTERS
G.R. No. 177130, June 7, 2011; Yusay v.
DEVELOPMENT BANK
AND THE REGISTER Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6,

OF DEEDS OF 2011, 647 SCRA 269, 283-284; Ongsuco v.
PARAÑAQUE CITY, Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009,
RESPONDENTS. 604 SCRA 499, 515.
[G.R. No. 175039 : [21] Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,

April 18, 2012] Vol. I, Sixth Revised Edition, p. 712, citing
ADDITION HILLS Cebedo, et. al. v. Director of Lands, et al.,
MANDALUYONG CIVIC 111 Phil. 1049, 1053 (1961).
& SOCIAL
ORGANIZATION, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
MEGAWORLD
PROPERTIES &
Back to Home | Back to Main
HOLDINGS, INC.,
WILFREDO I.
IMPERIAL, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR, NCR, AND
HOUSING AND LAND
USE REGULATORY
BOARD, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL
RESOURCES,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 177611 :

April 18, 2012]
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES),
PETITIONER, VS.
RODOLFO L. LEGASPI,
SR., QUEROBIN L.
LEGASPI, OFELIA
LEGASPI-MUELA,
PURISIMA LEGASPI
VDA. DE MONDEJAR,
VICENTE LEGASPI,
RODOLFO LEGASPI II,
AND SPOUSES
ROSALINA LIBO-ON
AND DOMINADOR
LIBO-ON,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 192514 :

April 18, 2012] D.M.
CONSUNJI, INC.
AND/OR DAVID M.
CONSUNJI,
PETITIONERS, VS.
ESTELITO L. JAMIN,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 180898 :

April 18, 2012]
PHILIPPINE CHARTER
INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
PETROLEUM
DISTRIBUTORS &
SERVICE
CORPORATION
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 188921 :

April 18, 2012] LEO C.
ROMERO AND DAVID
AMANDO C. ROMERO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, AURORA C.
ROMERO AND
VITTORIO C.
ROMERO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 163700 :

April 18, 2012]
CHARLIE JAO,
PETITIONER, VS. BCC
PRODUCTS SALES
INC., AND TERRANCE
TY, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 163657 :

April 18, 2012]
INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT
SERVICES/MARILYN C.
PASCUAL,
PETITIONER, VS.
ROEL P. LOGARTA,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. P-11-

3004 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 10-3483-P) :
April 18, 2012] JUDGE
ANDREW P. DULNUAN,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ESTEBAN D. DACSIG,
CLERK OF COURT II,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 163125 :

April 18, 2012] JOSE
ABELGAS, JR. AND
LETECIA JUSAYAN DE
ABELGAS,
PETITIONERS, VS.
SERVILLANO COMIA,
RURAL BANK OF
SOCORRO INC. AND

RURAL BANK OF
PINAMALAYAN, INC.
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 182331 :

April 18, 2012] MA.
CORINA C. JIAO,
RODEN B. LOPEZ,
FRANCISCO L.
DIMAYUGA, NORMA G.
DEL VALLE, MACARIO
G. MARASIGAN, LANIE
MARIA B. PASANA,
NILO M. DE CASTRO,
ANGELITO M.
BALITAAN, CESAR L.
RICO, CRISPIN S.
CONSTANTINO,
GLENDA S. CORPUZ,
LEONILA C. TUAZON,
ALFREDO S. DAZA,
LORNA R. CRUZ,
MARIA M. AMBOJIA,
NOEMI M. JAPOR,
ANGELITO V. DANAN,
GLORIA M. SALAZAR,
JOHN V. VIGILIA,
ROEL D. ROBINO,
WILLIAM L. ENDAYA,
TERESITA M. ROMAN,
ARTURO M. SABALLE,
AUGUSTO N. RIGOR,
ALLAN O. OLANO,
RODOLFO T. CABATU,
NICANOR R. BRAVO,
EDUARDO M.
ALCANTARA, FELIPE F.
OCAMPO, ELPIDIO C.
ADALIA, RENATO M.
CRUZ, JOSE C. PEREZ,
JR., FERNANDO V.
MAPILE, ROMEO R.
PATRICIO, FERNANDO
N. RONGAVILLA,
FERMIN A.
COBRADOR, ANTONIO
O. BOSTRE, RALPH M.
MICHAELSON,
CRISTINA G. MANIO,
EDIGARDO M.
BAUTISTA, CYNTHIA
C. SANIEL, PRISCILLA
F. DAVID, MACARIO V.
ARNEDO, NORLITO V.
HERNANDEZ,
ALFREDO G.
BUENAVENTURA,
JOSE R.
CASTRONUEVO,
OLDERICO M.
AGORILLA, CESAR M.
PEREZ, RONALD M.
GENER, EMMANUEL G.
QUILAO, BENJAMIN C.
CUBA, EDGARDO S.
MEDRANO,
GODOFREDO D.
PATENA, VIRGILIO G.
ILAGAN, MYRNA C.
LEGASPI, ELIZABETH
P. REYES, ANTONIO A.
TALON, ROMEO P.
CRUZ, ELEANOR T.
TAN, FERDINAND G.
PINAUIN, MA.
OLIVETTE A. NAKPIL,
GILBERT NOVIEM A.
COLUMNA, ARTHUR L.
ABELLA, BENJAMIN L.
ENRIQUEZ,
ANTONINO P.
QUEVEDO, ADFEL
GEORGE
MONTEMAYOR,
RAMON S. VELASCO,
WILFREDO M. HALILI,
ANTONIO M.
LUMANGLAS, ANDREW
M. MAGNO, SONNY S.
ESTANISLAO,
RODOLFO S.
ALABASTRO, MICAH
B. MARALIT, LINA M.
QUEBRAL, REBECCA
R. NARCISO, RONILO
T. TOLENTINO,
RUPERTO B. LETAN,
JR., MEDARDO A.
VASQUEZ, VALENTINA
A. SANTIAGO,
RODELO S. DIAZ,
JOHN O. CORDIAL,
EDWIN J. ANDAYA,
RODRIGO M.
MOJADO, GERMAN L.
ESTRADA, BENJAMIN
B. DADUYA, MARLYN
A. MUNOZ, MARIVIC
M. DIONISIO, CESAR
M. FLORES, JACINTO
T. GUINTO, JR., BELEN
C. SALAVERRIA,
EVELYN M. ANZURES,
GLORIA D. ABELLA,
LILIAN V. BUNUAN,
MA. CONCEPCION G.
UBIADAS, ROLANDO
I. CAMPOSANO,
MONICO R.
GOREMBALEM,
ELADIO M. VICENCIO,
AMORSOLO B.
BELTRAN, LEOPOLDO
B. JUAREZ, NEPHTALI
V. SALAZAR,
SANGGUNI P. ROQUE,
ROY O. SAPANGHILA,
MELVIN A. DEVEZA,
CARMENCITA D.
ABELLA, PRIMITIVO S.
AGUAS, JOSE MA.
ANTONIO I. BUGAY,
HILARIO P. DE
GUZMAN, WILLIAM C.
VENTIGAN, NOEL L.
AMA, ROMEO G.
USON, RAOUL E.
VELASCO, FLORENCIO
B. PAGSALIGAN,
RUBEN C. CRUZ,
ANGELA D.
CUSTODIO, NOEL C.
CABEROY, GUILLERMO
V. GAVINO, JR.,
GAUDENCIO P. BESA,
AIDA M. PADILLA,
ROWENA M. BAUYON,
HENRY C. EPISCOPE,
ALVIN T. PATRIARCA,
EUSTAQUIO C.
AQUINO, JR.,
VALENTINO T.
ARELLANO,
REYNALDO J.
AUSTRIA, BAYANI A.
CUNANAN, EFREN T.
JOSE, EDUARDO P.
LORIA, REYNALDO M.
PORTILLO, ARMANDO
B. DUPAYA,
SESINANDO S.
GOMEZ, BRICCIO B.
GAFFUD III, DANILO
N. PALO, MARIO F.
SOLANO, MARIANITO
B. GOOT AND ELSA S.
TANGO, ZENAIDA N.
GARIN, RUBY L.
TEJADA, JOEL B.
GARCIA, MA. RUBY L.
JIMENEA, ARLENE L.
MADLANGBAYAN,
ROCELY P.
MARASIGAN, MA.
ROSARIO H. RIVERA,
OSCAR G.
BARACHINA, EDITA M.
REMO, ROBERTO P.
ENDAYA, ALELI B.
ALANO, FRANCISCO T.
MENEZ, CAMILO N.
CARILLO, ROSEMARIE
A. DOMINGO, LYNDON
D. ENOROBA, MERLY
H. JAVELLANA,
HERNES M.
MANDABON, LUZ G.
ONG, GILBERTO B.
PICO, CRISPIN A.
TAMAYO, RICARDO C.
VERNAIZ, RENATO V.
SACRAMENTO,
CLODUALDO O.
GOMEZ, MARINEL O.
ALPINO, ELY P.
RAMOS, NICANOR E.
REYES, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
GLOBAL BUSINESS
BANK, INC.,
CORPORATE
OFFICERS OF GLOBAL
BANK: ROBIN KING,
HENRY M. SUN,
BENJAMIN G. CHUA,
JR., JOVENCIO F.
CINCO, EDWARD S.
GO, MARY VY TY,
TAKANORI NAKANO,
JOHN K.C. NG,
FLORENCIO T.
MALLARE,
EDMUND/EDDIE
GAISANO, FRANCISCO
SEBASTIAN, SAMUEL
S. YAP, ALFRED VY TY,
GEN TOMII, CHARLES
WAI-BUN CHEUNG
AND METROPOLITAN
BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 170425 :

April 23, 2012]
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, PETITIONER,
VS. RIZZA G.
MENDOZA, CARLITO
LEE, GRESHIELA G.
COMPENDIO, RAUL
RIVERA, REY
BELTRAN, REX
ALMOJUELA, LINDA P.
CAPALUNGAN, HILDA
R. RONQUILLO, MA.
LODA CALMA,
TERESITA P.
ALMOJUELA, RUFINA
ABAD AND AMADOR
A. PASTRANA,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 143264 :

April 23, 2012] LISAM
ENTERPRISES, INC.
REPRESENTED BY
LOLITA A. SORIANO,
AND LOLITA A.
SORIANO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
BANCO DE ORO
UNIBANK, INC.
(FORMERLY
PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL
BANK),[*] LILIAN S.
SORIANO, ESTATE OF
LEANDRO A.
SORIANO, JR.,
REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF LEGASPI CITY,
AND JESUS L. SARTE,

RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 179488 :

April 23, 2012]
COSCO PHILIPPINES
SHIPPING, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
KEMPER INSURANCE
COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-

1711 : April 23, 2012]
RAMONCITO AND
JULIANA LUARCA, VS.
COMPLAINANTS,
JUDGE IRENEO B.
MOLATO, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT,
BONGABONG,
ORIENTAL MINDORO,
RESPONDENT. [A.M.
NO. MTJ-08-1716]
JENY AGBAY,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
JUDGE IRENEO B.
MOLATO, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT,
BONGABONG,
ORIENTAL MINDORO,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. P-11-

2948 [Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 09-3049-P] :
April 23, 2012]
EVELYN V. JALLORINA,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
RICHELLE TANEO-
REGNER, DATA ENTRY
MACHINE OPERATOR
II, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT,
SAN MATEO, RIZAL,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 175042 :

April 23, 2012]
DANILO A. DU,
PETITIONER, VS.
VENANCIO R.
JAYOMA, THEN
MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF
MABINI, BOHOL,
VICENTE GULLE, JR.,
JOVENIANO MIANO,
WILFREDO MENDEZ,
AGAPITO VALLESPIN,
RENE BUCIO, JESUS
TUTOR, CRESCENCIO
BERNALES, EDGARDO
YBANEZ, AND REY
PAGALAN, THEN
MEMBERS OF THE
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN
(SB) OF MABINI,
BOHOL,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.C. No. 7481 :

April 24, 2012]
LORENZO D.
BRENNISEN,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. RAMON U.
CONTAWI,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 171101 :

April 24, 2012]
HACIENDA LUISITA,
INCORPORATED,
PETITIONER, LUISITA
INDUSTRIAL PARK
CORPORATION AND
RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING
CORPORATION,
PETITIONERS-IN-
INTERVENTION, VS.
PRESIDENTIAL
AGRARIAN REFORM
COUNCIL; SECRETARY
NASSER
PANGANDAMAN OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM;
ALYANSA NG MGA
MANGGAGAWANG
BUKID NG HACIENDA
LUISITA, RENE
GALANG, NOEL
MALLARI, AND JULIO
SUNIGA[1] AND HIS
SUPERVISORY GROUP
OF THE HACIENDA
LUISITA, INC. AND
WINDSOR ANDAYA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 191970 :

April 24, 2012]
ROMMEL APOLINARIO
JALOSJOS,
PETITIONER, VS. THE

COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND DAN
ERASMO, SR.,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. Nos. 184379-

80 : April 24, 2012]
RODOLFO NOEL
LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA
LOZADA AND ARTURO
LOZADA,
PETITIONERS, VS.
PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL ARROYO,
EDUARDO ERMITA,
AVELINO RAZON,
ANGEL ATUTUBO AND
SPO4 ROGER
VALEROSO,*
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 164987 :

April 24, 2012]
LAWYERS AGAINST
MONOPOLY AND
POVERTY (LAMP),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND
COUNSEL, CEFERINO
PADUA, MEMBERS,
ALBERTO ABELEDA,
JR., ELEAZAR
ANGELES, GREGELY
FULTON ACOSTA,
VICTOR AVECILLA,
GALILEO BRION,
ANATALIA
BUENAVENTURA,
EFREN CARAG, PEDRO

CASTILLO, NAPOLEON
CORONADO, ROMEO
ECHAUZ, ALFREDO DE
GUZMAN, ROGELIO
KARAGDAG, JR.,
MARIA LUZ ARZAGA-
MENDOZA, LEO LUIS
MENDOZA, ANTONIO
P. PAREDES,
AQUILINO PIMENTEL
III, MARIO REYES,
EMMANUEL SANTOS,
TERESITA SANTOS,
RUDEGELIO
TACORDA, SECRETARY
GEN. ROLANDO
ARZAGA, BOARD OF
CONSULTANTS,
JUSTICE ABRAHAM
SARMIENTO, SEN.
AQUILINO PIMENTEL,
JR., AND BARTOLOME
FERNANDEZ, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS.
THE SECRETARY OF
BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT, THE
TREASURER OF THE
PHILIPPINES, THE
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE
SENATE AND THE
SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN
REPRESENTATION OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE
CONGRESS,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 192791 :

April 24, 2012]
DENNIS A. B. FUNA,
PETITIONER, VS. THE
CHAIRMAN,
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, REYNALDO A.
VILLAR, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 181367 :

April 24, 2012] LA
CARLOTA CITY,
NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MAYOR, HON. JEFFREY
P. FERRER, AND THE
SANGGUNIANG
PANLUNGSOD OF LA
CARLOTA CITY,
NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE-MAYOR, HON.
DEMIE JOHN C.
HONRADO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
ATTY. REX G. ROJO,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 193261 :

April 24, 2012]
MEYNARDO SABILI,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
FLORENCIO LIBREA,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.C. No. 7940 :

April 24, 2012] RE: SC
DECISION DATED MAY
20, 2008 IN G.R. NO.
161455 UNDER RULE
139-B OF THE RULES
OF COURT, VS. ATTY.
RODOLFO D.
PACTOLIN,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 184528 :

April 25, 2012] NILO
OROPESA,
PETITIONER, VS.
CIRILO OROPESA,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. MTJ-11-

1781 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 09-2161-
MTJ) : April 25, 2012]
DR. RAMIE G. HIPE,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
JUDGE ROLANDO T.
LITERATO, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, MAINIT,
SURIGAO DEL NORTE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 183706 :

April 25, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. SAMSON
ESCLETO, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 170865 :

April 25, 2012]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, PETITIONER,
VS. SPOUSES CHEAH
CHEE CHONG AND
OFELIA CAMACHO
CHEAH,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
NO. 170892]
SPOUSES CHEAH
CHEE CHONG AND
OFELIA CAMACHO
CHEAH, PETITIONERS,
VS. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 183308 :

April 25, 2012]
INSULAR INVESTMENT
AND TRUST
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
CAPITAL ONE
EQUITIES CORP.
(NOW KNOWN AS
CAPITAL ONE
HOLDINGS CORP.)
AND PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 189434 :

April 25, 2012]
FERDINAND R.
MARCOS, JR.
PETITIONER, VS.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON
GOOD GOVERNMENT,
RESPONDENT. [G.R.
NO. 189505] IMELDA
ROMUALDEZ-
MARCOS, PETITIONER
, VS. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 190610 :

April 25, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLEE, VS.
SATURNINO DE LA
CRUZ AND JOSE
BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ,
ACCUSED. JOSE
BRILLANTES Y LOPEZ,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 192737 :

April 25, 2012] NEMIA
CASTRO, PETITIONER,
VS. ROSALYN
GUEVARRA AND
JAMIR GUEVARRA,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. P-12-

3058 [Formerly A.M.
OCA I.P.I. No. 10-

3357-P] : April 25,
2012] LEAVE
DIVISION, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, OFFICE OF
THE COURT OF
ADMINISTRATOR,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
GEORGE E. GAREZA,
SHERIFF III,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES,
VICTORIAS CITY,
NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 194813 :

April 25, 2012]
KAKAMPI AND ITS
MEMBERS, VICTOR
PANUELOS, ET AL.,
REPRESENTED BY
DAVID DAYALO,
KAKAMPI VICE
PRESIDENT AND
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
PETITIONER, VS.
KINGSPOINT EXPRESS
AND LOGISTIC
AND/OR MARY ANN
CO, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 189127 :

April 25, 2012]
NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
SPOUSES BERNARDO
AND MINDALUZ
SALUDARES,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 187919 :

April 25, 2012]
RAFAEL H. GALVEZ
AND KATHERINE L.
GUY, PETITIONERS,
VS. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS AND ASIA
UNITED BANK,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
NO. 187979] ASIA
UNITED BANK,
PETITIONER, VS.
GILBERT G. GUY,
PHILIP LEUNG,
KATHERINE L. GUY,
RAFAEL H. GALVEZ
AND EUGENIO H.
GALVEZ, JR.,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
NO. 188030] GILBERT
G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG
AND EUGENIO H.
GALVEZ, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS.
ASIA UNITED BANK,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 188497 :

April 25, 2012]
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, VS.
PILIPINAS SHELL
PETROLEUM
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 190321 :

April 25, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. SAMMY UMIPANG
Y ABDUL, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 190569 :

April 25, 2012]
P/INSP. ARIEL S.
ARTILLERO,
PETITIONER, VS.
ORLANDO C.
CASIMIRO, OVERALL
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN,
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN;
BERNABE D.
DUSABAN,
PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR, OFFICE
OF THE PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR OF
ILOILO; EDITO
AGUILLON, BRGY.
CAPT., BRGY.
LANJAGAN, AJUY,
ILOILO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 190749 :

April 25, 2012]
VALENTIN ZAFRA Y
DECHOSA AND EROLL

MARCELINO Y REYES,
PETITIONERS, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 194024 :

April 25, 2012] PHILIP
L. GO, PACIFICO Q.
LIM AND ANDREW Q.
LIM PETITIONERS, VS.
DISTINCTION
PROPERTIES
DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 183916 :

April 25, 2012]
SPOUSES NICANOR
MAGNO AND CARIDAD
MAGNO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HEIRS OF PABLO
PARULAN,
REPRESENTED BY
EMILIANO PARULAN,
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM,
BALIUAG, BULACAN,
OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF GUIGUINTO,
BULACAN,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 172538 :

April 25, 2012]
ISABELO ESPERIDA,
LORENZO HIPOLITO,
AND ROMEO DE
BELEN, PETITIONERS,
VS. FRANCO K.
JURADO, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 161909 :

April 25, 2012]
PHILTRANCO SERVICE
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
FELIX PARAS AND
INLAND TRAILWAYS,
INC., AND HON.
COURT OF APPEALS,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 173870 :

April 25, 2012]
OSCAR DEL CARMEN,
JR., PETITIONER, VS.
GERONIMO BACOY,
GUARDIAN AND
REPRESENTING THE
CHILDREN, NAMELY:
MARY MARJORIE B.
MONSALUD, ERIC B.
MONSALUD, METZIE
ANN B. MONSALUD,
KAREEN B.
MONSALUD,
LEONARDO B.
MONSALUD, JR., AND
CRISTINA B.
MONSALUD,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 173840 :

April 25, 2012]
SAMAR II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.
(SAMELCO II) AND
ITS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS,
COMPOSED OF
DEBORAH T. MARCO
(IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT), ATTY.
MEDINO L. ACUBA,
ENGR. MANUEL C.
OREJOLA, ALFONSO F.
QUILAPIO, RAUL DE
GUZMAN AND
PONCIANO R.
ROSALES (GENERAL
MANAGER AND EX
OFFICIO DIRECTOR),
PETITIONERS, VS.
ANANIAS D. SELUDO,
JR., RESPONDENT.
[A.M No. P-11-

3003 (Formerly A.M.
IPI No. 08-2970-P) :
April 25, 2012] RE:
COMPLAINT FILED BY
PAZ DE VERA LAZARO
AGAINST EDNA
MAGALLANES, COURT
STENOGRAPHER III,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 28;
AND BONIFACIO G.
MAGALLANES,
PROCESS SERVER,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 30,

BAYOMBONG, NUEVA
VIZCAYA.
[G.R. No. 192190 :

April 25, 2012] BILLY
M. REALDA,
PETITIONER, VS. NEW
AGE GRAPHICS, INC.
AND JULIAN I.
MIRASOL, JR.
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 193250 :

April 25, 2012]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, PETITIONER,
VS. AMELIO TRIA AND
JOHN DOE,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 185829 :

April 25, 2012]
ARMANDO ALILING,
PETITIONER, VS.
JOSE B. FELICIANO,
MANUEL F. SAN
MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, AND WIDE
WIDE WORLD
EXPRESS
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Seludo Case

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seludo Case

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1/16/2020 [G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012] SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

E, INC. (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COM…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 >

[G.R. No. 173840 : April 25, 2012]

SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

ROSALES (GENERAL MANAGER AND EX OFFICIO

[G.R. No. 174489 :

COMPLAINANT, VS. the Province of Samar, individual petitioners

(CARET), In their answer to the petition for prohibition,

SECRETARY OF civil action for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of

AGRICULTURE, discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing its assailed

(COCOFED), AND errors:

EDUARDO B. APPEAL OR OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND

OFFICE OF THE involved do not require the technical expertise of

COURT administrative bodies.

OZAMIS CITY, aver that the NEA is empowered to determine the

In their third assigned error, petitioners assert that

[G.R. No. 186141 :

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, amended to read as follows:

(e) Take preventive and/or

ADMINISTRATOR, may provide.

[G.R. No. 164457 : Section 7. Subsection (a), Section 24,

their duties.[5] If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them,

PHILIPPINES, Resolution issued by SAMELCO II. A careful reading of

administrative body for its view or, if the parties would

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, based on practical and legal reasons.[15] The availment

FRANCISCO SORIANO unreasonable delay or official inaction that will

Velasco, (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza, and

[G.R. No. 175139 :

MAJESTIC CARRIERS, [13] Id.

APPELLEE, VS. Holdings, Inc., supra, at 79-80; Montanez v.

REMEDIOS Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

TANCHANCO Y (PARAD), supra, at 230-231.

AND THE REGISTER Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6,

[G.R. No. 175039 : [21] Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,

[G.R. No. 177611 :

[G.R. No. 192514 :

[G.R. No. 180898 :

[G.R. No. 188921 :

[G.R. No. 163700 :

[G.R. No. 163657 :

[A.M. No. P-11-

[G.R. No. 163125 :

SOCORRO INC. AND

[G.R. No. 182331 :

[G.R. No. 170425 :

[G.R. No. 143264 :

AND JESUS L. SARTE,

[G.R. No. 179488 :

[A.M. No. MTJ-08-

[A.M. No. P-11-

[G.R. No. 175042 :

[A.C. No. 7481 :

[G.R. No. 171101 :

[G.R. No. 191970 :

PETITIONER, VS. THE

[G.R. Nos. 184379-

[G.R. No. 164987 :

EFREN CARAG, PEDRO

[G.R. No. 192791 :