9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P.

MAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 1 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > January 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 191470, January 26,
2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT-GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO,
SUBSTITUTING HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.:

Custom Search
Search

G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS
PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F.
DOMINGO AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review DOMINGO, Respondents.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015

AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO AND MARGARITA
IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a special civil action for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dated March 17, 2010,
filed by Atty. Augusto M. Aquino (petitioner) assailing the Order dated January 11, 2010 issued by
respondent Presiding Judge Ismael P. Casabar (public respondent), in relation to Agrarian Case No. 1217-
G,2 for allegedly having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On June 27, 2002, Atty. Angel T. Domingo (now deceased) verbally contracted petitioner to represent him
in Agrarian Case No. 1217-G on a contingency fee basis. The case was for the determination of the just
compensation for the expropriation and taking of Atty. Domingo's ricelands consisting of 60.5348
hectares, situated in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), pursuant to
Presidential Decree (P.D.) 27. The DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) initially valued
Atty. Domingo's property at P484,236.27 or P7,999.30 per hectare, which the latter, through petitioner-
counsel, opposed in courts.

Eventually, the RTC, acting as Special Agrarian Court (RTC/SAC) issued a Decision dated April 12, 2004
fixing the just compensation for Atty. Domingo's property at P2,459,319.70 or P40,626.54 per hectare, or
an increase of P1,975,083.43 over the initial DAR and the Land Bank valuation. Land Bank moved for
reconsideration, but was denied, thus, it filed a petition for review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85394.
However, in a Decision dated June 12, 2007, the appellate court affirmed in toto the SAC Decision dated
April 12, 2004. Land Bank moved for reconsideration anew, but was denied.

Meanwhile, on September 30, 2007, Atty. Domingo died. Petitioner filed a Manifestation dated December
11, 2007 of the fact of Atty. Domingo's death and the substitution of the latter by his legal heirs, Ma. Ala
F. Domingo and Margarita Irene F. Domingo (private respondents).

Land Bank assailed the appellate court's decision and resolution before the Supreme Court via a petition
for review on certiorari dated December 4, 2007 docketed as G.R. No. 180108 entitled “Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Angel T. Domingo”. However, in a Resolution dated September 17, 2008, the Court denied
the same for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the appellate court's decision. On
December 15, 2008, the Court denied with finality Land Bank's motion for reconsideration.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42 1/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
On February 11, 2009,3 petitioner wrote private respondent Ma. Ala Domingo and informed her of the
Division finality of the RTC/SAC decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. He then
requested her to inform the Land Bank of the segregation of petitioner's thirty percent (30%) contingent
attorney's fees out of the increase of the just compensation for the subject property, or thirty percent
(30%) of the total increase amounting to Php1,975,983.43. Petitioner claimed never to have received a
reply from private respondent.

On March 30, 2009, petitioner received a copy of the entry of judgment from this Court certifying that its
Resolution dated September 17, 2008 in G.R. No. 180108 has already become final and executory on
March 3, 2009.

On July 28, 2009, petitioner received a Notice of Appearance dated July 16, 2009 filed by Atty. Antonio G.
Conde, entering his appearance as counsel of herein private respondents and replacing him as counsel in
Agrarian Case No. 1217-G.

On August 14, 2009, private respondents, through their new counsel, Atty. Conde, filed a Motion for
Execution dated August 6, 2009 of the RTC/SAC Decision dated April 12, 2004.

On August 12, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney's Lien and for the Order of
Payment.4 Petitioner further executed an Affidavit5 dated August 10, 2009, attesting to the circumstances
surrounding the legal services he has rendered for the deceased Atty. Domingo and the successful
prosecution of the Agrarian case from the RTC/SAC through the appellate court and the Supreme Court.

On August 18, 2009, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss/Expunge Petitioner's Motion.6 Public
respondent Presiding Judge Casabar denied the same.7 Private respondents moved for reconsideration.

On January 11, 2010, public respondent Judge Casabar issued the disputed Order denying petitioner's
motion for approval of attorney's lien, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

xxxx

Examining the basis of the instant motion for reconsideration, this court agrees with
respondents – movants that this court has no jurisdiction over Atty. Aquino's motion for
approval of charging (Attorney's) lien having been filed after the judgment has become final
and executory. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is granted and the motion for
approval of (Attorney's) lien is denied and or expunged from the records of the case.

January-2015 Jurisprudence   
              
G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015 - BETTY
GEPULLE-GARBO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, MINDA G. ROSALES(NOW REPRESENTED BY
HER NEW ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GARY LLOYD G.
ROSALES), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTOREY
ANTONIO GARABATO AND JOSEPHINE S. GARABATO,
Respondents.
SO ORDERED.
On the same day, January 11, 2010, public respondent issued an Order directing the issuance of a Writ of
Execution of the RTC/SAC Decision dated April 12, 2004.
On January 12, 2010, the Clerk of Court of Branch 33, RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, issued a Writ of
Execution of the April 12, 2004. On January 15, 2010, the Sheriff of the RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija
issued a Notice of Garnishment.
Thus, the instant petition for certiorari via Rule 65, raising the following issues:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015 - JOSELITO F. I

TEJANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F.
BATERINA, Respondent.
WHETHER OR NOT A CHARGING (ATTORNEY'S) LIEN CAN EFFECTIVELY BE FILED ONLY
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 - RE: BEFORE JUDGMENT IS RENDERED. cralawred

VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015 - NORIEL R.
MONTIERRO, Petitioner, v. RICKMERS MARINE
AGENCY PHILS., INC., Respondent.
II
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT PRESIDING JUDGE HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OVER PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CHARGING (ATTORNEY'S)
LIEN FILED AFTER THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. cralawred

G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015 - MANUEL R.

PORTUGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE III
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT PRESIDING JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
G.R. No. 187892, January 14, 2015 - UNGAY
MALOBAGO MINES, INC. Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE CHALLENGED ORDER.8
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203384, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF Petitioner maintains that he filed the motion for charging attorney's lien and order of payment in the very
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPS. JOSE CASTUERA same case, Agrarian Case No. 1217-G, as an incident thereof, wherein he was the counsel during the
AND PERLA CASTUERA, Respondents. proceedings of the latter, and that he is allowed to wait until the finality of the case to file the said motion.

A.M. No. P-14-3194 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-1-01- Private respondents, on the other hand, counter that the motion was belatedly filed and that it was filed
MTC), January 27, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT without the payment of docket fees, thus, the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. cralawred

ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CONSTANTINO P.

REDOÑA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL RULING
TRIAL COURT, TANAUAN, LEYTE, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015 - SENATOR In a nutshell, the issue is whether the trial court committed a reversible error in denying the motion to
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. approve attorney's lien and order of payment on the ground that it lost jurisdiction over the case since
BERSAMIN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD judgment in the case has already become final and executory.
INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION We rule in favor of the petitioner.
AND ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD, Respondents.
In the case of Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman,9 the Court clarified a similar issue and discussed the two
G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015 - ALEJANDRO C. concepts of attorney’s fees – that is, ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable
ALMENDRAS, JR., Petitioner, v. ALEXIS C. compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is
ALMENDRAS, Respondent.
awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.10
G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015 - ROHM APOLLO Although both concepts are similar in some respects, they differ from each other, as further explained
SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. below: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondents.
The attorney’s fees which a court may, in proper cases, award to a winning litigant is,
A.M. No. P-08-2465 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04- strictly speaking, an item of damages. It differs from that which a client pays his counsel
1849-P], January 12, 2015 - CONCHITA S. BAHALA, for the latter’s professional services. However, the two concepts have many things in
Complainant, v. CIRILO DUCA, SHERIFF III, common that a treatment of the subject is necessary. The award that the court may grant
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, to a successful party by way of attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him
BRANCH 1, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondent. in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his cause in court. It may be decreed in favor
of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances authorized by law. On the other hand,
A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753],
the attorney’s fee which a client pays his counsel refers to the compensation for the latter’s
January 13, 2015 - MARILEN G. SOLIMAN,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, services. The losing party against whom damages by way of attorney’s fees may be
Respondent. assessed is not bound by, nor is his liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of the

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42 2/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ARNALDO BOSITO Y
CHAVENIA, Appellant.
G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANOLITO
OPIANA Y TANAEL, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 207993, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERARDO
ENUMERABLE Y DE VILLA, Appellant.
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 - ATTY. ALICIA
RISOS-VIDAL, Petitioner, ALFREDO S. LIM, Petitioner-
Intervenor, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO
DILLA Y PAULAR, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015 - SPOUSES JOSE
O. GATUSLAO AND ERMILA LEONILA LIMSIACO-
GATUSLAO, Petitioners, v. LEO RAY V. YANSON,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P-11-2940, January 21, 2015 - JUDGE
GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., Complainant, v. GEORGE E.
VIAJAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 4, BUTUAN CITY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015 - NEIL B.
AGUILAR AND RUBEN CALIMBAS, Petitioners, v.
LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT COOPERATIVE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL DORIA
DAHIL AND ROMMEL CASTRO Y CARLOS, Accused-
Appellants.
A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015 - ARCATOMY S.
GUARIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C.
LIMPIN, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015 - DR. DOMICIANO
F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ISIDRO
L. CARACOL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015 - ROMMEL B.
DARAUG, Petitioner, v. KGJS FLEET MANAGEMENT
MANILA, INC., KRISTIAN GERHARD JEBSEN
SKIPSREDER, MR. GUY DOMINO A. MACAPAYAG
AND/OR M/V “IBIS ARROW,” Respondents.
G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 - IRENE D.
OFILADA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RUBEN ANDAL AND
MIRAFLOR ANDAL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 193451, January 28, 2015 - ANTONIO M.
MAGTALAS, Petitioner, v. ISIDORO A. ANTE, RAUL C.
ADDATU, NICANOR B. PADILLA, JR., DANTE Y.
CEÑIDO, AND RHAMIR C. DALIOAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197011, January 28, 2015 - ESSENCIA Q.
MANARPIIS, Petitioner, v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RICHARD TAN AND CATHERINE P. RIALUBIN-TAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 206562, January 21, 2015 - UNICOL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LINK MARINE PTE.
LTD. AND/OR VICTORIANO B. TIROL, III, Petitioners,
v. DELIA MALIPOT, IN BEHALF OF GLICERIO
MALIPOT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015 - ONE
SHIPPING CORP., AND/OR ONE SHIPPING
KABUSHIKI KAISHA/JAPAN, Petitioner, v. IMELDA C.
PEÑAFIEL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015 - GLENN VIÑAS,
Petitioner, v. MARY GRACE PAREL-VIÑAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015 - THE DIOCESE
OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV.
BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP
HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION
OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V.
MAJARUCON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015 - GARY
FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA,
Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015 - RICARDO C.
HONRADO, Petitioner, v. GMA NETWORK FILMS, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 178169, January 12, 2015 - NFF
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. G & L
ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE AND/OR GERARDO
TRINIDAD, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 - VIRGILIO C.
BRIONES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42
prevailing party with his lawyer. The amount stipulated in such fee arrangement may,
however, be taken into account by the court in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an
element of damages.
The fee as an item of damages belongs to the party litigant and not to his lawyer. It forms
part of his judgment recoveries against the losing party. The client and his lawyer may,
however, agree that whatever attorney’s fee as an element of damages the court may
award shall pertain to the lawyer as his compensation or as part thereof. In such a case, the
court upon proper motion may require the losing party to pay such fee directly to the
lawyer of the prevailing party.
The two concepts of attorney’s fees are similar in other respects. They both require, as a
prerequisite to their grant, the intervention of or the rendition of professional services by a
lawyer. As a client may not be held liable for counsel fees in favor of his lawyer who never
rendered services, so too may a party be not held liable for attorney’s fees as damages in
favor of the winning party who enforced his rights without the assistance of counsel.
Moreover, both fees are subject to judicial control and modification. And the rules governing
the determination of their reasonable amount are applicable in one as in the other.11
Similarly, in the instant case, the attorney’s fees being claimed by the petitioner is the compensation for
professional services rendered, and not an indemnity for damages. Petitioner is claiming payment from
private respondents for the successful outcome of the agrarian case which he represented. We see no
valid reason why public respondent cannot pass upon a proper petition to determine attorney's fees
considering that it is already familiar with the nature and the extent of petitioner's legal services. If we are
to follow the rule against multiplicity of suits, then with more reason that petitioner's motion should not be
dismissed as the same is in effect incidental to the main case.
We are, likewise, unconvinced that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the motion solely due
to non-payment of docket fees. Petitioner's failure to pay the docket fees pertinent to his motion should
not be considered as having divested the court a quo's jurisdiction. We note that, in this case, there was
no showing that petitioner intended to evade the payment of docket fees as in fact he manifested
willingness to pay the same should it be necessary.12 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Likewise, pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, should there be unpaid
docket fees, the same should be considered as a lien on the judgment. Thus, even on the assumption
that additional docket fees are required as a consequence of petitioner's motion, its non-payment will not
result in the court’s loss of jurisdiction over the case.13
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
With regards to how attorney’s fees for professional services can be recovered, and when an action for
attorney’s fees for professional services can be filed, the case of Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-
Independent v. NLRC14 is instructive: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x x It is well settled that a claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted either in
the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a
separate action.
With respect to the first situation, the remedy for recovering attorney’s fees as an
incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the
client. Attorney’s fees cannot be determined until after the main litigation has
been decided and the subject of the recovery is at the disposition of the court. The
issue over attorney’s fees only arises when something has been recovered from which the
fee is to be paid.
While a claim for attorney’s fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered, the
determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have
to be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer’s claim for
attorney’s fees may arise has become final. Otherwise, the determination to be made
by the courts will be premature. Of course, a petition for attorney’s fees may be filed before
the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the
client.
It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that a lawyer has two options as to when to file
his claim for professional fees. Hence, private respondent was well within his rights
when he made his claim and waited for the finality of the judgment for holiday pay
differential, instead of filing it ahead of the award’s complete resolution. To
declare that a lawyer may file a claim for fees in the same action only before the
judgment is reviewed by a higher tribunal would deprive him of his aforestated
options and render ineffective the foregoing pronouncements of this Court.15
Here, apparently petitioner filed his claim as an incident of the main action, as in fact, his motion was for
the court's approval of charging attorney's lien and the prayer thereto was to direct the entry into the case
records the attorney's fees he is claiming. Needless to say, petitioner's motion for approval of charging
attorney's lien and order of payment was not intended to be filed as a separate action. Nevertheless, it is
within petitioner's right to wait for the finality of the judgment, instead of filing it ahead of the court's
resolution, since precisely the basis of the determination of the attorney's fees is the final disposition of
the case, that is, the just compensation to be awarded to the private respondents.
Moreover, the RTC/SAC decision became final and executory on March 3, 2009, and petitioner filed his
Motion to Determine Attorney’s Fees on August 10, 2009, or only about four (4) months from the finality
of the RTC/SAC decision. Considering that petitioner and Atty. Domingo’s agreement was contracted
verbally, Article 114516 of the Civil Code allows petitioner a period of six (6) years within which to file an
action to recover professional fees for services rendered.17 Thus, the disputed motion to approve the
charging of attorney's lien and the order of payment was seasonably filed.
Petitioner claims that he and Atty. Domingo agreed to a contract for contingent fees equivalent to thirty
percent (30%) of the increase of the just compensation awarded, albeit verbally. However, a contract for
contingent fees is an agreement in writing by which the fees, usually a fixed percentage of what may be
recovered in the action, are made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a
supposed right. Contingent fees depend upon an express contract, without which the attorney can only
recover on the basis of quantum meruit.18 Here, considering that the contract was made verbally and
that there was no evidence presented to justify the 30% contingent fees being claimed by petitioner, the
only way to determine his right to appropriate attorney’s fees is to apply the principle of quantum meruit,
to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Quantum meruit – literally meaning as much as he deserves – is used as basis for
determining an attorney’s professional fees in the absence of an express agreement. The
recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an
unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel
3/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
G.R. No. 213525, January 27, 2015 - FORTUNE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT
GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; AND
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015 - KYLE
ANTHONY ZABALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015 -
REYNALDO H. JAYLO, WILLIAM VALENZONA AND
ANTONIO G. HABALO, Petitioners, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND HEIRS OF COL. ROLANDO DE
GUZMAN, FRANCO CALANOG AND AVELINO
MANGUERA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015 - CHERYLL
SANTOS LEUS, Petitioner, v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S
COLLEGE WESTGROVE AND/OR SR. EDNA QUIAMBAO,
OSB, Respondents.
G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M.
AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS
PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA,
NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO
AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING
HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T. DOMINGO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 193468, January 28, 2015 - AL O. EYANA,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS,
INC., ALAIN A. GARILLOS, CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC.
(U.S.A.), Respondents.
G.R. No. 189571, January 21, 2015 - THE
HONORABLE MONETARY BOARD AND GAIL U. FULE,
DIRECTOR, SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION
DEPARTMENT II, AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS
BANK, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAKIM
MINANGA Y DUMANSAL, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 194885, January 26, 2015 - C.F. SHARP
CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. AND REEDEREI CLAUS
PETER OFFEN, Petitioners, v. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205433, January 21, 2015 - OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. AVELINO DE ZOSA
AND BARTOLOME DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015 - RUKS
KONSULT AND CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v.
ADWORLD SIGN AND ADVERTISING CORPORATION*
AND TRANSWORLD MEDIA ADS, INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 163928, January 21, 2015 - MANUEL
JUSAYAN,ALFREDO JUSAYAN, AND MICHAEL
JUSAYAN, Petitioners, v. JORGE SOMBILLA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195272, January 14, 2015 - BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (FORMERLY PRUDENTIAL
BANK), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DAVID M. CASTRO
AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015 - SAINT MARY
CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN
FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. TEODORO T.
RIEL, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 85, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.; UNIVERSITY
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERIC PAVIA
Y PALIZA aka “JERIC” AND JUAN BUENDIA Y DELOS
REYES aka “JUNE”, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. Nos. 193383-84, January 14, 2015 - CBK
POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.; G.R. NOS. 193407-08 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206832, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO
MORALES Y LAM, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL
BALUTE Y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PALMY
TIBAYAN AND RICO Z. PUERTO, Accused-Appellants.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-
3919-RTJ], January 12, 2015 - ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO,
JR., CONSOLACION D. DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO,
JULIETA D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC, EMILIANO E.
LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L. NOGUERA,
FIDEL S. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42
without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the attorney himself.
An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort in
pursuing the client’s cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of legal
fees.
Further, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the guidelines for determining the
proper amount of attorney fees, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rule 20.1 – A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficult of the questions involved;
c) The important of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Private respondents never rebutted the fact that petitioner rendered legal services in the subject case. It
is likewise undisputed that it was petitioner who successfully represented Atty. Domingo in Agrarian Case
No. 12-17-G before the Special Agrarian Court, in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85394, and
before this Court in G.R. No. 180108 where the case eventually attained finality. It is, therefore, through
petitioner's effort for a lengthy period of seven (7) years that the just compensation for the property
owned by deceased Atty. Domingo increased. It cannot be denied then that private respondents benefited
from the said increase in the just compensation. Thus, considering petitioner's effort and the amount of
time spent in ensuring the successful disposition of the case, petitioner rightfully deserves to be awarded
reasonable attorney’s fees for services rendered.
Ordinarily, We would have left it to the trial court the determination of attorney's fees based on quantum
meruit, however, following the several pronouncements of the Court that it will be just and equitable to
now assess and fix the attorney’s fees in order that the resolution thereof would not be needlessly
prolonged,19 this Court, which holds and exercises the power to fix attorney’s fees on quantum meruit
basis in the absence of an express written agreement between the attorney and the client, deems it fair
to fix petitioner's attorney’s fees at fifteen percent (15%) of the increase in the just compensation
awarded to private respondents.
The fact that the practice of law is not a business and the attorney plays a vital role in the administration
of justice underscores the need to secure him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the
decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection
against injustice, imposition or fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his
counsel. The duty of the court is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is
also its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting of his brains and with his
skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled
to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of
his just compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to secure justice for his
client he himself would not get his due.20 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion for Approval of
Charging Attorney's Lien filed by petitioner Atty. Augusto M. Aquino. Based on quantum meruit, the
amount of attorney's fees is at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the amount of the increase in valuation
of just compensation awarded to the private respondents.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2
Entitled “Angel T. Domingo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the
Philippines.”
3Rollo, pp. 35-36.
4 Id. at 25-28.
5 Id. at 29-34.
6 Id. at 40-44.
7 Id. at 23-24.
8 Id. at 12.
9 G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013, 701 SCRA 78.
10Ortiz v. San Miguel, 582 Phil. 627, 640 (2008).
11
Id. at 7, citing R.E. Agpalo, Comments on The Code of Professional Responsibility and
The Code of Judicial Conduct (2004 edition Rex Book Store, Inc., Manila 2004), pp. 329-
330.
12 Comment/Opposition dated September 25, 2009; rollo, pp. 47-51.
13See Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-11 Builders Inc., and NHA, G.R. No. 192649, March 9,
2011, 640 SCRA 219, 243.
14 336 Phil. 705, 713-714 (1997).
4/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
G. SANTOS, AVELINA M. COLONIA, ERIC S. 15Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, supra, at 713-714.
PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL B. ISON, Complaints, v. (Emphasis ours)
PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., BRANCH 45,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE OCCIDENTAL 16
MINDORO, Respondent. Article 1145. The following actions must be commenced within six years:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 198756, January 13, 2015 - BANCO DE (1) Upon an oral-contract.
ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING (2) Upon a quasi-contract.
CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
17Anido v. Negado, 419 Phil. 800, 807 (2001).
COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE VETERANS
BANK AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, 18National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August
Petitioners, RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 60, 96, citing Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics (2009), p. 408.
CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Petitioners, CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO 19Traders
NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, supra note 14, at 724;
THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Rosario Jr. v. De Guzman, supra note 9, at 91.
REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, 20Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, supra note 9, at 91-92.
THE NATIONAL TREASURER AND BUREAU OF
TREASURY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015 - RUBEN

MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION
GONZALES AND LUIS MANALANG, Petitioners, v. Back to Home | Back to Main
BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI, Respondents.

G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015 - YINLU BICOL

MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TRANS-ASIA QUICK SEARCH
OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015 - THE LAW FIRM

OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO, 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND/OR 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR.
IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, Respondents.
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHI CHAN LIU A. K. A. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
CHAN QUE AND HUI LAO CHUNG A.K.A. LEOFE
SENGLAO, Appellants. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015 - EDMUND
SIA, Petitioner, v. WILFREDO ARCENAS, FERNANDO 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
LOPEZ, AND PABLO RAFANAN, Respondents. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015 - RODRIGO 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SALVADOR CHUA 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
AND S. VIOLETA CHUA, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
184472 - SPS. SALVADOR CHUA AND VIOLETA S. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
CHUA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO RIVERA, Respondent. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015 - ROGELIO J. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
GONZAGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-14-3281 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-

3998-P), January 28, 2015 - FELISICIMO* R.
SABIJON AND ZENAIDA A. SABIJON, Complainants, v.
BENEDICT** M. DE JUAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
TRIAL COURT OF KABACAN, NORTH COTABATO,
BRANCH 22, Respondent.

G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. TEAM (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION (FORMERLY
MIRANT (PHILS.) ENERGY CORPORATION),
Respondent.

G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 - EASTERN

SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BPI/MS
INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE
CO., LTD., Respondents.

G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015 - VALERIO E.

KALAW, Petitioner, v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 195580, January 28, 2015 - NARRA

NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO
MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND MCARTHUR
MINING, INC., Petitioners, v. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP., Respondent.

G.R. No. 210660, January 21, 2015 - FLOR G. DAYO,

Petitioner, v. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION
AND/OR NAFTO TRADE SHIPPING COMMERCIAL S.A.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 204689, January 21, 2015 - STRONGHOLD

INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
RUNE AND LEA STROEM, Respondents.

G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015 -

WINEBRENNER & IÑIGO INSURANCE BROKERS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 203351, January 21, 2015 - PANAY POWER

CORPORATION (FORMERLY AVON RIVER POWER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondents.

UDK-15143, January 21, 2015 - IN THE MATTER OF:

SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT v. ABOLITION OF

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42 5/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND
REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY.

G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015 - MA. CHARITO

C. GADIA, ERNESTO M. PEÑAS, GEMMABELLE B. REMO,
LORENA S. QUESEA, MARIE JOY FRANCISCO, BEVERLY
A. CABINGAS, IVEE U. BALINGIT, ROMA ANGELICA O.
BORJA, MARIE JOAN RAMOS, KIM GUEVARRA, LYNN
S. DE LOS SANTOS, CAREN C. ENCANTO, EIDEN
BALDOVINO, JACQUELINE B. CASTRENCE, MA.
ESTRELLA V. LAPUZ, JOSELITO L. LORD, RAYMOND G.
SANTOS, ABIGAIL M. VILORIA, ROMMEL C. ACOSTA,
FRANCIS JAN S. BAYLON, ERIC O. PADIERNOS, MA.
LENELL P. AARON, CRISNELL P. AARON, AND
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER F. PAPA, Petitioners, v.
SYKES ASIA, INC./ CHUCK SYKES/ MIKE HINDS/
MICHAEL HENDERSON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015 - RODOLFO S.

AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 199648, January 28, 2015 - FIRST OPTIMA

REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECURITRON
SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondents.

A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015 - FERNANDO W.

CHU, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 180147, January 14, 2015 - SARA LEE

PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D.
MACATLANG, ET AL.,1 Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180148
- ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D.
MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180149 -
SARA LEE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D.
MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180150 -
CESAR C. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. EMILINDA D.
MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 180319 -
FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v.
EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R.
NO. 180685 - EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.,
Petitioners, v. NLRC, ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC.,
FASHION ACCESSORIES PHILS., INC., SARA LEE
CORPORATION, SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., COLLIN
BEAL AND ATTY. CESAR C. CRUZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 - MARITIME

INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT, Respondents.

G.R. No. 203026, January 28, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL
PASION Y DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “ATHAN” AND DENNIS
MICHAEL PAZ Y SIBAYAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF
SATURNINO Q. BORBON, AND COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 148748, January 14, 2015 - IMELDA,

LEONARDO, FIDELINO, AZUCENA, JOSEFINA, ANITA
AND SISA, ALL SURNAMED SYJUCO, Petitioners, v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner-
Intervenor, v. FELISA D. BONIFACIO AND VSD
REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 206393, January 21, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL
JOSON Y ROGANDO, Defendant-Appellant.

G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015 - CLUB

FILIPINO, INC. AND ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON,
Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, RONIE SUALOG,
JOEL CALIDA, JOHNNY ARINTO, CARLITO
PRESENTACION, AND ROBERTO DE GUZMAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015 - HENRY ONG

LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND
DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015 - RICHARD

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

G.R. No. 174184, January 28, 2015 - G.J.T.

REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP, GODOFREDO
TRILLANA, AND JULIANA TRILLANA, Petitioners, v.
RICARDO AMBOS, BENJAMIN PUTIAN, AND RUSSELL
AMBOS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015 - ORTIGAS &

COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, v.
JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO AND DOLORES V. MOLINA,
Respondents.; [G.R. No. 112564] - DOLORES V.
MOLINA, Petitioner, v. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF
RTC, QUEZON CITY, BR. 105 AND MANILA BANKING
CORPORATION, Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128422] -
DOLORES V. MOLINA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS AND EPIMACO ORETA,
Respondents.; [G.R. No. 128911] - THE MANILA
BANKING CORPORATION AND ALBERTO V. REYES,
Petitioners, v. DOLORES V. MOLINA AND HON.
MARCIANO BACALLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42 6/7
9/22/2019 G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015 - AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE REGI…
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 216, Respondent.

G.R. No. 167519, January 14, 2015 - THE WELLEX

GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. U-LAND AIRLINES, CO.,
LTD., Respondent.

G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR
SUAREZ Y MAGTAGNOB, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 191710, January 14, 2015 - DEMETRIA DE

GUZMAN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS OLGA C.
BARBASO AND NOLI G. CEMENTTNA;* LOLITA A. DE
GUZMAN; ESTHER G.MILAN; BANAAG A. DE GUZMAN;
AMOR G. APOLO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS
ALBERTO T. APOLO, MARK APOLO AND GEORGE
APOLO;* HERMINIO A. DE GUZMAN; LEONOR G.
VTVENCIO; NORMA A. DE GUZMAN; AND JOSEFINA G.
HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. FBLINVEST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 168616, January 28, 2015 - HOME

GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LA SAVOIE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200628, January 13, 2015 - MARIA

THERESA G. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT AND AUDITOR NARCISA DJ JOAQUIN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 - SAUDI

ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA,
Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO,
MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A.
CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ,
Respondents.

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

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=42 7/7