ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > March 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 198967, March 07,
2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON,
Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul
and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated June 8, 2011 and Resolution2 dated October 7, 2011
in CA ​G.R. SP No. 115485, which affirmed in toto the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).

The facts of the case follow.

On March 11, 1996, respondent Crisanto P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal Class Venture
Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an accounting clerk.3 Eventually, he was promoted to the position of
accounting supervisor, with a salary of Php13,000.00 a month, until he was allegedly dismissed from
employment on December 20, 2000.4

DebtKollect Company, Inc. On March 2, 2001, Uson filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration . Branch No. 1, Dagupan City, of the
NLRC a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal, with prayers for backwages, reinstatement, salaries and 13th
month pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Royal Class Venture.5

Royal Class Venture did not make an appearance in the case despite its receipt of summons.6

On May 15, 2001, Uson filed his Position Paper7 as complainant.


ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
March-2016 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL
P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 208071, March 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO PEREZ
Y ALAVADO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016 - BAGUMBAYAN-
VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, AS
CHAIRMAN OF BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC.,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016 - TABUK MULTI-
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE
DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners, v.
MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016 - SILICON
PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016 - SOLOMON
VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 - BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE
CORPORATION (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BPI/MS
INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioners, v.
YOLANDA LAINGO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 184251, March 09, 2016 - ESTATE OF DR.
JUVENCIO P. ORTAÑEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA
ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR
ORTAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C.
LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-
LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR.,
BRENDA ORTAÑEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND
On October 22, 2001, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera rendered a Decision8 in favor of the complainant
Uson and ordering therein respondent Royal Class Venture to reinstate him to his former position and pay
his backwages, 13th month pay as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Royal Class Venture, as the losing party, did not file an appeal of the decision.9 Consequently, upon
Uson's motion, a Writ of Execution10 dated February 15, 2002 was issued to implement the Labor
Arbiter's decision.
On May 17, 2002, an Alias Writ of Execution11 was issued. But with the judgment still unsatisfied, a
Second Alias Writ of Execution12 was issued on September 11, 2002.
Again, it was reported in the Sheriff's Return that the Second Alias Writ of Execution dated September
11, 2002 remained "unsatisfied." Thus, on November 14, 2002, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of
Execution and to Hold Directors and Officers of Respondent Liable for Satisfaction of the Decision.13 The
motion quoted from a portion of the Sheriffs Return, which states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On September 12, 2002, the undersigned proceeded at the stated present business office
address of the respondent which is at Minien East, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan to serve the
writ of execution. Upon arrival, I found out that the establishment erected thereat is not
[in] the respondent's name but JOEL and SONS CORPORATION, a family corporation
owned by the Guillermos of which, Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo the General Manager of the
respondent, is one of the stockholders who received the writ using his nickname "Joey,"
[and who] concealed his real identity and pretended that he [was] the brother of Jose,
which [was] contrary to the statement of the guard-on-duty that Jose and Joey [were] one
and the same person. The former also informed the undersigned that the respondent's
(sic) corporation has been dissolved.
On the succeeding day, as per [advice] by the [complainant's] counsel that the respondent
has an account at the Bank of Philippine Islands Magsaysay Branch, A.B. Fernandez Ave.,
Dagupan City, the undersigned immediately served a notice of garnishment, thus, the bank
replied on the same day stating that the respondent [does] not have an account with the
branch.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On December 26, 2002, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando issued an Order15 granting the motion filed
by Uson. The order held that officers of a corporation are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of
the corporation to the employees and there is no denial of due process in holding them so even if the
said officers were not parties to the case when the judgment in favor of the employees was rendered.16
Thus, the Labor Arbiter pierced the veil of corporate fiction of Royal Class Venture and held herein
petitioner Jose Emmanuel Guillermo (Guillermo), in his personal capacity, jointly and severally liable with
the corporation for the enforcement of the claims of Uson.17
Guillermo filed, by way of special appearance, a Motion for Reconsideration/To Set Aside the Order of
December 26, 2002.18 The same, however, was not granted as, this time, in an Order dated November
24, 2003, Labor Arbiter Niña Fe S. Lazaga-Rafols sustained the findings of the labor arbiters before her
and even castigated Guillenno for his unexplained absence in the prior proceedings despite notice,
effectively putting responsibility on Guillermo for the case's outcome against him.19
On January 5, 2004, Guillermo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order,20 but the same was
promptly denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order dated January 7, 2004.21
On January 26, 2004, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of Execution,22 to which Guillermo filed a
Comment and Opposition on April 2, 2004.23
On May 18, 2004, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order24 granting Uson's Motion for the Issuance of an Alias
Writ of Execution and rejecting Guillermo's arguments posed in his Comment and Opposition.
Guillermo elevated the matter to the NLRC by filing a Memorandum of Appeal with Prayer for a (Writ of)
Preliminary Injunction dated June 10, 2004.25 cralawred
In a Decision26 dated May 11, 2010, the NLRC dismissed Guillermo's appeal and denied his prayers for
injunction.
On August 20, 2010, Guillermo filed a Petition for Certiorari27 before the Court of Appeals, assailing the
NLRC decision.
On June 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision28 which denied Guillermo's petition
and upheld all the findings of the NLRC.
The appellate court found that summons was in fact served on Guillermo as President and General
Manager of Royal Class Venture, which was how the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
company.29 But Guillermo subsequently refused to receive all notices of hearings and conferences as well
as the order to file Royal Class Venture's position paper.30 Then, it was learned during execution that
Royal Class Venture had been dissolved.31 However, the Court of Appeals held that although the
judgment had become final and executory, it may be modified or altered "as when its execution becomes
impossible or unjust."32 It also noted that the motion to hold officers and directors like Guillermo
personally liable, as well as the notices to hear the same, was sent to them by registered mail, but no
pleadings were submitted and no appearances were made by anyone of them during the said motion's
pendency.33 Thus, the court held Guillermo liable, citing jurisprudence that hold the president of the
corporation liable for the latter's obligation to illegally dismissed employees.34 Finally, the court dismissed
Guillermo's allegation that the case is an intra-corporate controversy, stating that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.35
From the above decision of the appellate court, Guillermo filed a Motion for Reconsideration36 but the
same was again denied by the said court in the assailed Resolution37 dated October 7, 2011.
Hence, the instant petition.
Guillermo asserts that he was impleaded in the case only more than a year after its Decision had become
final and executory, an act which he claims to be unsupported in law and jurisprudence.38 He contends
that the decision had become final, immutable and unalterable and that any amendment thereto is null
and void.39 Guillermo assails the so-called "piercing the veil" of corporate fiction which allegedly
discriminated against him when he alone was belatedly impleaded despite the existence of other
JOHN DOES, Respondents. directors and officers in Royal Class Venture.40 He also claims that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction
because the case is one of an intra-corporate controversy, with the complainant Uson also claiming to be
G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016 - FE P. ZALDIVAR,
ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER a stockholder and director of Royal Class Venture.41
ZALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS., In his Comment,42 Uson did not introduce any new arguments but merely cited verbatim the
Respondents. disquisitions of the Court of Appeals to counter Guillermo's assertions in his petition.

G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016 - MILAGROSA
JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016 - INDUSTRIAL
PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
(IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS & The petition is denied.
CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B.
ARRIOLA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEÑA,
Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS
OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.
G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016 - MILAGROS
DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q.
CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND
TERESITA PUNZALAN, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016 - IN THE
MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR
DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY
COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)
A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3121],
March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND
CARIDAD ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY.
REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218072, March 08, 2016 - METROPOLITAN
NAGA WATER DISTRICT, VIRGINIA I. NERO,
JEREMIAS P. ABAN JR., AND EMMA A. CUYO,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016 - BASIANA
MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA
MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING
EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR
METALS INC. (SRMI), Respondents.
A.C. No. 9684, March 16, 2016 - MARY ROSE A.
BOTO, Complainant, v. SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY
PROSECUTOR VINCENT L. VILLENA, CITY
PROSECUTOR ARCHIMEDES V. MANABAT AND
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR PATRICK NOEL P. DE
DIOS., Respondents.
G.R. No. 193134, March 02, 2016 - RAFAEL
NADYAHAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191079, March 02, 2016 - JOEL CARDENAS,
HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. ALCANTARA,
REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, JR., Petitioner,
v. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SIMPLICIA P.
AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR AND ATTY.
NORMAN R. BUENO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016 - RAMON PACON,
THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO
PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON,
EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON,
LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES,
LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA,
Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES
CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO, Complainants, v.
JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, Respondent.
To resolve the case, the Court must confront the issue of whether an officer of a corporation may be
included as judgment obligor in a labor case for the first time only after the decision of the Labor Arbiter
had become final and executory, and whether the twin doctrines of "piercing the veil of corporate fiction"
and personal liability of company officers in labor cases apply.
In the earlier labor cases of Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations43 and A.C. Ransom Labor Union-
CCLU v. NLRC,44 persons who were not originally impleaded in the case were, even during execution,
held to be solidarity liable with the employer corporation for the latter's unpaid obligations to
complainant-employees. These included a newly-formed corporation which was considered a mere
conduit or alter ego of the originally impleaded corporation, and/or the officers or stockholders of the
latter corporation.45 Liability attached, especially to the responsible officers, even after final judgment
and during execution, when there was a failure to collect from the employer corporation the judgment
debt awarded to its workers.46 In Naguiat v. NLRC,47 the president of the corporation was found, for the
first time on appeal, to be solidarily liable to the dismissed employees. Then, in Reynoso v. Court of
Appeals,48 the veil of corporate fiction was pierced at the stage of execution, against a corporation not
previously impleaded, when it was established that such corporation had dominant control of the original
party corporation, which was a smaller company, in such a manner that the latter's closure was done by
the former in order to defraud its creditors, including a former worker.
The rulings of this Court in A.C. Ransom, Naguiat, and Reynoso, however, have since been tempered, at
least in the aspects of the lifting of the corporate veil and the assignment of personal liability to directors,
trustees and officers in labor cases. The subsequent cases of McLeod v. NLRC,49Spouses Santos v.
NLRC50 and Carag v. NLRC,51 have all established, save for certain exceptions, the primacy of Section
3152 of the Corporation Code in the matter of assigning such liability for a corporation's debts, including
judgment obligations in labor cases. According to these cases, a corporation is still an artificial being
invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of its stockholders and from that of
other corporations to which it may be connected.53 It is not in every instance of inability to collect from a
corporation that the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, and the responsible officials are made liable.
Personal liability attaches only when, as enumerated by the said Section 31 of the Corporation Code,
there is a wilfull and knowing assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, there is gross
negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation, or there is a conflict of interest resulting
in damages to the corporation.54 Further, in another labor case, Pantranco Employees Association (PEA-
PTGWO), et al. v. NLRC, et al.,55 the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is held to apply only in three
(3) basic areas, namely: ( 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a
vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; (2) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to
justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or (3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is merely a
farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so
organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency,
conduit or adjunct of another corporation. In the absence of malice, bad faith, or a specific provision of
law making a corporate officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable for
corporate liabilities.56 Indeed, in Reahs Corporation v. NLRC,57 the conferment of liability on officers for a
corporation's obligations to labor is held to be an exception to the general doctrine of separate
personality of a corporation.
It also bears emphasis that in cases where personal liability attaches, not even all officers are made
accountable. Rather, only the "responsible officer," i.e., the person directly responsible for and who "acted
in bad faith" in committing the illegal dismissal or any act violative of the Labor Code, is held solidarily
liable, in cases wherein the corporate veil is pierced.58 In other instances, such as cases of so-called
corporate tort of a close corporation, it is the person "actively engaged" in the management of the
corporation who is held liable.59 In the absence of a clearly identifiable officer(s) directly responsible for
the legal infraction, the Court considers the president of the corporation as such officer.60
The common thread running among the aforementioned cases, however, is that the veil of corporate
fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but related
corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment
and on execution, so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used the corporate
vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing
so. When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and opprobriously
elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and
shatter the said shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment.
The key element is the presence of fraud, malice or bad faith. Bad faith, in this instance, does not
connote bad judgment or negligence but imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud.61
As the foregoing implies, there is no hard and fast rule on when corporate fiction may be disregarded;
instead, each case must be evaluated according to its peculiar circumstances.62 For the case at bar,
applying the above criteria, a finding of personal and solidary liability against a corporate officer like
Guillermo must be rooted on a satisfactory showing of fraud, bad

G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016 - WIGBERTO
"TOBY" R. TAÑADA, JR., Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL,
ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S.
TAÑADA, Respondents.
A.C. No. 9831, March 09, 2016 - CHAN SHUN KUEN,
Complainant, v. COMMISSIONERS LOURDES B.
COLOMA-JAVIER, GREGORIO O. BILOG III, RAUL
TAGLE AQUINO AND ATTY. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 217121, March 16, 2016 - SYSTEMS AND
PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA, Respondent.
faith or malice, or the presence of any of the justifications for disregarding the corporate fiction. As
stated in McLeod,63 bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary, so that the records must first bear
evidence of malice before a finding of such may be made.
It is our finding that such evidence exists in the record. Like the A. C. Ransom, and Naguiat cases, the
case at bar involves an apparent family corporation. As in those two cases, the records of the present
case bear allegations and evidence that Guillermo, the officer being held liable, is the person responsible
in the actual running of the company and for the malicious and illegal dismissal of the complainant; he,
likewise, was shown to have a role in dissolving the original obligor company in an obvious "scheme to
avoid liability" which jurisprudence has always looked upon with a suspicious eye in order to protect the
rights of labor.64
Part of the evidence on record is the second page of the verified Position Paper of complainant (herein
respondent) Crisanto P. Uson, where it was clearly alleged that Uson was "illegally dismissed by the
President/General Manager of respondent corporation (herein petitioner) Jose Emmanuel P. Guillermo
when Uson exposed the practice of the said President/General Manager of dictating and undervaluing the
 G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016 - NELSON TEÑIDO
Y SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016 - SILVERTEX
WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO
ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v. TEODORA F.
CAMPO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016 - ERNIE IDANAN,
NANLY DEL BARRIO AND MARLON PLOPENIO,
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 170746-47, March 07, 2016 - CALTEX
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES
PETROLEUM, CO., INC., CALTEX SERVICES
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX OCEANIC LIMITED,
CALTEX INVESTMENT AND TRADING LIMITED,
CALTEX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTRAPORT
(FAR EAST) COMPANY, CALTEX TRADING AND
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CALTEX SERVICES
CORPORATION, AMERICAN OVERSEAS PETROLEUM
LIMITED, P.T. CALTEX PACIFIC INDONESIA, CALTEX
PETROLEUM INC., CALTEX ASIA, LIMITED,
CALIFORNIA TEXAS OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED, CALTEX OIL
CORPORATION, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION
(DELAWARE), CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (NEW
YORK), CALTEX OIL PRODUCT COMPANY, CALTEX
(OVERSEAS) LIMITED, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORP., Petitioners, v. MA. FLOR
A. SINGZON AGUIRRE, ERNEST SINGZON, CESAR
SINGZON AND ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS-
INTERVENORS IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 91-59592,91-
59658, AND 92-61026 PENDING BEFORE THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 39,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016 - BANGKO
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE JOSE
CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C.
ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA
NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND
BALBINO JOSE CAMPA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016 - BANGKO
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P.
LEGASPI, Respondent.
G.R. No. 185757, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES
VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN,
NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL. AND LYDIA S.
DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF
SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJAO AND ANASTACIA Z.
BAJAO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 - UNIVERSAL
ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY
BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS,
AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED
HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-
4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO,
Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 - SISON OLAÑO,
SERGIO T. ONG, MARILYN O. GO, AND JAP FUK HAI,
Petitioners, v. LIM ENG CO, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 212593-94, March 15, 2016 - JESSICA
LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.; G.R.Nos. 213163-78 -
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION)
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.;
G.R. Nos. 213540-41 - JANET LIM NAPOLES,
Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213542-43 - JO CHRISTINE
NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES,
Petitioners, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER
CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.;
G.R. Nos. 215880-94 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND
JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213475-76 - JOHN
RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), Respondents.
G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016 - DESIGNER
BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT,
INC. AND ASIA CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC.,
Respondents.
A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3905-P), March 01, 2016 - AIREEN A. MAHUSAY,
Complainant, v. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS
shares of stock of the corporation."65 The statement is proof that Guillermo was the responsible officer in
charge of running the company as well as the one who dismissed Uson from employment. As this sworn
allegation is uncontroverted - as neither the company nor Guillermo appeared before the Labor Arbiter
despite the service of summons and notices - such stands as a fact of the case, and now functions as
clear evidence of Guillermo's bad faith in his dismissal of Uson from employment, with the motive
apparently being anger at the latter's reporting of unlawful activities.
Then, it is also clearly reflected in the records that it was Guillermo himself, as President and General
Manager of the company, who received the summons to the case, and who also subsequently and
without justifiable cause refused to receive all notices and orders of the Labor Arbiter that followed.66
This makes Guillermo responsible for his and his company's failure to participate in the entire
proceedings before the said office. The fact is clearly narrated in the Decision and Orders of the Labor
Arbiter, Uson's Motions for the Issuance of Alias Writs of Execution, as well as in the Decision of the NLRC
and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals,67 which Guillermo did not dispute in any of his belated
motions or pleadings, including in his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals and even in the
petition currently before this Court.68 Thus, again, the same now stands as a finding of fact of the said
lower tribunals which binds this Court and which it has no power to alter or revisit.69 Guillermo's
knowledge of the case's filing and existence and his unexplained refusal to participate in it as the
responsible official of his company, again is an indicia of his bad faith and malicious intent to evade the
judgment of the labor tribunals.
Finally, the records likewise bear that Guillermo dissolved Royal Class Venture and helped incorporate a
new firm, located in the same address as the former, wherein he is again a stockl1older. This is borne by
the Sherif11s Return which reported: that at Royal Class Venture's business address at Minien East, Sta.
Barbara, Pangasinan, there is a new establishment named "Joel and Sons Corporation," a family
corporation owned by the Guillermos in which Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo is again one of the
stockholders; that Guillermo received the writ of execution but used the nickname "Joey" and denied
being Jose Emmanuel F. Guillermo and, instead, pretended to be Jose's brother; that the guard on duty
confirmed that Jose and Joey are one and the same person; and that the respondent corporation Royal
Class Venture had been dissolved.70 Again, the facts contained in the Sheriffs Return were not disputed
nor controverted by Guillermo, either in the hearings of Uson's Motions for Issuance of Alias Writs of
Execution, in subsequent motions or pleadings, or even in the petition before this Court. Essentially,
then, the facts form part of the records and now stand as further proof of Guillermo's bad faith and
malicious intent to evade the judgment obligation.
The foregoing clearly indicate a pattern or scheme to avoid the obligations to Uson and frustrate the
execution of the judgment award, which this Court, in the interest of justice, will not countenance.
As for Guillermo's assertion that the case is an intra-corporate controversy, the Court sustains the finding
of the appellate court that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the
allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.71 Although Uson is also a stockholder and
director of Royal Class Venture, it is settled in jurisprudence that not all conflicts between a stockholder
and the corporation are intra-corporate; an examination of the complaint must be made on whether the
complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or director, or as an employee.72 If the latter is
found and the dispute does not meet the test of what qualities as an intra-​corporate controversy, then
the case is a labor case cognizable by the NLRC and is not within the jurisdiction of any other tribunal.73
In the case at bar, Uson's allegation was that he was maliciously and illegally dismissed as an Accounting
Supervisor by Guillermo, the Company President and General Manager, an allegation that was not even
disputed by the latter nor by Royal Class Venture. It raised no intra-corporate relationship issues between
him and the corporation or Guillermo; neither did it raise any issue regarding the regulation of the
corporation. As correctly found by the appellate court, Uson's complaint and redress sought were
centered alone on his dismissal as an employee, and not upon any other relationship he had with the
company or with Guillermo. Thus, the matter is clearly a labor dispute cognizable by the labor tribunals. chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 8, 2011 and Resolution
dated October 7, 2011 in CA​ G.R. SP No. 115485 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Penned by Associate Justice Joselina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 130-142.
The National Labor Relations Commission as well as Labor Arbiter Niña Fe S. Lazaga-Rafols
were excluded as respondents by this Court in its Resolution in this case elated January
30, 2012, id. at 159-160, citing Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito Diamante concurring; id. at 155-158.
3Id. at 165.
4Id.
5Id.
at 24, 167.
6Id. at 59-61, 77, 80-81, 89-90, 137.
7Id. at 49-54.
8Id.
at 57-64.
9Id. at 25, 65, 168.
10Id. at 65-66.
11Id. at 67-68.
12Id. at 69-70.
CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent. 13Id. at 71-74.
G.R. No. 174747, March 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF 14Id.
THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRIVATIZATION at 72.
AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL
15Id. at 75-79.
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION)
AND NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA,
DOMINGO REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO 16Id. at 78.
TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE, AND BIENVENIDO FELINA,
Respondents. 17Id. at 78-79.
G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 - TRAVEL &
18Id. at 170.
TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v.
ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND
VIRGINIA MUÑOZ, Respondents. 19Id. at 80-81.
G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF 20Id.
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NILDA B. TAMPUS, at 170-171.
Respondent.
21Id. at 171 .
G.R. No. 204965, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES
ROMULO H. ESPIRITU AND EVELYN ESPIRITU, 22Id. at 82-83.
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND
ANNALIZA G. SAZON, Respondents. 23Id. at 172.
A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 - THE CHRISTIAN
24Id. at 84.
SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL cralawred

CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-

FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. 25Id. at 172-173.
DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent.
26Id. at 86-91.
G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016 - LAND BANK cralawred

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION

27Id. at 92-110.
PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 201871 - DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. 28Id. at 130-142.
PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES),
Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND 29Id.
BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents. at 137.

30Id.
G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016 - ROGER ALLEN
BIGLER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO, 31Id.
Respondents.
32Id. at 138.
G.R. Nos. 202647-50, March 09, 2016 - CORAZON H.
RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE
33Id.
GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE
ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, THE HONORABLE RAMON M.
BATO, JR., AND THE HONORABLE EDUARDO B. 34Id. at 139-140.
PERALTA, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS
MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION 35Id.
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONWIDE at 140.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROBERTO R. ROMULO,
36Id. at 143-154.
CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN
ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA AND LUIS MANUEL
GATMAITAN, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 205921-24 - 37Id. at 155-158.
CORAZON H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT
AND MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. 38Id.
ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, at 31.
ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO
39Id. at 32-33.
NITORREDA, NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT cralawred

CORPORATION AND LUIS MANUEL L. GATMAITAN,

Respondents. 40Id. at 36-39.
G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016 - CITA C. PEREZ, 41Id.
Petitioner, v. FIDEL D. AQUINO, Respondent. at 40-42, 51 (Uson's Position Paper).

42Id. at 165-178.
G.R. No. 218399, March 02, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO
COMBOY Y CRONICO, Accused-Appellant. 43 160 Phil. 624 (1975).
G.R. No. 214430, March 09, 2016 - FELICITO M. 44
MEJORADO, Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, 226 Phil. 199 (1986).
IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
45Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations, supra; A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU-NLRC,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
Respondent. supra.

A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 - NENITA D. 46Id.

SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O.
JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F.
CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON.
COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R.
CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR
ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA
PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING
CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND
TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016 - TUNG HUI
CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, Petitioners, v. SHIH
CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-10-2793 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-
2406-P), March 08, 2016 - SIMPLECIO A. MARSADA,
Complainant, v. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN,
AGUSAN DEL NORTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 214752, March 09, 2016 - EQUITABLE
SAVINGS BANK, (NOW KNOWN AS THE MERGED
ENTITY "BDO UNIBANK, INC.") Petitioner, v.
ROSALINDA C. PALCES, Respondent.
47 336 Phil. 545 (1997).
48 399 Phil. 38 (2000), citing Claparols v. CIR, supra note 43.
49 541 Phil. 214 (2007).
50
354 Phil. 918 (1998).
51 548 Phil. 581 (2007).
52 Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - Directors or trustees who willfully
and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire
any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees
shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the
corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons.
When a director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquire, in violation of his duty,
any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in
him in confidence, as to which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own
behalf he shall be liable as a trustee for the corporation and must account for the profits
which otherwise would have accrued to the corporation. (n)

DECISION - PEREZ, J. - G.R. No. 221697, March 08,
2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-
LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
SERENO, C.J.: - CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
CARPIO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
BRION, J. - DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
CAGUIOA, J.: SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION -
G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
JARDELEZA, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: SEPARATE DISSENTING
OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY
GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.
53McLeod v. NLRC, supra note 49, at 238.
54
Further, as added in McLeod, there is personal liability also when directors, trustees or
officers consent or fail to object to the issuance of watered clown stocks, despite
knowledge thereof; when they agree to hold themselves personally and soliciarily liable
with the corporation; or when they are made by specific provision of IDw personally
answerable for their corporate action. (Id. at 242)
55 600 Phil. 645 (2009).
56Pantranco
Employees Association (PEA-PTGWO), et al. v. NLRC, et al., supra, at 663.
57 337 Phil. 698 (1997).
58Carag v. NLRC, supra note 51, at 606-608, citing McLeod v. NLRC, et al., supra note 49.
59Naguiat
v. NLRC, supra note 47, at 562. A "corporate tort" is described as a violation of
a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law; a breach of a legal duty. Such legal
duty include that spelled out in Art. 238 of the Labor Code which mandates the employer
to grant separation pay to employees in case of closure or cessation of operations not due
to serious business losses or financial reverses.
60Santos v. NLRC, 325 Phil. 145 (1996); Naguiat v. NLRC, supra note 47, at 560.
61Elcee
Farms, Inc. v. NLRC (Fourth Div.), 541 Phil. 576, 593 (2007).
62Concept Builders Inc. v. NLRC, 326 Phil. 955, 965 ( 1996).
63Supra note 49, at 242.
64Claparols
v. CIR, supra note 43, at 635-636.
65Rollo, pp. 50-51.
66Id. at 59-61, 77, 80-81, 89-90, 137.
67Id.
68Id. at 21-44, 92-109.
69Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems v. NLRC, G.R. No. 157900, July 22, 2013, 701 SCRA
561.
70Rollo, p. 72.
71Barrazona v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Baguio City, 521 Phil. 53 (2006).
72Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc. and/or Abe, 655 Phil. 68, 83-84 (2011).
73Id.;
Aguirre v. FQB+7, Inc., G.R. No. 170770, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 242, 260,
quoting Speed Distribution, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 739, 758-759 (2004), as
follows: To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to be
heard and decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try
and decide such cases, two elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship or the
parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
The first clement requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or
partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership, or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or
association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchises. The second
element requires that the dispute among the parties be intrinsically connected with the
regulation or the corporation. If the nature of the controversy involves matters that are
purely civil in character, necessarily, the case docs not involve an intra-corporate
controversy. The determination of whether a contract is simulated or not is an issue that
could be resolved by applying pertinent provisions of the Civil Code.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R.

No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
Back to Home | Back to Main
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
QUICK SEARCH
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
Respondents.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
LEONEN, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
 COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED