6. BPI vs Calanza

8/15/2019 6. BPI vs Calanza

1/22

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

ANK OF THEHILIPPINEISLANDS,

titioner,

versus -

ABOR ARBITERODERICK JOSEPHALANZA, SHERIFF ENRICOPAREDES, AMELIA

NRIQUEZ, and REMO L.A,

G.R. No. 180699

Present:

VELASCO, JR., J .,*

NACHURA,**

Acting Chairman ,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*

BRION,**** and

MENDOZA, JJ .

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn1


2/22

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

DECISION

espondents. Promulgated:

October 13, 2010


3/22

ACHURA, J .:

his is a Petition for Indirect Contempt filed by petitione

ank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) against respondent bor Arbiter Roderick Joseph Calanza (LA Calanza)eriff Enrico Y. Paredes (Sheriff Paredes), Ameli

nriquez (Enriquez), and Remo L. Sia (Sia).

he case stemmed from the following facts:

nriquez and Sia were the branch manager and thsistant branch manager, respectively, of Bacolodngcang Branch of petitioner. On September 3, 2003, theere dismissed from employment on grounds of breach oust and confidence and dishonesty. The following dayey filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal againstitioner before the National Labor Relations CommissioLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City .

After the submission of their respective positiopers, Executive LA Danilo C. Acosta rendered a decisio

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn5


4/22

March 29, 2004, finding that Enriquez and Sia had beenegally dismissed from employment. The dispositvrtion of LA Acostas decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premisesconsidered, judgment is hereby renderedas follows:

1. DECLARING thatcomplainants were illegally dismissed byrespondents;

2. ORDERINGrespondents to reinstate complainants to

their former position without loss ofseniority rights and to pay them theircorresponding full back wages inclusive ofallowances and other benefits ascomputed, in the sum of Pesos: ONEMILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND,


5/22

FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR AND50/100 ONLY (P1,173,434.50 ). [2]

rsuant to the aforesaid decision, Enriquez and Sia wernstated in petitioners payrol l.[3]

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC ruleat petitioner had just cause to terminate Enriquez anda. Hence, it reversed and set aside the LA decision andhough it dismissed the complaint, it ordered petitione

give the dismissed employees financial assistancuivalent to one-half months pay for every year orvice .[4] In view of this decision, petitioner stopped theyroll reinstatemen t. [5]

Enriquez and Sia elevated the matter to the CourAppeals (CA), but failed to obtain a favorable decisionn November 30, 2005, the appellate court affirmedo the NLRC decision. The case eventually reached this

ourt and was docketed as G.R. No. 172812.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn6


6/22

During the pendency of the petition before thiourt, Enriquez and Sia filed a Motion for Partialxecutio n [6] of the LA decision dated March 29, 2004ting Roquero v. Philippine Airline s,[7] they claimed that thenstatement aspect of the LA decision was immediatelecutory during the entire period that the case was onpeal.

In an Orde r [8] dated October 13, 2007, LA Calanzanted Enriquez and Sias motion despite the opposition otitioner. He opined that so long as there is no finality yethe decision reversing a ruling of the lower tribunal (is case, the LA) awarding reinstatement, the same shoulenforced. Considering that the case was then pendin

fore this Court, he sustained Enriquez and Sias claimplying the cases of Roquero and Air Philippine

orporation v. Zamora .[9] The corresponding writ oecution was subsequently issued .[10] Upon service of thit, Sheriff Paredes served on petitioner a notice of sale o

parcel of land owned by petitioner to satisfy it ligation .[11]

Aggrieved, petitioner immediately filed an Urgentition for Injunction with prayer for the issuance ofmporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn10


7/22


8/22

Meanwhile, on February 12, 2008, this Courndered a Decision in G.R. No. 172812, denying thtition filed by Enriquez and Sia, thereby sustaining thLRC and the CAs conclusion that Enriquez and Sia werelidly dismissed from employment by petitioner.

In a decisio n [14] dated June 30, 2008, the NLRCurth Division, Cebu City, granted BPIs petition founction, the dispositive portion of which is quotelow:

WHEREFORE, premises

considered, the instant petition is herebyGRANTED. The Order dated 12 October2007 issued by public respondent LaborArbiter granting the Writ of Execution isdeclared NULL and VOID. The Writ ofExecution issued in pursuance to saidOrder is likewise declared NULL andVOID. Public respondent Labor ArbiterRoderick Joseph B. Calanza, and any

person acting for and in his behalf, isDIRECTED to take no further action in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn18


9/22

pursuance of the aforementioned Orderand Writ of Execution.

The Writ of PreliminaryInjunction issued by this Commissiondated 12 December 2007 is hereby MADEPERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.[15]

On October 27, 2008, LA Calanza issued ade r [16] considering the case closed and terminated based

Enriquez and Sias manifestation and motion to dismisview of the satisfaction and full payment of their claims.

Hence, the only issue that is left unsettled ihether or not respondents are guilty of indirect contempt

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn19


10/22

Indirect contempt of court is governed by SectioRule 71 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punishedafter charge and hearing .-After a chargein writing has been filed, and anopportunity given to the respondent tocomment thereon within such period asmay be fixed by the court and to be heardby himself or counsel, a person guilty ofany of the following acts may bepunished for indirect contempt:

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court inthe performance of his official duties orin his official transactions;

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to alawful writ, process, order, or judgmentof a court, including the act of a personwho, after being dispossessed or ejected

from any real property by the judgmentor process of any court of competent


11/22


12/22

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena dulyserved;

(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of aperson or property in the custody of anofficer by virtue of an order or process ofa court held by him. x x x.

Do the acts of respondents Enriquez and Sia iing a motion for partial execution; of LA Calanza ianting the writ of execution and applying or not applyintablished jurisprudence; and of Sheriff Paredes in servine notice of sale of the real property owned by petitionel under the above enumeration?

We answer in the negative.


13/22

Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience t e court by acting in opposition to its authority, justiced dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard osobedience of the courts order, but such conduct whicnds to bring the authority of the court and thministration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, topede the due administration of justice .[17] It is a defiancthe authority, justice, or dignity of the court which tendsbring the authority and administration of the law int

srespect or to interfere with or prejudice party-litigants

their witnesses during litigation .[18]

The power to punish for contempt is inherent icourts and is essential to the preservation of order i

dicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgmentsders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the administration of justice .[19] However, such poweould be exercised on the preservative, not on thndictive, principle. Only occasionally should the cour

voke its inherent power in order to retain that respect thout which the administration of justice will falter ol .[20] Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal t ey should the power be exercised. Such power, beinastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not besorted to unless necessary in the interest of justic e. [21]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn21


14/22

It is true that, at the time of the filing by Enriqued Sia of the motion for the partial execution of the Lcision which directed their reinstatement, the decisiod already been reversed by the NLRC, and such reversaas affirmed by the CA. The case was then on appeal to thiourt via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4the Rules of Court. We find that their motion for partiaecution was a bona fide attempt to implement what theyght have genuinely believed they were entitled to incordance with existing laws and jurisprudence .[22] This

pecially true in the instant case where the means oelihood of the dismissed employees was at stake. Anan in such an uncertain and economically threatenedndition would be expected to take whatever measurese available to ensure a means of sustenance for himseld his family .[23] Clearly, Enriquez and Sia were merelrsuing a claim which they honestly believed was duem. Their act is far from being contumacious.

On the other hand, LA Calanza, on motion onriquez and Sia, issued the writ of execution considerinat at the time of the application of the writ, this Court hat to decide G.R. No. 172812. LA Calanza opined that sng as there is no finality yet of the decision reversingling of the LA awarding reinstatement, the same shoul

enforced. This was how he interpreted this Courtsonouncements in Roquer o [24] and Zamora ;[25] that even i

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn26


15/22


16/22

ntempt .[27] No one who is called upon to try the facts oerpret the law in the process of administering justice cainfallible in his judgment .[28]

Finally, Sheriff Paredes, in serving the notice ole, was only performing his duty pursuant to the writ oecution. No matter how erroneous the writ was, it waued by LA Calanza and was addressed to him as theriff, commanding him to collect from petitioner th

mount due Enriquez and Sia. In the event he failed t llect the amount, he was authorized to cause thtisfaction of the same on the movable and immovabloperties of petitioner not exempt froecution .[29] Thus, any act performed by Sheriff Paredesrsuant to the aforesaid writ cannot be considerentemptuous. At the time of the service of the notice ole, there was no order from any court or tribunalstraining him from enforcing the writ. It was ministeriaty for him to implement it.

To be considered contemptuous, an act must bearly contrary to or prohibited by the order of the courtribunal. A person cannot, for disobedience, be punishe

r contempt unless the act which is forbidden or requiredbe done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there ca

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn31


17/22

no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what specifit or thing is forbidden or required .[30]

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petitioDISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED .

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

Acting Chairperson

E CONCUR :

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftn34


18/22


19/22

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

ttest that the conclusions in the above Decision had beeached in consultation before the case was assigned to thiter of the opinion of the Courts Division.

NTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA


20/22

ssociate Justice

cting Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

rsuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution ane Division Acting Chairpersons Attestation, I certify thae conclusions in the above Decision had been reached i

nsultation before the case was assigned to the writer oe opinion of the Courts Division.

ENATO C. CORONA

hief Justice


21/22

dditional member in lieu of Associate Justi ce Antonio T. Carpio perecial Order No. 897 dated September 28, 2010.n lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 89ed September 28, 2010.Additional member in lieu of Associate Justi ce Rober to A. Abad perecial Order No. 905 dated October 5, 2010.*Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta peecial Order No. 904 dated October 5, 2010.

Enriquez v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 172812, February 1208, 544 SCRA 590, 596-597.Id. at 597.Rollo, p. 55.Enriquez v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, supra note 1, at 598.

Rollo, pp. 65-66.Id. at 64-70.449 Phil. 437 (2003).Rollo, pp. 27-30.G.R. No. 148247, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 59.Rollo, pp. 31-33.Id. at 7.Id. at 7-8.Supra note 1.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref4


22/22

Rollo, pp. 71-80.Id. at 79.Id. at 81.Lu Ym v. Mahinay , G.R. No. 169476, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 253, 261

2; Lee v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br.85, 496 Phil. 421, 4305).

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Incorporated v. Valdez, G. 150107, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 455, 467; Lu Ym v. Mahinay , supr62; Lee v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 85, supra, at 433.I nonog v. Ibay, A.M. No. RTC-09-2175, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 168, 177

8; Lu Ym v. Mahinay , supra note 17, at 262.Lu Ym v. Mahinay , supra, at 262.Id.

See Bildner v. Ilusorio , G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 378,4.Salvador v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 453, 461 (2000).Supra note 7.Supra note 9.G.R. No. 170001, April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 644.Urgent Appeal/Petition For Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge

gaspi , 453 Phil 459, 465-466 (2003).Id. at 465.Supra note 10.Lu Ym v. Mahinay , supra note 17, at 263-264.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/180699.htm#_ftnref18

Documents

6. BPI vs Calanza