The law firm has won the following cases before the Supreme Court:


GR No. 183711, 183712, 183713

For Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo

This is a landmark case involving the writs of amparo and habeas corpus concerning the enforced disappearance of activist Jonas T. Burgos. The Supreme Court has made a finding that the totality of evidence shows that the Armed Forces of the Philippines is accountable and one officer is responsible for the enforced disappearance of Jonas.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFINO MIRANDILLA BERMAS, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 120420. April 21, 1999

This is a landmark case in Constitutional Law and Legal Ethics concerning the duties of a counsel de oficio. The ponente, Justice Jose Vitug, wrote that “A counsel de oficio is expected to do his utmost.[19] A mere pro-forma appointment of de oficio counsel who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused merits disapprobation. The exacting demands expected of a lawyer should be no less than stringent when one is a counsel de officio. He must take the case not as a burden but as an opportunity to assist in the proper dispensation of justice. No lawyer is to be excused from this responsibility except only for the most compelling and cogent reasons.”

3. PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN-AFP), and ATTY. BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity as Ombudsman Investigator, respondents.

G.R. No. 102420. December 20, 1994

This is a landmark case where Justice Vicente V. Mendoza ruled that in preliminary investigation of cases, it is incumbent upon the complainants to submit their evidence in affidavit form and it is only after such submission that respondent may be required to explain and submit his counter-affidavit, also under oath. This case has been cited in a number of cases including Oscar G. Raro versus Sandiganbayan, GR No. 108431 (2000); Estandarte versus People of the Philippines, GR Nos. 156851-55 (2008); and Sales versus Sandiganbayan, GR No. 143802 (2001)

4. AIRLIFT ASIA CUSTOMS BROKERAGE, INC. and ALLAN BENEDICTO, petitioners versus COURT OF APPEALS et al, respondents.

GR No. 183664. July 28, 2014

This is a landmark case where the Supreme Court upheld the right of customs brokers, who have been licensed by the Professional Regulation Commission, to practice their profession without securing any permit of license from the Bureau of Customs.