Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

202 Phil. 390:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28996. September 30, 1982.]

MAXIMO SANTOS, BENJAMIN BAYONETA, JAIME SANTOS, MARIANO LAUREA, LADISLAO BAUTISTA, ROLAND FRAZIER, LUIS SANTOS, FLORENCIO FONTANILLA, ALFREDO SANTOS and LEOPOLDO VICENTE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ROMEO GONZALES and NESTOR MARFORI, Defendants-Appellees.

R.M. Coronado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

J. Vitanzo for Defendants-Appellees.

SYNOPSIS


Plaintiffs-appellants filed with the Court of First Instance, an action for collection of separation pay, overtime compensation, and vacation and sick leave benefits against their employer and its officers, herein defendants-appellees, alleging that their services were terminated without just cause.As affirmative defense, defendants-appellees advanced that plaintiffs-appellants’ claims were essentially labor disputes which fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, and not of the Court of First Instance. At the pre-trial, the court a quo, noting that the complaint contained no clear and categorical allegations as would entitle plaintiffs to overtime pay and to sick and vacation leave, required plaintiff’s counsel to file within 10 days a motion to amend the complaint. Due to failure of plaintiffs to comply with such order and on motion of defendants, the trialcourt dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Hence,this appeal, perfected before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 5440.

The Supreme Court held: (a) that while the complaint is deficient in the material details with respect to the factual bases of each and every item of the plaintiff’s claim, such deficiency, however, does not amount to a failure to state a cause of action and is curable by amendment of the complaint or by a motion for bill of particulars; (b) that the trial court acted properly in ordering plaintiffs to amend their complaint to make their claims asserted more definite and certain and in dismissing the complaint pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the order; and (c) that such dismissal, however, should not operate as an adjudication on the merits as to bar the plaintiffs, who are employees and laborers of defendants company, from further enforcing their rights under the law for, it is in the interest of justice that they be allowed to refile their claims with the Labor Arbiter who has now jurisdiction over their claims.

Order appealed from affirmed, without prejudice to refiling of plaintiffs’ claims before the Labor Arbiter and without bar by the statute of limitations.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PLEADINGS; COMPLAINT; DEFICIENCY THEREOF CURABLE BY AMENDMENT OR BY A MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS; CASE AT BAR. — While plaintiffs’ complaint is unskillfully drafted, its allegations nevertheless sufficiently assert certain rights against the defendants and likewise state that demands for such rights had not been complied with. While the complaint is deficient in the material details with respect to the factual bases of each and every item of the plaintiffs’ claims, this deficiency however, does not amount to a failure to state a cause of action. It is curable by amendment of the complaint or a motion for a bill of particulars.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH ORDER OF COURT FOR AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT WARRANTS DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT; CASE AT BAR. — Upon this premise, the trial court acted properly in ordering the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to make the claims asserted more definite and certain. Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the order, the court a quo acted within its prerogative in dismissing the complaint, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 1, paragraph (c) of Rule 12. (See Bautista v. Teodoro, Jr., 101 Phil. 701) The lower court, therefore, cannot be faulted for dismissing the complaint.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REFILING OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DESPITE HEREIN DISMISSAL. — Such dismissal, however, should not operatce as an adjudication on the merits as to bar the plaintiffs, who are employees and laborers of defendant company, from further enforcing their rights under the law. It is in the interest of justice that they be allowed to refile their claims with the Labor Arbiter who has now jurisdiction over their claim (Section 3, Presidential Decree No. 1691).

AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PLEADINGS; COMPLAINT; EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN CASE AT BAR. — The Trial Judge erred in ordering the amendment of the complaint of the ten pauper litigants and in dismissing it. Although not expertly drafted, the complaint contains a sufficient cause of action for separation and overtime pay, a claim which was within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance at the time the action was filed (Nobel v. Cabije, 117 Phil. 711).


D E C I S I O N


ESCOLIN, J.:


This is an appeal, perfected before the effectivity of Republic Act 5440, to set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dated September 16, 1967, dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

On November 3, 1966, the plaintiffs instituted an action for collection of separation pay, overtime compensation and vacation and sick leave benefits against their employer, General Woodcraft and Design Corporation and its officers, Romeo Gonzales and Nestor Marfori, chairman of the company’s board of directors and president, respectively. Plaintiffs claimed that their services were terminated by defendants on October 3, 1966 without just cause.cralawnad

In their answer, defendants alleged that they did not terminate the employment of plaintiffs, but they merely suspended their (defendants’) business operations until their credit standing with suppliers of raw materials could have been reestablished. As affirmative defense, defendants advance that because of the existing employer-employee relationship between plaintiffs and the defendants, the former’s claim for overtime pay, vacation and sick leave benefits are essentially labor disputes which fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, and not of the Court of First Instance. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 1

At the pre-trial conference on August 9, 1967, the trial court noted that plaintiffs’ complaint contained no clear and categorical allegations as would entitle them to overtime pay and to sick/vacation leave. The court thus required plaintiffs’ counsel to file, within ten days from August 9, 1967, a motion to amend the complaint. It appears, however, that the 10-day period lapsed without the plaintiffs’ having filed the required motion for amendment.

On September 14, 1967, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it failed to state a cause of action, and that plaintiffs were not entitled to separation and overtime pay and to vacation and sick leave benefits 2

Acting on this motion, the trial court issued an order dated September 16, 1967, dismissing the complaint because it "fails to state a cause of action, there being no showing that plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay and to vacation and sick leaves." chanrobles law library

Hence, this appeal.

We have carefully scrutinized the plaintiffs’ complaint and while the same is unskillfully drafted, its allegations nevertheless sufficiently assert certain rights against the defendants and likewise state that demands for such rights had not been complied with. We share the lower court’s observation that the complaint is deficient in the material details with respect to the factual bases of each and every item of the plaintiffs’ claims. This deficiency, however, does not amount to a failure to state a cause of action. It is curable by amendment of the complaint or by a motion for bill of particulars.

Upon this premise, the trial court acted properly in ordering the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to make the claims asserted more definite and certain. Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the order, the court a quo acted within its prerogative in dismissing the complaint, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless provided by the court." (Emphasis supplied)

in relation to Section 1, par. (c) of Rule 12 that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If an order of the court to make a pleading more definite and certain or for a bill of particulars is not obeyed within ten (10) days after the notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may order the striking out of the pleading to which the motion is directed or make such other order as it deems just . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, in Bautista v. Teodoro, Jr. 3 , this Court held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where the plaintiff is ordered either to amend the complaint or to file a bill of particulars within ten days from receipt of notice and an extension of two weeks granted by the Court and plaintiff fails to comply with said order, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the Court’s own motion pursuant to Section 3, Rule 30 and Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court (now Sec. 3, Rule 17 and Sec. (c), Rule 12 of the Rules of Court)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The lower court, therefore, cannot be faulted for dismissing the complaint. Such dismissal, however, should not operate as an adjudication on the merits as to bar the plaintiffs, who are employees and laborers of defendant company, from further enforcing their rights under the law. It is in the interest of justice that they be allowed to refile their claims with the Labor Arbiter who has now jurisdiction over their claims. 4

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to refile their claims before the Labor Arbiter and without bar by the statute of limitations. No costs.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman) Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent with all due deference to the well-written opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin.

Judge Masakayan erred in ordering the amendment of the complaint of the ten pauper litigants and in dismissing it.

Although not expertly drafted, the complaint contains a sufficient cause of action for separation and overtime pay, a claim which was within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance at the time the action was filed (Nobel v. Cabije, 117 Phil. 711).cralawnad

I vote to reverse the order of dismissal and to order the lower court to try the case unless some supervening event has rendered the case moot.

It is unfortunate that the appeal in this case was buried in the mountain of thousands of cases which accumulated in this Court during the sixties and seventies. This Court’s monumental problem is the monumental backlog of judicial, administrative and disbarment cases.cralawnad

Endnotes:



1. pp. 9-12, Record on Appeal.

2. pp. 19-21, Ibid.

3. 101 Phil. 701.

4. Section 3, PD No. 1691.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961