Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

202 Phil. 445:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-30675. September 30, 1982.]

HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (CIO), Respondents.

Hilado, Hagad & Hilado Law Offices for Petitioner.

Zoilo V. de la Cruz, Jr. for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Two separate complaints for unfair labor practice had been filed by respondent union against petitioner company due to the latter’s refusal to recognize, deal, and negotiate with the respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file workers and security guards in accordance with their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and management’s refusal to respect and observe the terms and conditions of said CBA. This refusal eventually led to the declaration of a strike by respondent union which subsequently picketed the company premises. The company filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a petition seeking to declare the strike illegal. Meanwhile, petitioner company sought and was granted a restraining order ex parte by a trial judge of the CIR. Subsequently,a writ of preliminary injunction was also issued after due hearing. Both orders of the trial court were, however, nullified by respondent CIR en banc. Hence,this petition.

On review, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dissolved the injunctive writ holding that there being a labor dispute involved the provisions of the Magna Carta of Labor (Republic Act No. 875) prohibiting issuance of restraining orders and injunctive writs ex parte or without due notice and hearing should have been strictly followed.

Petition denied and injunctive writ dissolved.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; MAGNA CARTA OF LABOR (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 875); EXISTENCE OF LABOR DISPUTE IN CASE AT BAR. — Before the institution of Case No. 2581-V, two formal complaints for unfair labor practice had been filed by the respondent union against the petitioner, due to the latter’s refusal to recognize, deal, and negotiate with the respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file workers and security guards in accordance with their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and management refusal to respect and observe the terms and conditions of the said Collective Bargaining Agreement. This refusal eventually led to the declaration of the strike by the respondent union, Thus, the strike itself arose from and was part of the labor dispute.

2. ID.; ID.; SHOULD BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED IN CASES INVOLVING LABOR DISPUTES. — The settled rule is where a case involves a labor dispute, the provisions of the Magna Carta of Labor (Republic Act No. 875) should be strictly followed. (Republic Flour Mills v. Reyes, 18 SCRA 796; Seno v. Mendoza, 21 SCRA 1124; Associated Watchman and Security Union v. U.S Lines, 101 Phil, 896).


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This is a petition for review of a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc dissolving and setting aside the orders of the trial judge of the same court that enjoined and restrained the respondent Congress of Independent Organizations-ALU from picketing the premises of the petitioner’s compound.

On May 6, 1968, the Hawaiian-Philippine Company filed a petition with the respondent Court of Industrial Relations, docketed as Case No. 2581-V, seeking to declare the strike staged on April 19, 1968, by respondent Congress of Independent Organizations-ALU illegal. Pending resolution on the legality of the strike, the company, invoking Section 9 of Republic Act No. 875, prayed that a temporary restraining order be issued to enjoin respondent CIO-ALU and those joining the strike from —

"(a) Blocking, obstructing or staying upon the entrance into and exists out of the Hawaiian-Philippine Company properties at Silay-Hawaiian Central, Negros Occidental, or illegally occupying portions of the public highway fronting the said properties;

"(b) Blocking, obstructing, coercing, intimidating or preventing the entry or exit of any person, entering upon or leaving said Company’s gates or entrances; or preventing free access of any person desiring to perform work inside the mill compound in pursuance of their employment or livelihood or going out of the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

Trial Judge Hon. Joaquin Salvador conducted a preliminary hearing ex parte on the said petition and, thereafter, issued his order dated May 10, 1968, the dispositive portion of which states:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby orders the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) To preserve the rights of all concerned, the respondent union, its members and officers, agents and/or persons associated and acting for and its behalf, pending determination of whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction should issue, is hereby ordered not to illegally prevent or block the ingress or egress of vehicles (whether motorized or not) belonging to petitioner company, its customers, suppliers and employees; and not to illegally prevent or in any way or manner hamper or impede the free and customary entry and exit of persons desiring to deal business with petitioner company and of the non-striking employees desiring to report for work in going to and fro the premises of petitioner company.

"(2) Let a copy of the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be served on the respondent union and the Deputy Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to set the motion for continuous hearing beginning May 20, 1968.

"(3) The Provincial Commander of Negros Occidental and the Chief of Police of Silay City and their deputies and agents are hereby ordered to observe and assure compliance of this Order by all parties concerned, until such further Orders from this Court, and thereafter, to submit a report to this Court regarding implementation of this Order."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon receipt on May 13, 1968 by respondent CIO-ALU of the restraining order and a copy of the company’s petition it filed its Answer to the Petition & Urgent Motion for reconsideration. A formal hearing was conducted at Bacolod City. After receiving evidence, the trial judge promulgated an Order on July 12, 1968, with the following dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the respondent union, its officers and agents and any and all persons acting under it are hereby preliminarily enjoined from picketing the entrances of petitioner pending the final determination of this case.

"The petitioner is hereby required to post a bond of P5,000.00 to answer for any improvident issuance of this Writ.

"The Chief of Police of Silay City and/or the Provincial Commander of the P.C. in Negros Occidental is hereby directed to enforce the terms of this Order.

"Lastly, the terms of the Order of May 10, 1968, are hereby incorporated herein by way of complementing this Order."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 29, 1968, respondent CIO-ALU filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order. Petitioner filed its opposition to the motion.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The parties were heard on oral argument by the respondent court en banc. In a resolution issued on May 26, 1969, the court, by a majority opinion of its three members (Presiding Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, Associate Judge Amado C. Bugayong and Associate Judge Ansberto P. Paredes), resolved to vacate the Order dated July 12, 1968, on the ground that the restraining order could not validly be issued on the basis of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court since a labor dispute was involved, that the provisions of Republic Act 875 on injunctions should have been made to control and that under Section 9 of Republic Act 875 the Orders of May 10, 1968 and July 12, 1968, are void because the first was issued ex parte and in the second, no law enforcement officers were made to testify and declare on the matter of protection.

Hence, the instant petition was filed.

On September 19, 1969, this Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining the respondent court from giving effect to its resolution en banc dated October 7, 1968, dissolving and setting aside the Orders of the Trial Judge dated May 10, 1968 and July 12, 1968 issued in Case No. 2581-V of the Court of Industrial Relations, and from further proceeding in the said case.

The issues raised are: (1) whether or not a labor dispute existed between the petitioner and the respondent union; and (2) whether or not the trial judge correctly issued the restraining order on the basis of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

With respect to the first issue, it was the view of the trial judge that since there was a pending petition for certification by two labor unions (respondent union being one of them), the respondent union cannot claim to have the legitimate representation in behalf of the majority of the employees until such time as the petition for certification was finally resolved. According to him, under the provisions of Section 2(j) of Republic Act No. 875, a labor dispute may include a controversy concerning the "representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment . . . ." So within the context of the law, no representation may accrue or be exercised by the respondent union. Thus, there was no labor dispute between the petitioner and the respondent union.

We find the contention of the trial judge untenable. There was a labor dispute. It must be noted that before the institution of Case No. 2581-V, two formal complaints for unfair labor practice (Case No. 159 ULP-Iloilo and Case No. 160 ULP-Iloilo) had been filed on August 18, 1967 and August 19, 1967, respectively, by the respondent union against the petitioner, due to the latter s refusal to recognize, deal, and negotiate with the respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file workers and security guards in accordance with their Collective Bargaining Agreement, and management refusal to respect and observe the terms and conditions of the said Collective Bargaining Agreement. This refusal eventually led to the declaration of the strike by the respondent union. Thus, the strike itself arose from and was part of the labor dispute.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Anent the second issue, the trial judge pointed out that since the conduct of the strike had been characterized by the employment of violence and coercive acts, the court may act under the provision of the Rules of Court or under Republic Act 875 in adopting measures it feels are necessary.

On this point, petitioner contends that the provisions of Republic Act No. 875 on injunctions do not apply and may not be invoked even though a labor dispute is involved because the acts sought to be enjoined had the elements of force, violence, or fraud on the part of the respondents. It is further claimed that the activities which are immunized by the law from restraint by injunctions are those which are conducted legally.

Upon the other hand, the respondent union asserts that the issuance of the Order dated May 10, 1968, by the trial judge was unlawful and improper on the grounds that: (1) it was issued ex parte and without notice; (2) the order did not clearly state that it shall be effective for no longer than five (5) days; and (3) the petitioner was not required to put up a bond, as condition precedent for its issuance, as required by Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875.

The pertinent portions of Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 which should have been followed provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(d) No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, as herein defined except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open court (with opportunity for cross-examination) in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and except after finding of fact by the Court, to the effect:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been given, in such manner as the Court shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the chief of those public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property: Provided, however, That if a complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such a temporary restraining order may be issued upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Court in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than five days and shall become void at the expiration of said five days. No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the Court sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, (together with a reasonable attorney’s fee) and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Court." (Italics supplied)

The settled rule is where a case involves a labor dispute, the provisions of the Magna Charta of Labor (R.A. 875) should be strictly followed. (Republic Flour Mills v. Reyes, 18 SCRA 796; Seno v. Mendoza, 21 SCRA 1124; Associated Watchmen and Security Union v. U.S. Lines, 101 Phil. 896)chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby and the denied the writ of preliminary injunction issued on September 19, 1969, is dissolved.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.




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