Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > August 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28776 August 19, 1988 - SIMEON DEL ROSARIO v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILS. LTD.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28776. August 19, 1988.]

SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon C. Fernandez, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Picazo, Agcaoili, Santayana, Reyes & Tayao, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MERCANTILE LAW; MONETARY UNIT, VALUE OF; DEVALUATION AND DEPRECIATION, DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED. — Sloan and Zurcher’s classic treatise, "A Dictionary of Economics," 1951 ed. pp. 80-81, defines devaluation (as applied to a monetary unit) as "a reduction in its metallic content as determined by law" resulting in "the lowering of the value of one nation’s currency in terms of the currencies of other nations." Samuelson and Nordhaus, writing in their book, "Economics" (Singapore, Mc-Graw Hill Book Co., 1985, p. 875) say: "When a country’s rate relative to gold or another currency is lowered, as from $35 an ounce of gold to $38, we say the currency has been devalued." (b) Upon the other hand, "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation" the term used in the contract), according to Gerardo P. Sicat in his "Economics" (Manila: National Book Store, 1983, p. 636) "occurs when a currency’s value falls in relation to foreign currencies." (c) It will be noted that devaluation is an official act of the government (as when a law is enacted thereon) and refers to a reduction in metallic content; depreciation can take place with or without an official act, and does not depend on metallic content (although depreciation may be caused by devaluation).

2. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION OF; ORDINARY MEANING GIVEN TO TECHNICAL TERMS; CASE AT BAR. — The contract of lease between the parties provides that" [I]n the event of an official devaluation or appreciation of the Philippine currency the rental specified herein shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of any law or decree declaring such devaluation or appreciation as may specifically apply to rentals." During the existence of the contract, Executive Order No. 195 took effect, modifying "the par value of the peso from US$0.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. dollar of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1944)." The trial court refused to increase the rental as prayed for in the lessor’s complaint because "in the opinion of the court, said Executive Order No. 195, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, has not officially devalued the Philippine peso but merely modified the par value of the peso. . .." HELD: The rentals should, by the agreement of the parties, be proportionately increased. Even assuming there has been no official devaluation as the term is technically understood, the fact is that there has been a diminution or lessening in the purchasing power of the peso, thus, there has been a "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation"). However, when laymen unskilled in the semantics of economics use the terms "devaluation" or "depreciation" they certainly mean them in their ordinary signification decrease in value. Hence as contemplated by the parties herein in their lease agreement, the term "devaluation" may be regarded as synonymous with "depreciation," for certainly both refer to a decrease in the value of the currency.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The antecedent relative facts of this case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. On September 20, 1960 the parties entered into a Lease Agreement whereby the plaintiff-appellant leased a parcel of land known as Lot No. 2191 of the cadastral Survey of Ligao, Albay to the defendant-appellee at a monthly rental of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

2. Paragraph 14 of said contract of lease provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"14. In the event of an official devaluation or appreciation of the Philippine currency the rental specified herein shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of any law or decree declaring such devaluation or appreciation as may specifically apply to rentals."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. On November 6, 1965, President Diosdado Macapagal promulgated Executive Order No. 195 1 titled "Changing the Par Value of Peso from US$0 50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. Dollar of the Weight and Fineness in Effect on July 1, 1944). This took effect at noon of November 8, 1965.

4. By reason of this Executive Order No. 195, plaintiff-appellant demanded from the defendant-appellee am increase in the monthly rentals from P250.00 a month to P487.50 a month.

5. Defendant-appellee refused to pay the increased monthly rentals.

6. On January 16, 1967, plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 68154) with the CFI of Manila, Branch XVII praying that defendant-appellee be ordered to pay the monthly rentals as increased by reason of Executive Order 195 and further prayed that plaintiff-appellant be paid the following amounts: The difference between P487.50 and P250.00 from noon of November 8, 1965 until such time as the defendant-appellee begins to pay the adjusted amount of P487.50 a month; the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages; the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs.

7. On January 8, 1968 the trial court in dismissing the complaint stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . in the opinion of the Court, said Executive Order No. 195, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, has not officially devalued the Philippine peso but merely modified the par value of the peso from US$.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. Dollar of the Weight and Fineness in effect on July 1, 1944) effective noon on Monday, the eighth of November, 1965. Said Executive Order certainly does not pretend to change the gold value of the Philippine peso as set forth in Sec. 48 of the Central Bank Act (R.A. 265), which is 7-13/21 grains of gold, 0.900 fine. Indeed, it does not make any reference at all to the gold value of the Philippine peso." (pp. 25-26, Record on Appeal; p. 13, Rollo)

In view of the trial court’s refusal to increase the rental, petitioner brought the instant petition on the theory that because Executive Order No. 195 in effect decreased the worth or value of our currency, there has taken place a "devaluation" or "depreciation" which would justify the proportionate increase of rent.chanrobles law library

Hence this appeal, with the following two-pronged assignments of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. The trial court erred in holding that Executive Order No. 195 has not officially devalued the Philippine peso.

II. The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint.

After a study of the case, We have come to the conclusion that the resultant decrease in the par value of the currency (effected by Executive Order No. 195) is precisely the situation or event contemplated by the parties in their contract; accordingly an upward revision of the rent is called for.

Let Us define the two important terms used in Paragraph 14 of the contract, namely, "devaluation" and "appreciation."cralaw virtua1aw library

(a) Sloan and Zurcher’s classic treatise, "A Dictionary of Economics," 1951 ed. pp. 80-81, defines devaluation (as applied to a monetary unit) as.

"a reduction in its metallic content as determined by law 2 resulting in "the lowering of the value of one nation’s currency in terms of the currencies of other nations" (Emphasis supplied)

Samuelson and Nordhaus, writing in their book, "Economics" (Singapore, Mc-Graw Hill Book Co., 1985, p. 875) say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"when a country’s of official exchange rate 3 relative to gold or another currency is lowered, as from $35 an ounce of gold to $38, we say the currency has been devalued." 4

(b) Upon the other hand, "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation" the term used in the contract), according to Gerardo P. Sicat in his "Economics" (Manila: National Book Store, 1983, p. 636).

"occurs when a currency’s value falls in relation to foreign currencies."cralaw virtua1aw library

(c) It will be noted that devaluation is an official act of the government (as when a law is enacted thereon) and refers to a reduction in metallic content; depreciation can take place with or without an official act, and does not depend on metallic content (although depreciation may be caused by devaluation).

In the case at bar, while no express reference has been made to metallic content, there nonetheless is a reduction in par value or in the purchasing power of Philippine currency. Even assuming there has been no official devaluation as the term is technically understood, the fact is that there has been a diminution or lessening in the purchasing power of the peso, thus, there has been a "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation"). Moreover, when laymen unskilled in the semantics of economics use the terms "devaluation" or "depreciation" they certainly mean them in their ordinary signification decrease in value. Hence as contemplated by the parties herein in their lease agreement, the term "devaluation" may be regarded as synonymous with "depreciation," for certainly both refer to a decrease in the value of the currency. The rentals should therefore by their agreement be proportionately increased.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the rental prayed for by the plaintiff-appellant is hereby GRANTED, effective on the date the complaint was filed. No award of damages and no costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Executive Order No. 195, dated November 6, 1965, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"MALACAÑANG

RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 195

CHANGING THE PAR VALUE OF THE PESO FROM US$0.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. DOLLAR OF THE WEIGHT AND FINENESS IN EFFECT ON JULY 1, 1944).

Pursuant to the power vested in me by Republic Act Numbered Two Hundred and Sixty-five, and in conformity with the provisions of all executive and international agreements subscribed to and ratified by the Republic of the Philippines, and upon proposal of the Monetary Board with the unanimous concurrence of the members of said Monetary Board, i, Diosdado Macapagal President of the Philippines, do hereby modify the par value of the peso from US$0.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. dollar of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1944), effective noon on Monday, the eighth day of November, 1965.

Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of November in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty-five.

DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL

President of the Philippines

By the President:

SALVADOR L. MABINO

Acting Executive Secretary

2. Be it noted that the gold equivalent of par value of the Philippine peso is fixed by law and the manner in which changes in the par value can be effected is likewise specifically provided for by the state. Secs. 48 and 49 of the Central Bank (R.A. No. 265, as amended) read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE II. — The International Value of the Peso

SEC. 48. Par Value — The gold value of the peso is seven and thirteen-twenty first (7-13/21) grains of gold, nine-tenths (0.900) fine, which is equivalent to the United Stases dollar parity of the peso as provided in section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 699.

SEC. 49. Changes in par value; deviations therefrom — The par value of the peso shall not be altered except when such action is made necessary by the following circumstances;

(a) When the existing par value would make impossible the achievement and maintenance of a balanced and sustainable growth of the

economy without:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The depletion of the international reserve of the Central Bank; or

(2) The chronic use of restrictions on the convertibility of the peso into foreign currencies or on the transferability abroad of funds from the Philippines; or

(3) Undue government intervention in, or restriction of, the international flow of goods and services; or.

(b) When uniform proportionate changes in par values are made by the countries which are members of the International Monetary Fund; or

(c) When the operation of any executive or international agreement to which the Republic of the Philippines is a party requires an alteration in the gold value of the peso.

Any modification in the gold or dollar value of the peso must be in conformity with the provisions of all executive and international agreements as subscribed to and ratified by the Republic of the Philippines, and such modification shall be made only by the President of the Republic upon the proposal of the Monetary Board. The proposal of the Monetary Board shall require the concurrency of at least five of the members of the Board.

In order to permit the exchange rate system to be more responsive to domestic and external developments, whenever indicated and not necessarily under emergency conditions alone, the Monetary Board, with the concurrence of at least five of its members, and with the approval of the President of the Philippines, is authorized to set or change the exchange rate or rates for the peso, which may differ from its par value.

3. In Gonzalo L. Manuel & Co., Inc. v. Central Bank, L-21789, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 533, We ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Par value" and "rate of exchange" are not necessarily synonymous. The first, variously termed "legal exchange rate" or "par of exchange," is "the official rate of exchange, established by a government, in contrast to the free market rate." It signifies "the amount it takes of one currency (for example, based on gold) to buy a unit in another currency (also based on gold) that is, how many pieces of the one unit (or their gold content) are necessary to equal the gold content of the other unit . . ." "The par value of a currency is the value as officially defined in terms of gold or, under the silver standard, where there was such a standard, in terms of silver. The `par of exchange’ therefore applies only between countries having a fixed metallic content for their currency unit. It would be possible to define a currency’s par value in terms of another currency such as the dollar or pound sterling, but usage confines the meaning of per to the official value in terms of gold."cralaw virtua1aw library

"The "rate of exchange" or "exchange rate," on the other hand, is "the price, or the indication of the price, at which one can sell or buy with one’s own domestic currency a foreign currency unit. Normally, the rate is determined by the law of supply and demand for a particular currency." The price of one currency in terms of another is known as the rate of exchange. Thus, the rate of exchange in New York or London has at various times been $4.86, $4.03, $2.89, etc. The rate is the amount of American money required to pay 1. There is a difference between par value and rate of exchange: the first is defined by law, and (as in the case of the peso) is based upon its gold content. The second is conditioned by prevailing economic factors which bear upon the demand for a particular currency and its availability in the market.

4. Based on the above mentioned definition, the word "devaluation" can be taken to mean any decrease or lowering of the monetary value of the peso vis-a-vis other foreign currencies without any reference at all to the gold value of the Philippine peso. It can also be construed as a reduction in the value of our currency from an officially agreed fixed level imposed by monetary authorities.




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






August-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24957 August 3, 1988 - PAULINO V. NERA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. 74489 August 3, 1988 - SHIN I INDUSTRIAL (PHIL.) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77818 August 3, 1988 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-79576 August 3, 1988 - CELSO M. LARGA v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-23771 August 4, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31056 August 4, 1988 - LUCILA O. MANZANAL v. MAURO A. AUSEJO

  • G.R. No. L-50871 August 4, 1988 - CARLOS VELASCO v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. L-51736 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROLANDO ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 71464 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO ESTREBELLA

  • G.R. Nos. L-44410-11 August 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO IRENEA

  • G.R. No. L-63552 August 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO TAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-41085 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS VIRAY

  • G.R. No. L-49699 August 8, 1988 - PERLA COMPANIA de SEGUROS, INC. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-50386 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JOSE SAN BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-77691 August 8, 1988 - PATERNO R. CANLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-77707 August 8, 1988 - PEDRO W. GUERZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988 - HIJO PLANTATION, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-36770 August 9, 1988 - EMILIO DAMASCO v. TERESA DAMASCO

  • G.R. No. L-46654 August 9, 1988 - LUPO S. CABAJAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-71173 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. REYNALDO DESUYO

  • G.R. No. L-73464 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 74910 August 10, 1988 - ANDRES SORIANO III, ET AL. v. MANUEL YUZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29280 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. SYVEL’S INC.

  • G.R. No. L-40069 August 11, 1988 - HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN v. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO

  • G.R. No. L-64848 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ELEGINO

  • G.R. No. L-70462 August 11, 1988 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75852 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO DEL PILAR

  • G.R. No. L-78592 August 11, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS v. LIBANGANG MALOLOS, INC.

  • A.M. No. P-86-33 August 15, 1988 - FILIPINA YAP SY v. CARMELITO D. CATAJAN

  • G.R. No. L-29445 August 15, 1988 - BRIGIDA BARDE v. SOCORRO POSIQUIT

  • G.R. No. L-32217 August 15, 1988 - MERCEDES SY v. DOMINADOR C. MlNA

  • G.R. No. L-33851 August 15, 1988 - MARCOPPER MINING CORP. v. JESUS V. ABELEDA

  • G.R. No. L-41383 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. ROMEO F. EDU

  • G.R. No. L-43726 August 15, 1988 - CHURCH OF CHRIST v. SPOUSES VALLESPIN

  • G.R. No. L-45349 August 15, 1988 - NEWTON JISON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45351 August 15, 1988 - LOURDES DELGADO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-48269 August 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL IDNAY

  • G.R. No. L-51570 August 15, 1988 - PHIL. VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE v. BRIGIDA V. SEGUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-57473 August 15, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 77737-38 August 15, 1988 - CHRISTINA MARIE DEMPSEY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXXV

  • G.R. No. L-77765 August 15, 1988 - SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80648 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MANILA v. CARMELO C. NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-40314 August 17, 1988 - LILLIAN UYTENGSU LIU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50054 August 17, 1988 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-60287 August 17, 1988 - JOSE BERENGUER, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-75293 August 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUINITO HACBANG

  • G.R. Nos. L-32444-46 August 18, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-33058-9 August 18, 1988 - EDGARINO L. ESPINA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF SOUTHERN LEYTE

  • G.R. No. L-33493 August 18, 1988 - KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD v. GREGORIO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. L-46244 August 18, 1988 - LIRAG, MAÑALAC, SARANGAYA, AND TANCO SECURITIES CORP. v. RICARDO D. GALANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-55103-04 August 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-56612 August 18, 1988 - ELISEO B. YUSAY v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. 71711 August 18, 1988 - PNOC-EXPLORATION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-73836 August 18, 1988 - ANTOLIN T. NAGUIAT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75997 August 18, 1988 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE DE BARILI v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-81446 August 18, 1988 - BONIFACIA SY PO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-81785 August 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. v. CARMELO NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-82735 August 18, 1988 - CRISOSTOMO MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27829 August 19, 1988 - PHIL. VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-28776 August 19, 1988 - SIMEON DEL ROSARIO v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILS. LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-33910 August 19, 1988 - SILVA PIPE WORKERS UNION-NATU v. FILIPINO PIPE & FOUNDRY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-46281-83 August 19, 1988 - COCONUT COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-47475 August 19, 1988 - MANOTOK REALTY, INC. v. JOSE H. TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-49407 August 19, 1988 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52019 August 19, 1988 - ILOILO BOTTLERS, INC. v. CITY OF ILOILO

  • G.R. No. L-54323 August 19, 1988 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE L. S. VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. L-62781 August 19, 1988 - PAN-ASIATIC TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. L-71986-87 August 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGIE ANDIZA

  • G.R. No. L-74513 August 19, 1988 - HERMINIO TORIBIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. L-76649-51 August 19, 1988 - 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34341 August 22, 1988 - PRISCILLA SUSAN PO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80609 August 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-33573 August 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO TAPENO

  • G.R. No. L-34122 August 29, 1988 - FRUCTUOSO GARCIA v. ABELARDO APORTADERA

  • G.R. No. L-45745 August 29, 1988 - IRENEO ABELLERA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-47817 August 29, 1988 - JOVITA SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48724 August 29, 1988 - CELESTINO PAHILANGA v. ARTEMON D. LUNA

  • G.R. No. L-52732 August 29, 1988 - F.F. CRUZ and CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66478 August 29, 1988 - SANCHO R. JACINTO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75195 August 29, 1988 - DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO. v. CRISTETO D. DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. L-30056 August 30, 1988 - MARCELO AGCAOILI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-30381 August 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32798 August 30, 1988 - SILVINO ENVERZO BERNAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34229 August 30, 1988 - ALBERTO MENDOZA v. V. ENRIQUEZ FURNITURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35126 August 30, 1988 - JACINTO FLORES, ET AL. v. FILIPINO HAND EMBROIDERY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35618 August 30, 1988 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36035 August 30, 1988 - NELITA FONSECA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49118 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LETICIA V. CAPITIN

  • G.R. No. L-55132 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-62699 August 30, 1988 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. L-65647 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-66520 August 30, 1988 - EDUARDO C. TAÑEDO v. JUANITO A. BERNAD

  • G.R. No. 71552 August 30, 1988 - REMEDIOS ORTALIZ-LAMAYO v. FELIZARDO G. BATERBONIA

  • G.R. No. 73503 August 30, 1988 - BENJAMIN BELISARIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73839 August 30, 1988 - MARY JOHNSTON HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75886 August 30, 1988 - CONCEPCION ROQUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76483 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR AVERO

  • G.R. No. 76728 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 78656 August 30, 1988 - TRANS WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80814 August 30, 1988 - CORNELIO GODOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81188 August 30, 1988 - TAGUM DOCTORS ENTERPRISES v. GREGORIO APSAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29881 August 31, 1988 - ENRICO PALOMAR v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31931 August 31, 1988 - FORTUNATO DE LEON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-32392 August 31, 1988 - AUREA AGUILAR, ET AL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44143 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO NAZARIO

  • G.R. No. L-46575 August 31, 1988 - JOSE LIMJOCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-49686 August 31, 1988 - FELlX GOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION v. VICENTE CAÑADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73131-32 August 31, 1988 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73602 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT L. CALICDAN

  • G.R. No. 75775 August 31, 1988 - DOMINGO SUMBILLO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76579-82 August 31, 1988 - BENEDICTO RODRIGUEZ, v. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76724-6 August 31, 1988 - UNITRAN/BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., ET AL. v. JOSE OLVIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77369 August 31, 1988 - HYOPSUNG MARITIME CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80902 August 31, 1988 - BENGUET CORPORATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81490 August 31, 1988 - HAGONOY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.