Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > January 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-43714 January 15, 1988 - FELIX GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-43714. January 15, 1988.]

FELIX GUEVARRA and EMERENCIANA GUEVARRA, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and GAUDENCIO GADDI, LOURDES BUSTOS GADDI, VICTORIA, MYRNA, SHEILA and MARIA LOURDES, all surnamed BUSTOS, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; RIGHT TOLLED BY "DELAY IN PAYING DOCKET AND RESEARCH FEES." — It is "the duty of the appellant" in the Court of Appeals," within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice referred to in the preceding section, to pay to the clerk of the Court of Appeals the fee for the docketing of the appeal." The appellants did not comply seasonably with this duty. Concededly, they paid forty one (41) days late. For such tardiness, they must suffer the sanction imposed by the Rules of Court — dismissal of their appeal.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — In Palteng v. C.A., we pronounced that there was no abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals’ ruling that there had been proper and adequate notice to defendants (petitioners) to pay the docket fees, a requirement that they failed to observe, and as failure to pay the docket fee is ground for dismissal of an appeal, the Court of Appeals acted correctly in issuing the resolutions in question. Earlier, in Lee v. Republic of the Philippines, we decided that even though half of the appellate court docket fee was deposited, no appeal is deemed perfected, where the other half was tendered after the period within which payment should have been made. In Aranas v. Endona, we reiterated that if the appellate docket fee of P20.00 is not paid in full within the reglementary period, the decision of the municipal court becomes final and no longer appealable.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD FIXED BY LAW, DISCRETIONARY AND TO BE BASED UPON JUSTIFIABLE REASON. — While the trial court may in its discretion extend the time for appeal beyond the period fixed by law, it must be satisfactorily shown that there is justifiable reason for such action, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. The herein petitioners failed in presenting to us a fact constituting excusable negligence to support this petition. Hence, their failure to pay the appeal docket and legal research fees on time, unjustified as it was, became fatal to their appeal.


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


The petitioners herein were adjudged by the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, 1 to pay the private respondents, plaintiffs therein, P36,000.00 by way of unrealized income (actual damages), P40,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of the suit. From this adverse decision, the defendants in the trial court, now petitioners, sought to appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals. 2 They complied with the requisite filing of the Notice of Appeal and the Record on Appeal (then required). They failed however to pay the docketing fee of P48.00 plus the amount of P5.00 required under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3870 (legal research fee), or a total of P53.00, * within the 15-day period from receipt of notice granted to them by the Court of Appeals as provided by the Rules of Court. The said period of fifteen (15) days expired on December 10, 1975. They paid the P53.00 only on January 20, 1976, or forty-one (41) days late. By counsel, they manifested "inadvertence, oversight, and pressure of work" 3 as their excuse for such delay of forty-one (41) days.

The respondent Court of Appeals, on February 19, 1976, denied the prayer of the defendants-appellants, now the petitioners, "that said payment (of the docket and legal research fees) be admitted and the above manifestation be taken into account, in the interest of justice." In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

RESOLVED: Since payment of docket fee was late by 41 days, this is too much; no prima facie showing has been made why it should be admitted.

In view whereof, DENIED and APPEAL is DISMISSED. 4

On March 3, 1976, the respondent court provoked by the subsequent comment and opposition of the plaintiffs-appellees, now private respondents, as well as the appellants’ reply, reiterated its previous resolution (of February 19, 1976), courtly saying:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Noted, but resolution reaffirmed." 5

Undaunted, the appellants moved for a reconsideration invoking the contradictory grounds of "substantial compliance" and "excusable negligence," as well as liberal construction of the rules, and "that substance should not be sacrificed for technicality." 6 This was promptly denied on April 6, 1976 in a resolution 7 as compendious, as the first two, stating:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

DENIED for lack of sufficient merit and reasons given do not convince.

The defendants-appellants now come to us by this petition for review on certiorari. Finding the petition inappropriate, in a resolution dated July 28, 1976," [T]he Court Resolved (a) to TREAT the petition for review as a special civil action; (b) to REQUIRE the petitioner(s) to deposit P80.40 for costs and clerk’s commission within five (5) days from notice hereof; and (c) to declare this case SUBMITTED for decision." 8

The crucial issue in this case is whether or not the delay in paying the docket and legal research fees tolled the petitioners’ right to appeal. We hold that it did.chanrobles law library

It is "the duty of the appellant" in the Court of Appeals," within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice referred to in the preceding section, to pay to the clerk of the Court of Appeals the fee for the docketing of the appeal." 9 The appellants did not comply seasonably with this duty. Concededly, they paid forty one (41) days late. For such tardiness, they must suffer the sanction imposed by the Rules of Court — dismissal of their appeal which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(d) Failure of the appellant to pay the docketing fee as provided in section 5 of Rule 46; 10

x       x       x


And that is what precisely the respondent Court of Appeals did — dismissed their appeal. It is thus clear that, in doing so, the respondent court did not err and did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. Be that as it may, the counsel of the petitioners tries to exculpate himself from the adverse effect of his admitted delay of forty-one (41) days in paying the required docket and legal research fees by claiming that the notice to pay docket and legal research fees within fifteen (15) days "was misplaced in my office due to accident, mistake, inadvertence, and excusable negligence. He added that he had "been very busy attending to various cases in different courts in Metro Manila and in the provinces, and because I have only one secretary in the office, when the said notice was found missing, it took me several days to locate the same among the files." 11

The explanation is very flimsy. It does not impress us at all. It is an "old hat," a hackneyed pretext, resorted to by negligent or lazy lawyers, which has never been given the badge of "excusability" by the Court.

In a very early case, Lazaro v. Endencia, 12 we held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . Examining the statute (Act No. 190, old Code of Civil Procedure) there can be no question that payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal, which in cases of forcible entry and detainer, must be within a period of five days from notice. The statute looks to early determination of such cases, and if the contention of the respondent should be upheld there would be no definite rule in such cases. There would be as much right to contend for twenty-eight days or forty-two days as there is to contend for fourteen, as is done herein. In the absence of an indispensable step, the appeal was not perfected and the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan was therefore without jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. (Schultz v. Concepcion, 32 Phil. 1)

In Palteng v. C.A., 13 we pronounced that there was no abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals’ ruling that there had been proper and adequate notice to defendants (petitioners) to pay the docket fees, a requirement that they failed to observe, and as failure to pay the docket fee is ground for dismissal of an appeal, the Court of Appeals acted correctly in issuing the resolutions in question. Earlier, in Lee v. Republic of the Philippines, 14 we decided that even though half of the appellate court docket fee was deposited, no appeal is deemed perfected, where the other half was tendered after the period within which payment should have been made. In Aranas v. Endona 15 we reiterated that if the appellate docket fee of P20.00 is not paid in full within the reglementary period, the decision of the municipal court becomes final and no longer appealable.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

In the later decision, 16 we decreed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Court of Appeals did not err in motu propio dismissing Alvendia’s appeal for failure to pay on time the docket fee and to submit forty copies of his printed record on appeal (Alvero v. Dela Rosa, 76 Phil. 428, 434: Salaveria v. Albindo, 39 Phil. 922; Dogero v. Perez, L-24922, January 2, 1968, 22 SCRA 8).

Attorney Viola was negligent in not apprising Alvendia of the notice to pay the docket and legal research fees and to file forty copies of the printed record on appeal. Alvendia is bound by his lawyer’s negligence. (Robles v. San Jose, 99 Phil. 658)

x       x       x


Under the environmental circumstances of this eleven-year-old litigation, it was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court Appeals to reinstate Alvendia’s appeal and to relax the rule regarding dismissal of an appeal for appellant’s failure to pay on time the docket and legal research fees and to file forty copies of his record on appeal within sixty-day period (Cf. Chavez and Celeste v. Ganzon and the Court of Appeals, 1108 Phil. 6, 10, and Urdaneta Rural Bank v. San Juan, L-28346, June 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 1390).

It is necessary to impress upon litigants and their lawyers the necessity of a strict compliance with the periods for performing certain acts incident to the appeal and that transgressions thereof, as a rule, would not be tolerated; otherwise, those periods could be evaded by subterfuges and manufactured excuses would ultimately become inutile.

We also note that Atty. Porfirio B. Yabut, the counsel of record of the defendants-appellants in the Court of Appeals, has his law office at "Suites 513-515 May Building, Rizal Avenue, Manila (the same location as the address of the present lawyer, Atty. Clemente M. Soriano). What appears inexplicable to our mind is why petitioners’ counsel had to keep on looking for forty (40) days for the misplaced notice, until he found it on January 20, 1976, after forty-one (41) days of search, when all he should have done was to visit the office of the respondent Court of Appeals to inquire about it. This is considering the fact that the counsel’s law office is just here also in Manila, not more than seven (7) kilometers from where the respondent Court of Appeals sits.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Finally, while the trial court may in its discretion extend the time for appeal beyond the period fixed by law, it must be satisfactorily shown that there is justifiable reason for such action, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. 17 The herein petitioners failed in presenting to us a fact constituting excusable negligence to support this petition. Hence, their failure to pay the appeal docket and legal research fees on time, unjustified as it was, became fatal to their appeal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Orders dated February 19, 1976, March 3, 1976, and March 27, 1976, of the respondent Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Branch XXVIII, Pasay City, in Civil Case No. Q-18369, entitled "Gaudencio Gaddi, et. al., Petitioners, v. Felix Guevarra, Et Al., Defendants," Hon. Enrique A. Agana, Presiding Judge.

2. First Division, Hon. Magno S. Gatmaitan, Chairman, Hon. Roseller T. Lim and Hon. Sixto A. Domondon. Members, in CA-G.R. No. 58673-R, Gaudencio Gaddi, Et. Al. v. Felix Guevarra, Et. Al.

* I. Old Rates of Docket Fees.

By authority of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court a docket fee of P48.00 is collected for cases filed in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The clerks of both Courts are authorized to collect the docket fees. The fees collected go to the National Treasury. No portion is particularly earmarked for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

II. New Rates of Docket Fees.

A. By authority of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1949 a Judiciary Development Fund has been established. The Fund is derived, among others, from the increase in the legal fees prescribed in the amendments to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the current rate being P96.00.

B. The current rate of P96.00 is divided between the National Treasury and the Judiciary Development Fund equally, or P48.00 each.

C. 80% of the Fund must be used for the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) of the members and personnel of the Judiciary and not more than 20% thereof "to finance the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of office equipment and facilities."

D. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administers, allocates, approves, and authorizes disbursement and expenditures of the Fund.

III. Legal Research Fees.

A. By virtue of R.A No. 3870, otherwise known as an "Act Defining The Functions Of The UP Law Center, Providing For Its Financing And For Other Purposes," as amended by P.D. Nos. 200 and 1856," (I)n order to provide for the support of the U.P. Law Center and the University of the Philippines Law Complex, the additional amount of one percent (1%) of the filing fee imposed, but in no case lower than Twenty Pesos, in the case of the appellate courts and the additional amount of 1% of the filing fee imposed, but in no case lower than Ten Pesos, in the case of all other courts, including all administrative or special courts, as well as agencies or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions, and those enumerated in Letter of Instructions No. 1182, issued on December 16, 1981, shall be collected by their clerks of court, or equivalent functionaries . . .."

B. "The additional amounts shall be receipted for separately as part of a special fund to be known as the ‘Legal Research Fund,’ and shall be turned over by the clerks of court or equivalent functionaries to the Chief Accountant of the Department of Justice, who in turn shall remit the same at the end of each quarter to the U.P. Law Center in accordance with this Act."

C. The fees shall be used for U.P. Law Center publications given free to the courts and administrative agencies, for technical studies and researches; and granting of research awards, prizes, scholarships, and fellowships.

3. Rollo, 41.

4. Id., 22.

5. Id., 24.

6. Id., 25-26.

7. Id., 30.

8. Id., 71.

9. Id., Rule 46, Sec. 5.

10. Id., Rule 50, Section 1 (d).

11. Petition, 8; Rollo, 15.

12. 57 Phil. 552, November 16, 1932.

13. No. L-25739, January 31, 1969; 26 SCRA 736.

14. No. L-15027, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 65.

15. No. L-32719, October 23, 1982, 117 SCRA 753.

16. Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, In. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-39124, November 19, 1974, 61 SCRA 91-92.

17. Ong Tiao Seng v. C.A., Et Al., Nos. L-41192-93, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 417.




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






January-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-72964 January 7, 1988 - FILOMENO URBANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78936 January 7, 1988 - VILLA RHECAR BUS v. FRUCTUOUSO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-70193-96 January 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO C. GALLO

  • G.R. Nos. L-42956-57 January 12, 1988 - A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43714 January 15, 1988 - FELIX GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49396 January 15, 1988 - JUAN A. GOCHANGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67970 January 15, 1988 - JOSE ABROGAR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68303 January 15, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72400 January 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO D. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75740 January 15, 1988 - CITYTRUST FINANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76233 January 15, 1988 - ZAYDA BISCOCHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-77502 January 15, 1988 - EMILIA B. SANTIAGO v. PIONEER SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. 1974 January 15, 1988 - ZOILO E. CADELINA v. GENOVEVO Q. MANHILOT

  • G.R. No. L-56431 January 19, 1988 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43445 January 20, 1988 - EUFEMIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BARROGA, ET AL. v. ANGEL ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63575 January 20, 1988 - ROSA GICANO, ET AL. v. ROSA GEGATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71855 January 20, 1988 - RIZALITO VELUNTA v. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATHANIEL M. GROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74279 & 74801-03 January 20, 1988 - MAXIMO ROXAS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74655 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO R. TARUC

  • G.R. No. L-74917 January 20, 1988 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78131 January 20, 1988 - EDUARDO TANCINCO, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37674 January 21, 1988 - LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-77107-08 January 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO DATAHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27677-8-9 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32749 January 22, 1988 - SABAS H. HOMENA, ET AL. v. DIMAS CASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34893 January 22, 1988 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39019 January 22, 1988 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46373 January 22, 1988 - YAP PENG CHONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46877 January 22, 1988 - LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68969 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. USMAN A. HASSAN

  • A.M. No. 265-MJ January 22, 1988 - LEONARDO B. BABATIO v. JOSE Z. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988 - PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69591 January 25, 1988 - ALICIA DE SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71875-76 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO C. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71939 January 25, 1988 - ELIGIO T. LEYVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73461 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR MASANGKAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75575 January 25, 1988 - ROGELIO BUCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80007 January 25, 1988 - CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49046 January 26, 1988 - SATURNO A. VICTORIA v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 - DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37783 January 28, 1988 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56960 January 28, 1988 - ELISEA G. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68741 January 28, 1988 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68989 January 28, 1988 - ANDREA CORDOVA VDA. DE GUTIERREZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73584 January 28, 1988 - LEONARDO FAMISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74187 January 28, 1988 - STANFORD MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75039 January 28, 1988 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76668 January 28, 1988 - DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77970 January 28, 1988 - AMBRAQUE INT’L. PLACEMENT & SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41154 January 29, 1988 - SILVERIO VERAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44330 January 29, 1988 - JULITA T. VDA. DE SEVERO, ET AL. v. LUNINGNING FELICIANO GO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988 - RUSTICO ADILLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46484 January 29, 1988 - LEONARDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47574 January 29, 1988 - FILIPINAS FABRICATORS & SALES INC., ET AL. v. CELSO L. MAGSINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48011 January 29, 1988 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50141 January 29, 1988 - BEAUTIFONT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51352 January 29, 1988 - VERDANT ACRES, INC. v. PONCIANO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-54500 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO BATAC

  • G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. L-67706 January 29, 1988 - ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS v. ANASTACIO MAGADAN

  • G.R. No. L-67813 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. TUNDAY

  • G.R. No. L-68331 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SANTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. ESCOBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988 - LILIA Y. GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69757-58 January 29, 1988 - CIRCA NILA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SALVADOR J. BAYLEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70484 January 29, 1988 - ROMAN C. TUASON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71091 January 29, 1988 - HENRY GALUBA, v. ALFREDO LAURETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72096 January 29, 1988 - JOHN CLEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72126 January 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72443 January 29, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AIR INDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72981 January 29, 1988 - FRANCISCA DE LA CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73604 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROUBEN H. CORRAL

  • G.R. No. L-73605 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO REUNIR

  • G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988 - TAN HANG v. ANSBERTO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74345 January 29, 1988 - FAR CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74369 January 29, 1988 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75268 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN C. MELGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75577 January 29, 1988 - PIO L. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77735 January 29, 1988 - WILFREDO VERDEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78973 January 29, 1988 - MAMINTA M. RADIA v. REVIEW COMMITTEE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 17, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80718 January 29, 1988 - FELISA P. DE ROY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2409 January 29, 1988 - MANUEL Y. MACIAS v. BENJAMIN B. MALIG