Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > November 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. 75583 November 8, 1988 - GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. ANTONIO J. TEODORO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75583. November 8, 1988.]

GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO J. TEODORO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.

M .V . Ampil, Jr. & Associates for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.

Beltran & Associates for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAW; REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; ENTITLEMENT TO BACKWAGES AND GRATUITY. — It is beyond cavil that the private respondent is a regular employee with a total length of service, as of May 31, 1983, of 28 years, 8 months and 17 days, or 29 years in legal contemplation. There is, therefore, no legal bar to private respondent’s entitlement to backwages and gratuity and these are unaffected by his change of status from a rank-and-file employee to a corporate officer of managerial rank.

2. ID.; ID.; CHANGE OF NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT FROM ONE WITHOUT A FIXED PERIOD TO ONE WITH A DEFINITE PERIOD IRRESPONSIBLE IMPUTATIONS, A VALID CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. — Private respondent was appointed by the Board of Trustees to the position last held by him, as Vice-President and concurrently Treasurer, on March 5, 1981. Such office was for a particular term as, in fact, he had to be given and ad interim extension up to March 21, 1983. Thereafter, his services were again extended up to April 30, 1983 and, ultimately, up to May 31, 1983, but with his written conformity thereto. There is nothing in the record to show that he was under pressure or in a disadvantaged position when he agreed to such extension with a definite period. Furthermore, assuming that private respondent’s employment was without a valid fixed period and that his said report was a controlling consideration in the non-extension of his employment, his aforesaid irresponsible imputations which he failed to substantiate and for which he even had to apologize constituted a valid cause for such non-renewal of his services.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


Petitioner seeks the annulment of the decision, dated September 28, 1984, of Labor Arbiter Apolinario L. Sevilla in Case No NLRC-NCR-1399-84 for illegal dismissal, separation pay, retirement benefits and other monetary claims filed by therein complainant, herein private respondent Antonio J. Teodoro, against the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation (GAUF, for brevity) which ordered the petitioner, as respondent therein:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To pay complainant six (6) months backwages amounting to P36,468.00, accrued leave of P12,018 (59.75 days) and gratuity pay of P176,262.00;

2. To pay complainant the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

3. To pay complainant’s counsel the sum equivalent to 20% of the foregoing award as attorney’s fees." 1

and which on appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was affirmed by its Third Division 2 with modifications, by eliminating the awards for attorney’s fees and moral and exemplary damages. 3

The antecedental employment record of private respondent in GAUF is not in dispute. Private respondent started as a clerk in the Registrar’s Office of petitioner GAUF on September 15, 1954. In the course of his continuous employment, he was promoted to Assistant Cashier, Cashier, Treasurer, Finance Director and, ultimately on election by the Board of Trustees, as Vice President and concurrently Treasurer, effective March 5, 1981.

As of March 23, 1983, private respondent was holding his position on an "Ad Interim Extension of Appointment/Tenure" issued by the University President up to March 31, 1983 pending appropriate action of the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. His services were thereafter reextended to April 30, 1983, with his signed conformity, and finally up to May 31, 1983 after which he was no longer elected by the Board as Vice-President and/or Treasurer. 4

He filed his basic complaint with the NLRC on April 6, 1984.

Petitioner, in its Reply of June 24, 1987, raised for the first time in this Court the issue of jurisdiction of the NLRC, a threshold objection which should have been invoked at the earliest stages of the proceedings. Relying on Philippine School of Business Administration, Et. Al. v. Leaño, et al 5 and Dy, Et. Al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al., 6 petitioner theorizes that since private respondent was a corporate officer, the present controversy is within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to P.D. 902-A, and not in the public Respondent.

Without the need of applying the rule on estoppel by laches against petitioner, 7 its contention must fail on the ground of misplaced reliance. As explained in Dy, and the same is true with Philippine School of Business Administration, the controversies therein were intracorporate in nature and squarely within the purview of Section 5 (c), P.D. 902-A since the real question was the invalidity of the board of directors’ meetings wherein the corporate officers involved were not reelected, resulting in the termination of their services. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is no dispute that the position from which private respondent Vailoces claims to have been illegally dismissed is an elective corporate office. He himself acquired that position through election by the bank’s Board of Directors at the organizational meeting of November 17, 1979. He lost that position because the Board that was elected in the special stockholders’ meeting of June 4, 1983 did not re-elect him. And when Vailoces, in his position paper submitted to the Labor Arbiter, impugned said stock holders’ meeting as illegally convoked and the Board of Directors thereby elected as illegally constituted, he made it clear that the heart of the matter was the validity of the directors’ meeting of June 4, 1983 which, by not re-electing him to the position of manager, in effect caused termination of his services." 8

Those considerations do not obtain in the case at bar. No intracorporate controversy exists and the jurisdiction of the public respondent herein should be sustained.

We turn then to the main issues in this case, that is, whether private respondent was illegally dismissed and the matter of his right to reinstatement and the monetary awards he claims.

The amendments to the Labor Code 9 maintain virtually the same relevant provisions on the matter.

"ART. 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his reinstatement.

"ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreements to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the contemplation or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is beyond cavil that the private respondent is a regular employee with a total length of service, as of May 31, 1983, of 28 years, 8 months and 17 days, or 29 years in legal contemplation. As We have stated in a case of similar factual setting —

‘From the facts of the case and the very nature of respondent’s employment, it is indubitably shown that he was engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the University and that he was not hired for a specific project or undertaking the completion of the which has been determined at the time of the engagement is regular, thus he is entitled to the security of tenure. Even on the assumption that respondent that respondent tacitly agreed to the condition in the contract as to his term of office, it did not affect his regular status. . . .’ 10

There is, therefore, no legal bar to private respondent’s entitlement to backwages and gratuity and these are unaffected by his change of status from a rank-and-file employee to a corporate officer of managerial rank. That much is evident from the aforecited case. The matter of his separation from the service by GAUF, however, presents a different situation, hence a disparate approach is required.

As already stated, he was appointed by the Board of Trustees to the position last held by him, as Vice-President and concurently Treasurer, on March 5, 1981. Such office was for a particular term as, in fact, he had to be given and ad interim extension up to March 21, 1983. Thereafter, his services were again extended up to April 30, 1983 and, ultimately, up to May 31, 1983, but with his written conformity thereto. There is nothing in the record to show that he was under pressure or in a disadvantaged position when he agreed to such extension with a definite period. His acquiescence thereto was express, not tacit, and a man of his intellectual stature could not have been unaware of the projected end of his employment.

The case of University of Sto. Tomas, heretofore cited and which he invokes, was decided on different features on this particular point. Aside from the fact that the therein physician-employee never expressly gave his consent to the change of the nature of his employment from one without a fixed period to one with a definite period, the court found that the reorganization of the hospital was resorted to in bad faith in order to deny the therein employee his accrued and vested rights, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Since the fixing of the term of office which was up to 31 October 1975 only is clearly oppressive and arbitrary, the same being in clear circumvention of the right of the respondent to be secure in his employment, we hold and rule that respondent’s tacit or implied acceptance of the same is ineffective. Respondent’s employment remains and is deemed to be without a definite period.

"And considering that from year to year, for 25 years, respondent continued to render the same kind of service without renewal or re-appointment when all of a sudden, petitioners came up with the reorganization of the hospital and converted respondent’s employment to one with a definite period, it becomes very obvious and apparent that the intention of the petitioners in providing for a fixed period is to `ease him out of the service’ because of the denunciation made by respondent against the management. The injustice done to respondent is not difficult to see. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Private respondent posits that the non-extension of his employment is due to his having furnished the founder’s daughters, in their role as "visitators" of the foundation, with a copy of his "insight report" ascribing questionable practices and irregularities to GAUF’s officers and trustees. It will be noted, however, that while copies thereof were supposedly circulated by private respondent even before the visitator’s request of March 19, 1983, as petitioner contends, yet private respondent’s services were nevertheless repeatedly extended up to May 31, 1983.

Furthermore, assuming that private respondent’s employment was without a valid fixed period and that his said report was a controlling consideration in the non-extension of his employment, his aforesaid irresponsible imputations which he failed to substantiate and for which he even had to apologize constituted a valid cause for such non-renewal of his services. As public respondent held, not without merit, and which meets with Our approval —

". . . It is clear on record that herein complainant is not entirely without fault. In fact in his letter to the Chairman of the Board dated 26 May 1983 (Annex `H’, Respondent’s Position Paper) complainant offered his apologies for his report without first clearing it with the President of the University. Complainant knew all along that because of his report, his appointment would no longer be extended (see Annex `B’, Respondent’s Position Paper). Thus, it cannot be said that respondent acted in bad faith when it unilaterally did not extend the appointment of complainant." 11

The award of attorney’s fees was properly disallowed since the same is granted only in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. 12

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby AFFIRMED and the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo 60.

2. Presiding Commissioner Guillermo C. Medina and Commissioners Gabriel M. Gatchalian and Miguel B. Varela.

3. Rollo 61-64.

4. Memorandum for the Petitioner, 2-3; Comment of Public Respondent, Rollo, 9596.

5. 127 SCRA 778 (1984); Rollo, 107.

6. 145 SCRA 211 (1985); Ibid., 108.

7. See, e.g., Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, Et Al., 23 SCRA 29 (1968).

8. Op. cit., 217-218.

9. P.D. 442, as last amended by E.O. 252.

10. University of Sto. Tomas, Et. Al. v. National Labor Relations Commission Et. Al., 125 SCRA 480 (1983).

11. Rollo, 63.

12. Section 111 (a), P.D. 442, as amended.




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






November-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37010 November 7, 1988 - JESUS MANAHAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-56464 November 7, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO MALMIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48278 November 7, 1988 - AURORA TAMBUNTING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51806 November 8, 1988 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53798 November 8, 1988 - ALBERTO C. ROXAS, ET AL. v. MARINA BUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55230 November 8, 1988 - RICHARD J. GORDON v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69778 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO TABAGO

  • G.R. No. L-74051 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO RELLON

  • G.R. No. 75583 November 8, 1988 - GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. ANTONIO J. TEODORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77028 November 8, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77109 November 8, 1988 - ESTATE OF EUGENE J. KNEEBONE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77115 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO L. BANTAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78052 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO E. ROA

  • G.R. No. L-35434 November 9, 1988 - ISRAEL ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-62386 November 9, 1988 - BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE LABOR UNION v. ROMEO A. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62680 November 9, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63074-75 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRU LAPATHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70565-67 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT POCULAN

  • G.R. No. 70766 November 9, 1988 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72383 November 9, 1988 - MARCELO SORIANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73304 November 9, 1988 - GLORIA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE NABONG v. QUIRINO R. SADANG

  • G.R. No. 75433 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN P. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76026 November 9, 1988 - PORFIRIO JOPILLO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76565 November 9, 1988 - BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. EDILBERTO NOEL

  • G.R. No. 81948 November 9, 1988 - PAN-FIL CO., INC. v. GABRIEL I. AGUJAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70270 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. TURLA

  • G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351 November 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR S. CARIÑO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 80485 November 11, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29420 November 14, 1988 - FELIX DE VILLA v. JOSE JACOB

  • G.R. No. L-33084 November 14, 1988 - ROSE PACKING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38907 November 14, 1988 - NERIO BELVIS III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39807 November 14, 1988 - HEIRS OF E. B. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. MACARIO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46474 November 14, 1988 - CONCORDIA M. DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-61017-18 January 14, 1988 - FELIPE FAJELGA v. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73828 November 14, 1988 - BENJAMIN S. APRIETO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73998 November 14, 1988 - PEDRO T. LAYUGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74387-90 November 14, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78848 November 14, 1988 - SHERMAN SHAFER v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH 75, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988 - MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ET AL. v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. 74324 November 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PUGAY BALCITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74834 November 17, 1988 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA & AMERICA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32242 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO T. CARIDO

  • G.R. No. L-64656 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 76974 November 18, 1988 - BENITO LIM v. RODOLFO D. RODRIGO

  • G.R. No. L-68857 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO M. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 78794 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ELIZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47045 November 22, 1988 - NOBIO SARDANE v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71110 November 22, 1988 - PAZ VILLAGONZALO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77860 November 22, 1988 - BOMAN ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31440 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BANDOQUILLO

  • G.R. No. L-37048 November 23, 1988 - NICOLAS LAURENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47726 November 23, 1988 - PAN REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48302 November 23, 1988 - ARTURO DEL POZO, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PENACO

  • G.R. No. L-51996 November 23, 1988 - WESTERN MINOLCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57005-07 November 23, 1988 - IMPERIAL VEGETABLE WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. VEGA

  • G.R. No. L-61375 November 23, 1988 - TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA v. SOUTHERN MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-65037 November 23, 1988 - CRESENCIO M. ROCAMORA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU BRANCH VIII, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75364 November 23, 1988 - ANTONIO LAYUG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76290 November 23, 1988 - MAMITA PARDO DE TAVERA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77968 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MARAVILLA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 78359-60 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DESIDERIO G. ALIOCOD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-89-P November 24, 1988 - DOMINGA S. CUNANAN v. JOSE L. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34116 November 24, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36788 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO LUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38884 November 24, 1988 - SEVERINO MATEO v. ANDRES PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46078 November 24, 1988 - ROMEO N. PORTUGAL, ET AL. v. RODRIGO R. REANTASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45266 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO PARDILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988 - YAO KEE, ET AL. v. AIDA SY-GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69550 November 24, 1988 - MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75755 November 24, 1988 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76835 November 24, 1988 - LUIS M. FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77976 November 24, 1988 - MAXIMO GABRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78061 November 24, 1988 - LITTON MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KAPATIRAN, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. Nos. 82282-83 November 24, 1988 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82405-06 November 24, 1988 - BANQUE DE L’ INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON AM. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 84610 November 24, 1988 - MEDCO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41014 November 28, 1988 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59981 November 28, 1988 - SALVADOR SAPUGAY v. NATIVIDAD C. BOBIS

  • G.R. No. L-69970 November 28, 1988 - FELIX DANGUILAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 79677 November 28, 1988 - PEOPLE v. VICTOR MEJIAS

  • G.R. No. L-34548 November 29, 1988 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. PACIFICO P. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-34836 November 29, 1989

    LINDA TARUC v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

  • G.R. No. L-46048 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46612 November 29, 1988 - SILVERIO GODOY v. NIÑO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-48457 November 29, 1988 - PERLA HERNANDEZ v. PEDRO C. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. L-48974 November 29, 1989

    FRANCISCO MASCARIÑA v. EASTERN QUEZON COLLEGE

  • G.R. No. L-55233 November 29, 1988 - CRISPULO GAROL v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-67229 November 29, 1988 - MARCELINO MEJIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 - NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71557 November 29, 1988 - PABLO S. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 72006 November 29, 1988 - FLORENCIO REYES, JR. v. LEONARDO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 73421 November 29, 1988 - GROUP DEVELOPERS AND FINANCIERS, INC. v. LUMEN POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 74049 November 29, 1988 - MACARIO Q. FALCON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75042 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 77040 November 29, 1988 - ALEJANDRO MAGTIBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77227 November 29, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988 - BELYCA CORP. v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 77541 November 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF GREGORIO TENGCO v. HEIRS OF JOSE ALIWALAS

  • G.R. No. 78012 November 29, 1988 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79552 November 29, 1988 - EVELYN J. SANGRADOR v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO VALDERRAMA

  • G.R. No. 80382 November 29, 1988 - DIONISIA ANTALLAN v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 80838 November 29, 1988 - ELEUTERIO C. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS