Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > November 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-38884 November 24, 1988 - SEVERINO MATEO v. ANDRES PLAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-38884. November 24, 1988.]

SEVERINO MATEO, Petitioner, v. HON. ANDRES PLAN and TEOFILO BALOT, Respondents.

Melanio T . Singson for Petitioner.

Eligio A. Labog for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PLEADINGS; AMENDMENT; MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD NOT BE DILATORY. — Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court is clear. Substantial amendments may be made when the case has already been set for hearing only upon leave of court. But the motion to amend should not be dilatory and the cause of action or defense, as the case may be, should not be substantially altered.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; AMENDMENT ACTUALLY CHANGING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE AFTER PRE-TRIAL AND WHERE THE CASE HAS BEEN SET FOR TRIAL, NOT PROPER. — The proposed amendments of the Answer actually revamp the theory of the defense. The requested changes are too substantial to be allowed after the pre-trial and the case had already been set for trial on the merits. It is too late in the day for substantial amendments.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. — Pleadings serve to determine the issues of law and/or fact raised by the respective pleaders.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE OF PERIOD OF AMENDING PLEADINGS. — There is a prescribed period within which a party may amend his pleadings. Amendments may be made, therefore, within the time and under the conditions prescribed in the Rules of Court, generally before the trial or hearing of the case or issue on the merits. Otherwise, there would be no way to determine and limit the nature of the evidence to be presented or admitted or of the arguments that the parties may adduce.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTION, ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. — The grant of leave to file amended answer is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except when there is evidence of grave abuse.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CASE AT BAR. — Here, we find none. We affirm the trial court’s orders. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the amendment of the Answer at that late stage of the proceedings.


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari assailing the refusal of the respondent trial judge 1 to admit the proffered Amended Answer of the petitioner.

The facts giving rise to the controversy may be briefly summarized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On July 15, 1972, private respondent Teofilo Balot, plaintiff in the court below filed an Amended Complaint against defendant Severino Mateo, the petitioner herein, for the Recovery of Possession of a parcel of land With Receivership And Damages. Private respondent Teofilo Balot, as plaintiff in the court below avers in his Amendment Complaint that he is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated at Bagnos, Alicia, Isabela, with an area of 43,707 square meters, more or less; that sometime in 1967, petitioner Severino Mateo, through strategy and bad faith took possession of the parcel of land, and despite the private respondent’s repeated demands for the petitioner to vacate the premises, he tenaciously refuses to do so; that private respondent Balot is in danger of losing the ripening palay planted on the land unless a receiver is appointed to preserve it; and that pending hearing, Balot prays in his Amended Complaint that he be appointed receiver on a bond in an amount to be fixed by the court. He further prays that he be declared the absolute owner of the land in question and that the petitioner vacate the same and pay damages for unrealized fruits as well as attorney’s fees and costs of the suit. 2

On February 3, 1973, petitioner Severino Mateo as defendant filed in the court a quo an "Answer With Counterclaim." In the said answer, the petitioner (defendant) expresses doubt as to the existence of the land covered by private respondent Balot’s title; that he (petitioner) has never set foot on the said land; that he has not encroached on the possessory rights of the private respondent over the said land; that he has no knowledge or information about any palay planted on said land, the damages for unrealized fruits, the need for a receivership, and the alleged unlawful intrusion into the land. Branding the suit to be malicious, Mateo prayed the trial court to dismiss the case, for the award of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit. No affirmative defenses were raised. 3

A pre-trial was held in due course. The main issue raised is the identity of the land in question. On October 3, 1973, the respondent judge appointed a surveyor commissioner, Geodetic Engineer Rufino S. Roque, to determine such identity. The commissioner’s report, based on his relocation survey, shows that the land claimed by the petitioner (defendant in the court below) "is inside the title issued in favor of the plaintiff (private respondent herein), as shown in the relocation plan attached to the record." 4

On February 4, 1974, the petitioner filed his Motion to Admit Amended Answer attaching therewith an Amended Answer. The offered Amended Answer is a tergiversation of the original Answer with Counterclaim. This time, the petitioner alleges in his proposed Amended Answer that he has been in peaceful, quiet, notorious, and adverse possession of the land in question; that no demand has ever been made for him to vacate the land; that his father, Agaton Mateo, was the original owner of the land having purchased it from the government; that the fruits of the land are not in danger of being lost or removed and therefore there is no reason to appoint a receiver; and that a certain Policarpio Dizon and private respondent Teofilo Balot, who were both aware of the title of Agaton Mateo, fraudulently transferred in the name of Balot the said title. As final reliefs, the petitioner prays for the dismissal of the complaint, the alleged confirmation of award made by the Bureau of Lands in favor of Agaton Mateo, the declaration of nullity of the private respondent’s certificate of title over the land, plus damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit. 5 The Motion to Admit Amended Answer alleges that "through oversight," movant Severino Mateo failed to include affirmative defenses in his original Answer. 6

In an Order dated March 7, 1974, the trial court denied the Motion To Admit Amended Answer "for lack of merit, because it will substantially alter the (his) defense." 7 A Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied. 8 Hence, this petition.

We affirm the trial court’s orders. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the amendment of the Answer at that late stage of the proceedings.

Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Amendments by leave of court. After the case is set for hearing, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay the action or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

The law is clear. Substantial amendments may be made when the case has already been set for hearing only upon leave of court. But the motion to amend should not be dilatory and the cause of action or defense, as the case may be, should not be substantially altered.

The stricture is not new.

As early as in 1927, the Court through Justice Malcolm asseverated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . Under code practice, amendments to pleadings are favored, and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice. This liberality, it has been said, is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, decreases as it progresses, and changes at times to a strictness amounting to a prohibition. The granting of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except in case of an evident abuse thereof. But the rule allowing amendments to pleading is subject to the general but not inflexible limitation that the cause of action or defense shall not be substantially changed, or that the theory of the case shall not be altered. . . . 9

More than three decades later, in the case of Uy v. Uy, 10 we restated the doctrine:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The matter of amendments of pleadings is one in which the law and the jurisprudence are well-settled. A party may, under the rules, amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before responsive pleading is served, or, after the filing of responsive pleading, by leave of court upon such terms as it may deem just and reasonable. Rule 17, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court. The discretion vested by law in the courts to allow amendments to pleading after the filing of responsive pleading is broad. It has been held that amendment may be allowed at any stage of the action before the rendition of final judgment, Espiritu v. Crossfield, 14 Phil. 588; Ocampo v. Mañalac, 49 O.G. 926; and that the amendments may consist of suppression, addition, or substitution of parties Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Bismonte v. Aldecoa & Co., 17 Phil. 480; Chua Kiong v. Whitaker, 46 Phil. 578; Diaz v. Dela Rama, 73 Phil. 104; or introduction of allegations of additional causes of action, or incorporation therein of a document, Villegas v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 249. The only limitations placed on such discretions by jurisprudence are that the amendment should not substantially change the cause of action, or alter the theory of the case Torres v. Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913, or that it was made to delay the action, Dacanay v. Lucero, 76 Phil. 139; . . . (Italics supplied.)

The proposed amendments of the Answer actually revamp the theory of the defense. The requested changes are too substantial to be allowed after the pre-trial and the case had already been set for trial on the merits. It is too late in the day for substantial amendments. While the original answer doubts the existence of the land covered by the private respondent’s title and disclaims any knowledge including encroachment thereof, the tendered Amended Answer denies the material averments of the Amended Complaint by attacking the Original Certificate of Title No. P-2368 in the name of Policarpio Dizon, private respondent Balot’s predecessor-in-interest, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-51130 in the name of private respondent Balot himself by alleging that he (petitioner) has been in peaceful and adverse possession of the land in question. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are likewise substantially different. From the original Answer’s principal prayer for the dismissal of the case and damages, the Amended Answer seeks not only the dismissal of the case but also the confirmation of an alleged award made by the Bureau of Lands in favor of Agaton Mateo, the petitioner’s father, the declaration of nullity of the private respondent’s Certificate of Title over the land, and other reliefs conferring badges of ownership over the disputed land to the petitioner. These marked and material changes in the defense theory need no further amplification. The petitioner’s excuse of "oversight" in failing to allege affirmative defenses in the original answer is unacceptable considering the nature, extent, and importance of the averments in the proposed Amended Answer.

Pleadings serve to determine the issues of law and/or fact raised by the respective pleaders. Accordingly there is a prescribed period within which a party may amend his pleadings. Amendments may be made, therefore, within the time and under the conditions prescribed in the Rules of Court, generally before the trial or hearing of the case or issue on the merits. Otherwise, there would be no way to determine and limit the nature of the evidence to be presented or admitted or of the arguments that the parties may adduce. 11 As in this case, when it has already been set for trial on the merits, the answer can be amended only upon leave of court, which may be denied, pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, if it appears to the court that the defense is substantially altered. 12

The grant of leave to file amended answer is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except when there is evidence of grave abuse. 13 Here, we find none.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Let this case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs against the petitioner.

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

Endnotes:



1. Hon. Andres B. Plan, Presiding Judge, then Court of First Instance of Isabela, First Judicial District, Branch II.

2. Rollo, 5-6.

3. Id., 7-8.

4. Id., 14-15.

5. Id., 10-13.

6. Id., 9.

7. Id., 14-15.

8. Id., 20.

9. Torres v. Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913 (1927).

10. No. L-14243, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 675.

11. PNR v. Pobre, No. L-27501, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 610 citing Rodgers (sic) v. Dick, No. L-18220, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 1032.

12. Arong v. Seno, No. L-25295, August 14, 1968, 24 SCRA 606.

13. Torres v. Tomacruz, supra; Avecilla v. Yatco, 103 Phil. 666 (1958).




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