Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > April 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 82009 April 10, 1989 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 82009. April 10, 1989.]

CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM SAMARA, Respondents.

Agcaoili & Associates for Petitioner.

Romeo G. Carlos for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURES; APPEALS; DISMISSAL THEREOF BASED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, FROWN UPON; GROUNDS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL FILED OUT OF TIME. — It has often been said that "dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon, where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice." This does not mean, however, that any party may appeal from a decision at any time it may choose to file the same. In Reyes v. Court of Appeals, this Court enumerated the grounds for the allowance of an appeal filed out of time, i.e., fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. In the case at bar, petitioner did not state any reason for its failure to file its appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioner did not even allege the existence of circumstances that would amount to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect so as to provide a legal justification for its late appeal.

2. ID.; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE UPON FINALITY THEREOF. — Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that" (e)xecution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action. Such execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected." Having failed to appeal during the reglementary period, the decision of the Regional Trial Court against petitioner had become final and executory against petitioner thereby making it the ministerial duty of the trial court to grant the motion for execution filed by the prevailing party. The argument of the petitioner to the effect that execution should not be allowed during the pendency of the appeal of its co-defendant inasmuch as the same would result in an absurd situation in case the findings of the trial court are reversed by the Court of Appeals, has no leg to stand on. The law is clear and admits of no other interpretation. A final judgment must be executed against the defeated party.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


Can the execution of a final judgment be prevented by the appeal therefrom of a co-defendant? Can the said appeal inure to the benefit of the defendant who did not appeal? These are the issues in this appeal by certiorari from the resolution of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals 1 dated February 5, 1988 denying a motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision on the ground that the appeal of petitioner was filed way out of time, i.e., 51 days from notice of the decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 160) of Pasig, Metro Manila. 2

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

On October 3, 1983, private respondent William Samara filed Civil Case No. 50248 entitled "William Samara, plaintiff, versus Citytrust Banking Corporation and Marine Midland Bank, NA, defendants" before Branch 160 of the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Metro Manila.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The complaint alleged that private respondent purchased a US$40,000.00 demand draft from petitioner Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust) and that he invested the same in a joint venture with a certain Tony Mancuso for the purpose of bringing to the Philippines some American entertainers. The draft was drawn against Marine Midland Bank, NA (Marine Midland) in favor of Thai International Airways since the amount represented the estimated cost of the air transportation of the entertainers. Sensing however, that Tony Mancuso was not going to fulfill his part of the agreement, private respondent executed a stop-payment order on December 23, 1980 and gave specific instructions to petitioner Citytrust to immediately telex the same to its correspondent bank in America, Marine Midland. Both defendants confirmed that the demand draft was not yet paid. Consequently, Citytrust re-credited the dollar account of the private respondent in the amount of US$40,000.00. However, after a lapse of seven (7) months, petitioner Citytrust debited the said dollar account in the amount of $40,000.00 upon realizing that Marine Midland had debited the amount of $40,000.00 from the account of Citytrust. Private respondent filed a protest regarding the debiting of his dollar account and demanded the return of the said amount.

The complaint further alleged that Tony Mancuso arrived in the Philippines in January 1981 and stayed in the country up to the middle part of the same year. Private respondent went on to say that he did not bother to collect from Mancuso the value of the bank draft inasmuch as Mancuso assured him that the same was never encashed. Private respondent also alleged that Mancuso had, since then, left the Philippines for an unknown destination thereby making it impossible to go after him.

Petitioner filed an answer with counterclaim and cross claim on January 4, 1984 while Marine Midland filed its counterclaim and crossclaim on January 16, 1984.

On March 4, 1986, the Regional Trial Court held Marine Midland and Citytrust jointly and severally liable to private Respondent. The dispositive part of the decision of the trial court reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of $40,000.00, plus twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from July 3, 1981, until full payment is made, and the further interest of 12% per annum on the accrued interest from December 23, 1980, up to the filing of the complaint on October 4, 1983, inclusive; exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 and the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs;

2. Dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims for lack of merit;

3. Ordering defendant Marine Midland to reimburse defendant Citytrust whatever amount the latter will be made to pay the plaintiff by reason of this judgment and costs." 3

Petitioner avers that on March 26, 1986 or nine days after it received a copy of the said decision, it was furnished a copy of the motion for reconsideration filed by Marine Midland seeking a reversal of the decision of the lower court against both itself and petitioner. Counsel for Marine Midland pointed out that the cause of action of the private respondent is not really against any of the defendant banks but against Tony Mancuso and that the only reason why the case was filed against the defendants is because "Mancuso is nowhere to be found and the plaintiff is left holding the proverbial empty bag." 4

On account of the failure of the petitioner to appeal during the reglementary period allowed for the same, private respondent filed a motion for execution of the decision of the lower court on April 29, 1986. Petitioner filed an opposition thereto on May 7, 1986.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

However, on May 5, 1986, petitioner received a copy of the order of the lower court denying the motion for reconsideration of Marine Midland. This prompted the former to file a Notice of Appeal on May 7, 1986, or two days after the said order was received. The lower court, however, denied the appeal filed by petitioner and granted the motion for execution filed by private Respondent. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however, granted. The trial court gave due course to the appeal on the ground that "substantial justice demands the granting of the motion at bar." 5 The trial court also set aside the order of execution on the ground that "the denial of the appeal and the giving of due course to the execution of the judgment as against said defendant at this point in time will work out an unjust situation as it will be conducive to force the defendant Citytrust to satisfy the judgment without being able to demand and be defrayed reimbursement from co-defendant Marine Midland as mandated in the decision appealed from, until the disposition of the case on appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court who (sic) may either affirm or reverse the decision." 6

Thus, the case was brought on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with the respondent appellate court after which the petitioner filed its comment thereto. On December 15, 1987, the appellate court resolved to grant the motion to dismiss filed by private Respondent. A copy of the resolution was received by petitioner on December 23, 1987. On January 7, 1988, petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration praying that the resolution dated December 15, 1987 be set aside. The motion was, however, denied.

Hence, the instant petition. Two errors are assigned on the part of the appellate court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, REVERSIBLE ON APPEAL, IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER’S CO-DEFENDANT, I.E., MARINE MIDLAND, INURED TO THE PETITIONER’S BENEFIT AS TO SUSPEND PETITIONER’S PERIOD TO APPEAL.

II. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVERSIBLE ON APPEAL, IN FAILING TO RULE THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN IMMEDIATE EXECUTION EVEN IF IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT PETITIONER’S APPEAL WAS FILED BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD.

This Court finds the petition bereft of merit.

Petitioner argues that when Marine Midland filed a motion for reconsideration, it was intended to benefit both Marine Midland and itself. Petitioner explained that the motion sought the reversal of the decision of the lower court not only with respect to the judgment against Marine Midland but also as regards the liability of petitioner on the ground that the person who should be held liable is Tony Mancuso who, at present, is nowhere to be found.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The petitioner cites Director of Lands v. Reyes 7 where this Court held that where the rights and liabilities of those who did not appeal and those of the party appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, the reversal of the judgment as to one would operate as a reversal as to all. 8

It must be noted that the two defendants, Marine Midland and Citytrust, filed cross claims against each other in their answer. Citytrust alleged that the proximate cause of the injury should be attributed to co-defendant Marine Midland when the latter failed to promptly inform Citytrust that the demand draft Citytrust issued was really paid by Marine Midland on December 22, 1980. For its part, Marine Midland alleged that Citytrust did not properly advise it of the actual circumstances relating to the dates of payment of the draft and of the receipt by the latter of the stop-payment instructions. The rights and liabilities of both parties concerned are not so interwoven in such a manner that their defenses are similar and that a reversal of the judgment as to one should operate as a reversal to the other. Furthermore, a perusal of the decision appealed from shows that Marine Midland, though jointly and severally liable with petitioner, is the one ultimately held responsible for the damages incurred by the private respondent inasmuch as the trial court ordered "defendant Marine Midland to reimburse defendant Citytrust of whatever amount the latter will be made to pay the plaintiff by reason of this judgment and costs." 9 Another factor negating the theory of the petitioner is the fact that the parties are represented by different counsel such that one cannot legally act for the other. Therefore, when Marine Midland filed its motion for reconsideration, it was acting for itself.

It has often been said that "dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon, where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice." 10 This does not mean, however, that any party may appeal from a decision at any time it may choose to file the same. In Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 11 this Court enumerated the grounds for the allowance of an appeal filed out of time, i.e., fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. In the case at bar, petitioner did not state any reason for its failure to file its appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioner did not even allege the existence of circumstances that would amount to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect so as to provide a legal justification for its late appeal.

Moreover, the circumstances of the aforecited case show the weakness of the claim of petitioner. In the said case, the appellant filed a motion for new trial which did not set forth specifically the reasons in support of said ground and was, therefore, found to be pro forma. Hence, the motion did not suspend the ruling of the period to appeal, and the appeal filed more than thirty days from notice was not given due course. In the present case, petitioner did not do anything upon receipt of the decision of the trial court. It simply waited for the result of the motion filed by its co-defendant Marine Midland, a situation worse than that in Reyes.chanrobles law library

With regard to the issue of whether or not private respondent is entitled to the immediate execution of the decision of the trial court, the answer should be in the affirmative.

Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that" (e)xecution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action. Such execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected." Having failed to appeal during the reglementary period, the decision of the Regional Trial Court against petitioner had become final and executory against petitioner thereby making it the ministerial duty of the trial court to grant the motion for execution filed by the prevailing party.

The argument of the petitioner to the effect that execution should not be allowed during the pendency of the appeal of its co-defendant inasmuch as the same would result in an absurd situation in case the findings of the trial court are reversed by the Court of Appeals, has no leg to stand on. The law is clear and admits of no other interpretation. A final judgment must be executed against the defeated party.

Furthermore, the Regional Trial Court held the two defendants jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff. Therefore, whether or not Marine Midland is absolved from liability on appeal is of no moment. The fact remains that the judgment against Citytrust had already become final and executory. Thus, there is no valid ground for the trial court to deny the motion for execution filed by private respondent at this point in time.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Associate Justice Jorge R. Coquia, concurred in by Associate Justices Josue N. Bellosillo and Venancio D. Aldecoa.

2. Penned by Judge Rafael de la Cruz.

3. Decision, dispositive portion, page 4.

4. Page 113, Rollo.

5. Page 40, Rollo.

6. Ibid.

7. 69 SCRA 416 (1976).

8. Emphasis supplied. The ruling reiterates the doctrine laid down in Municipality of Orion v. Concha, 50 Phil. 679 (1927).

9. Paragraph 3, dispositive portion of the decision of the trial court; page 87, Rollo.

10. Guballa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79403, December 19, 1988.

11. 74 Phil. 235 (1943).




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






April-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55272 April 10, 1989 - JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80687 April 10, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., v. MARIANO M. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67752 April 10, 1989 - NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  • G.R. Nos. 74151-54 April 10, 1989 - SUPERCARS, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76119 April 10, 1989 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78295 & 79917 April 10, 1989 - CELSO D. LAVIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78595 April 10, 1989 - TIMOTEO MAGNO v. FLORENTINA BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79106 April 10, 1989 - CHRISTIAN LITERATURE CRUSADE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79582 April 10, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62259 April 10, 1989 - DOLORES V. MENDOZA, ET AL. v. AGRIX MARKETING INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 80455-56 April 10, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82009 April 10, 1989 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2144 April 10, 1989 - CELEDONIO QUILBAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO R. ROBINOL

  • G.R. No. 29390 April 12, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37289 April 12, 1989 - THE CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49022 April 12, 1989 - ANTONIO S. PENDOT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 53446 April 12, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. CEFERINO DULAY

  • G.R. No. 71752 April 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO M. RANOLA

  • G.R. No. 77539 April 12, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP) v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 78252 April 12, 1989 - PALUWAGAN NG BAYAN SAVINGS BANK v. ANGELO KING

  • G.R. No. 78684 April 12, 1989 - LUIS SUSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78774 April 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR R. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 79718-22 April 12, 1989 - QUEZON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 79946 April 12, 1989 - GERONIMO MANALAYSAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80800 April 12, 1989 - IMELDA SYJUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83139 April 12, 1989 - ARNEL SY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84087 April 12, 1989 - TEODORA CATUIRA v. COURT APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 69492 April 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 80089 April 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO REY

  • G.R. No. 86439 April 13, 1989 - MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA v. JOVITO R. SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 26855 April 17, 1989 - FRANCISCO GARCIA v. JOSE CALALIMAN

  • G.R. No. 36786 April 17, 1989 - PEDRO LIM v. PERFECTO JABALDE

  • G.R. No. L-46079 April 17, 1989 - ESTEBAN C. MANUEL v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

  • G.R. No. 57395 April 17, 1989 - ALFREDO DE GUZMAN v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS

  • G.R. No. 58986 April 17, 1989 - DANTE Y. GO v. FERNANDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 63742 April 17, 1989 - TANJAY WATER DISTRICT v. PEDRO GABATON

  • G.R. No. 64867-68 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME L. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 66420 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 72837 April 17, 1989 - ESTER JAVELLANA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74225 April 17, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78827 April 17, 1989 - ENRIQUE S. VILLARUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79425 April 17, 1989 - CRESENCIANA ATUN ESQUIVEL v. ANGEL M. ALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 82072 April 17, 1989 - GEORGIA G. TUMANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82346-47 April 17, 1989 - VICTORIANO ADA v. MARCIANO T. VIROLA

  • G.R. No. 82373 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO C. LAMOG

  • G.R. No. 84307 April 17, 1989 - CIRIACO HINOGUIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 86595 April 17, 1989 - PHIL. NAT’L. CONSTRUCTION CORP. TOLLWAYS DIVISION v. NAT’L. LABOR RELATIONS COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 28502-03 April 18, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC

  • G.R. No. 46127 April 18, 1989 - CONCEPCION DELA ROSA v. TARCELA FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 48714 April 18, 1989 - GREGORIO JANDUSAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 58028 April 18, 1989 - CHIANG KAl SHEK SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 62909 April 18, 1989 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. v. ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN

  • G.R. No. 67626 April 18, 1989 - JOSE REMO, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67787 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSIE CUARESMA

  • G.R. No. 72783 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO REBANCOS

  • G.R. Nos. 73486-87 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO SABANAL

  • G.R. No. 76853 April 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80039 April 18, 1989 - ERNESTO M. APODACA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 81833 April 18, 1989 - CATALINA B. VDA. DE ALVIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81961 April 18, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LAND MANAGEMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82741 April 18, 1989 - MANSALAY CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83234 April 18, 1989 - OSIAS ACADEMY v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 83513 April 18, 1989 - LEONCITO PACAÑA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84481 April 18, 1989 - MINDANAO SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84764 April 18, 1989 - CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. v. CONSUELO Y. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 39607 April 19, 1989 - UNION CARBIDE PHIL., INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. 45866 April 19, 1989 - OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 47300 April 19, 1989 - GODOFREDO S. GONZAGA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. 55082 April 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 61756 April 19, 1989 - MARIA VDA. DE TOLENTINO v. FELIZARDO S.M. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 75672 April 19, 1989 - HEIRS OF GUMANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81162 April 19, 1989 - PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY v. JOB GUANZON

  • G.R. No. 81176 April 19, 1989 - PLASTIC TOWN CENTER CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 81477 April 19, 1989 - DENTECH MANUFACTURING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 82312 April 19, 1989 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY ASSOC. v. MANUEL L. QUEZON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

  • A.M. No. R-218-MTJ April 19, 1989 - CONCHITA C. VALENCIA v. JOSE MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 33284 April 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CENTENO, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 44902 April 20, 1989 - SERGIA B. ESTRELLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 35238 April 21, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

  • G.R. No. 36081 April 24, 1989 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. QUEZON CITY

  • G.R. No. 44095 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR P. SIAT

  • G.R. No. 52119 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 74479 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCORDIO SARDA

  • G.R. No. 79899 April 24, 1989 - D. ANNIE TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80882 April 24, 1989 - SOUTHERN PHILS. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 85785 April 24, 1989 - BENITO O. SY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 67451 April 25, 1989 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 76391-92 April 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BAYSA

  • G.R. Nos. 76854-60 April 25, 1989 - AUGUSTO C. LEGASTO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80998 April 25, 1989 - LEONARDO B. LUCENA v. PAN-TRADE, INC.

  • G.R. No. 81332 April 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN T. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 82580 April 25, 1989 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.C. No. 1437 April 25, 1989 - HILARIA TANHUECO v. JUSTINIANO G. DE DUMO

  • G.R. No. 51832 April 26, 1989 - RAFAEL PATRICIO v. OSCAR LEVISTE

  • G.R. No. 57822 April 26, 1989 - PEDRO ESCUDERO v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. 64753 April 26, 1989 - PLACIDO MANALO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73978-80 April 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GLINOGO

  • G.R. No. 77085 April 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80638 April 26, 1989 - GABRIEL ELANE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81471 April 26, 1989 - CHONG GUAN TRADING v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 58445 April 27, 1989 - ZAIDA G. RARO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 63253-54 April 27, 1989 - PABLO RALLA v. ROMULO P. UNTALAN

  • G.R. No. 78635 April 27, 1989 - LEONORA OBAÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80863 April 27, 1989 - ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA v. ABEDNEGO O. ADRE

  • G.R. No. 81551 April 27, 1989 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION