Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > December 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 76342 December 4, 1989 - SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 76342. December 4, 1989.]

SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXXIX, Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, and RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Respondents.

Gamaliel G. Bongco for Petitioner.

Nolan R. Evangelista for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; MAY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL WHEN THE SAME WAS FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THE DECISION. — The trial court had no more jurisdiction over the case when it issued the special order granting the motion for execution pending appeal. Paragraph 1, Section 23 of the Interim Rules provides: "In cases where appeal is taken, perfection of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party." "Under this section, the mere filing of the appellant’s notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. The court may still take cognizance of the other party’s motion for new trial under Rule 37, if he should opt to file one, or, as in the instant case, a motion for execution pending appeal, provided such motions are filed within 15 days from said party’s notice of the decision . . ." (Universal Far East Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 642) [Emphasis for emphasis].

2. ID.; APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; WHEN DEMAND PERFECTED. — Respondent, in his comment, erred in applying the maxim under Rule 41, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court which provides that mere filing of the notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond does not perfect an appeal as it is the filing within the reglementary period plus the approval by the court of the record on appeal and appeal bond which perfect the appeal. Under the present procedure for appeal (Interim Rules), an appeal bond is no longer necessary, and the filing of a record on appeal is not required anymore except in cases of multiple appeals. What determines perfection of the appeal is the expiration of the reglementary period for appeal. This new procedure finds application to the case now before us. The same principle was reiterated in the cases of Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 136 SCRA 294 and Yabut v. IAC, 142 SCRA 124.

3. ID.; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; GRANT THEREOF LIES WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE; EXCEPTIONS. — We agree with the petitioner that there exists no sufficient and good reason for ordering immediate execution. Although ascertainment of these special reasons lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the appellate court should not normally disturb such findings, intervention by the appellate court may be proper, if it be shown that there has been an abuse of discretion or that conditions have so far developed as to necessitate the interference of the reviewing court.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT FAVORED; REASONS. — Assuming, arguendo, that Rutelco’s fear of possible "dissipation of the property in question will lead to its loss," still what is applicable in this event is a protective order under Rule 41, Sec. 9 and not an execution pending appeal. A special order of execution pending appeal is usually not favored because it affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal. The purpose of an immediate execution is not to protect and preserve the subject matter of the litigation. Furthermore, the petitioner is correct in saying that the question as to whether an appeal is frivolous or not is not for the trial court to determine but the appellate court.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition with an application for preliminary injunction or at least a restraining order under Rule 65 of the New Rules of Court is the special order of execution pending appeal issued by the respondent judge, on the grounds that the same were issued after the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case as the appeal had already been perfected and in like manner there was no good reason for granting immediate execution.

Respondent Rural Telephone Company (Rutelco), holder of a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain a public telephone system in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (with Option to Sell) with petitioner Sonida Industries, Inc., holder of a franchise authorized to construct, operate, and maintain radio communications system within and without the Philippines, whereby the former leased to the latter the Urdaneta Public Telephone System for a period from September 19, 1980 to September 19, 1985.

When petitioner took over the operation of the System, it was alleged that the inside and outside equipment were burned out as petitioner had to rehabilitate the system before it could start with its operation. The facts that the municipal franchise granted by the Municipality of Urdaneta was already cancelled due to poor and inefficient service and that respondent is indebted to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company were allegedly concealed to petitioner at the time the Agreement was entered into. By reason of these alleged fraudulent representations and clever machinations of the respondent, petitioner repeatedly failed to pay the monthly rentals of P4,000.00.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On October 27, 1981, Rutelco filed an action in court (Civil Case No. 15739) against Sonida for the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement plus damages, on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Meanwhile, on May 24, 1984, Sonida became the owner of the leased premises because the Metro Bank, to whom Rutelco had previously mortgaged the premises, foreclosed the same and sold the premises to petitioner.

On June 25, 1986 respondent judge rendered a decision ordering Sonida to pay Rutelco the sum of P4,000.00 a month, plus legal interest, from November 1, 1980 up to such time that the defendant (now petitioner) returns to plaintiff (now respondent) the operation of the Urdaneta Public Telephone System; ordering the rescission of the agreement; and ordering petitioner Sonida to pay litigation expenses. Notice of the aforementioned decision was received by the parties on July 7, 1986.

Subsequently, on July 21, 1986, petitioner Sonida filed its notice of appeal. On July 25, 1986, or eighteen (18) days after notice of the decision was received, respondent Rutelco filed a motion for execution pending appeal. On August 7, 1986, respondent judge issued a special order granting the motion for execution pending appeal.

A motion for reconsideration with offer to file a supersedeas bond to stay execution by the petitioner was denied. Finding no appeal nor any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner Sonida Industries filed the instant petition, alleging that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and without or in excess of his jurisdiction, because the special order was issued after the appeal had already been perfected and also there was no special reason for an immediate execution because petitioner already became the owner of the property leased.

In their comment, respondents argue that petitioner failed to appreciate the difference between "taking" an appeal and "perfecting" an appeal. The former is merely the filing of a notice of appeal which does not necessarily mean that an appeal is perfected while the latter means that the appeal taken is approved or given due course. Thus, in the case at bar, the appeal is not yet perfected by the mere filing of the notice. After such filing, the court has yet to determine the timeliness of the appeal and thereafter approve or give due course thereto, and it is only in this event that an appeal is deemed perfected. Considering, therefore, that the appeal taken was not yet given due course when the respondent court issued the special order for execution, the appeal was not yet perfected and thus, the lower court still had jurisdiction over the case.

The contention is devoid of merit. The trial court had no more jurisdiction over the case when it issued the special order granting the motion for execution pending appeal. Paragraph 1, Section 23 of the Interim Rules provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"In cases where appeal is taken, perfection of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Under this section, the mere filing of the appellant’s notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. The court may still take cognizance of the other party’s motion for new trial under Rule 37, if he should opt to file one, or, as in the instant case, a motion for execution pending appeal, provided such motions are filed within 15 days from said party’s notice of the decision . . ." (Universal Far East Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 642) [Italics for emphasis].

It is worthwhile to note that notice of the decision was received on July 7, 1986 and the motion for execution pending appeal was filed on July 25, 1986, or 18 days thereafter, which is evidently beyond the reglementary period for appeal. Timeliness of the resolution by the court of said motion is not the point under consideration because to require the trial court to resolve such motion within the reglementary period for appeal "would be difficult, if not impossible, to follow (Ibid)." What is crucial to determine is the timeliness of the filing of the motion for execution pending appeal. In the case at bar, the appeal was perfected, not on July 21, 1986 (date of filing of notice of appeal), but on July 22, 1986 (expiration of the last day to appeal of both parties). Since the motion for execution pending appeal was filed on July 25, 1986, that is, after the appeal had already been perfected by reason of the expiration of the period to appeal, the trial court had already lost jurisdiction over the case and thus cannot validly grant the said motion anymore. Perforce, the motion should have been filed before the perfection of the appeal or within the 15-day period. Respondent, in his comment, erred in applying the maxim under Rule 41, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court which provides that mere filing of the notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond does not perfect an appeal as it is the filing within the reglementary period plus the approval by the court of the record on appeal and appeal bond which perfect the appeal. Under the present procedure for appeal (Interim Rules), an appeal bond is no longer necessary, and the filing of a record on appeal is not required anymore except in cases of multiple appeals. What determines perfection of the appeal is the expiration of the reglementary period for appeal. This new procedure finds application to the case now before us. The same principle was reiterated in the cases of Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 136 SCRA 294 and Yabut v. IAC, 142 SCRA 124.chanrobles law library : red

As regards the second issue, we agree with the petitioner that there exists no sufficient and good reason for ordering immediate execution. Although ascertainment of these special reasons lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the appellate court should not normally disturb such findings, intervention by the appellate court may be proper, if it be shown that there has been an abuse of discretion or that conditions have so far developed as to necessitate the interference of the reviewing court. The grounds relied upon by the trial court are the following, to wit: (a) the appeal taken by the defendant is clearly dilatory; (b) the Memorandum of Agreement had expired already and yet the defendant still wanted to hold on to the equipment of the plaintiff; and (c) plaintiff is willing and is capable of posting a bond. While it may be true that petitioner asked for several postponements, said motions were however granted by the trial judge during the proceedings. If the postponements were truly intended for delay, respondent judge should not have granted the same. Moreover, the expiration of the agreement is of no moment because in the first place, petitioner Sonida had already become the owner of the property in question. Assuming, arguendo, that Rutelco’s fear of possible "dissipation of the property in question will lead to its loss," still what is applicable in this event is a protective order under Rule 41, Sec. 9 and not an execution pending appeal. A special order of execution pending appeal is usually not favored because it affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal. The purpose of an immediate execution is not to protect and preserve the subject matter of the litigation. Furthermore, the petitioner is correct in saying that the question as to whether an appeal is frivolous or not is not for the trial court to determine but the appellate court.

WHEREFORE and by reason of the foregoing, this petition is GRANTED, the questioned special order of execution pending appeal is SET ASIDE, and the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan is enjoined from enforcing the writ of execution.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), J., is on leave.




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






December-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55963 December 1, 1989 - JOSE FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56402-03 December 1, 1989 - EFREN CUNANAN, ET AL. v. ANGELINA SENGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30453 December 4, 1989 - ANGELINA PUENTEVELLA ECHAUS v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41295 December 4, 1989 - ALFREDO C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66059-60 December 4, 1989 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT and FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66437 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69078 December 4, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76342 December 4, 1989 - SONIDA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CORNELIO W. WASAN, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81327 December 4, 1989 - CRISPINA VANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82264-66 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI A. GULINAO

  • G.R. No. 82588 December 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO FUSTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83175 December 4, 1989 - FREDILLO GUILLEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83281 December 4, 1989 - FLORENTINO OZAETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83693 December 4, 1989 - LEANDRO ALAZAS v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84419 December 4, 1989 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. JOSE ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 84908 December 4, 1989 - FELIX ABAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87001 December 4, 1989 - LA UNION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. BRAULIO D. YARANON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3049 December 4, 1989 - PERLA Y. LAGUITAN v. SALVADOR F. TINIO

  • G.R. No. 84516 December 5, 1989 - DIONISIO CARPIO v. SERGIO DOROJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76203-04 December 6, 1989 - ENRICO M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82341 December 6, 1989 - SUNDOWNER DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74027 December 7, 1989 - SILAHIS MARKETING CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79060 December 8, 1989 - ANICETO C. OCAMPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84195 December 11, 1989 - LUCIO C. TAN, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79554 December 14, 1989 - LEOPOLDO G. DIZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82813 December 14, 1989 - EMELIA S. BLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989 - NEMESIO E. PRUDENTE v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88052 December 14, 1989 - JOSE P. MECENAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BAYLON RILLORTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67170-72 December 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON MAGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 71566 December 15, 1989 - FRANCISCO D. PALANCA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989 - WOLFGANG AURBACH, ET AL. v. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75934 December 15, 1989 - WILLY CARSON, ET AL. v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76509 December 15, 1989 - PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81788 December 15, 1989 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84992 December 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90426 December 15, 1989 - SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72623 December 18, 1989 - TEODOSIA C. LEBRILLA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78787 December 18, 1989 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80593 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84818 December 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. v. JOSE LUIS A. ALCUAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88105 December 18, 1989 - NICOLAS FECUNDO v. RAMON BERJAMEN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3195 December 19, 1989 - MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER v. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. 29627 December 19, 1989 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58168 December 19, 1989 - CONCEPCION MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67938 December 19, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72572 December 19, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74182 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. LLARENA

  • G.R. No. 75530 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77582 December 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO SAYANG-OD

  • G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 - AMADO C. ARIAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 82753 December 19, 1989 - ESTELA COSTUNA v. LAUREANA DOMONDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86675 December 19, 1989 - MRCA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.xx

  • G.R. No. 88218 December 19, 1989 - CARCON DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43236 December 20, 1989 - OLYMPIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51449 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO HIZON

  • G.R. No. 67548 December 20, 1989 - IRENEO ODEJAR, ET AL. v. ISIDRO P. GUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69969 December 20, 1989 - ANTONIO L. TOTTOC v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72883 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ESPINOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76148 December 20, 1989 - ELISEO CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81403 December 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ANDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 86074 December 20, 1989 - LILIA LIWAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87676 December 20, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989 - MAXIMO TACAY, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM, Davao del Norte, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. v. HONORATO JUDICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82170 & 82372 December 21, 1989 - TEODORO YBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82303 December 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 85847 December 21, 1989 - BELEN GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989 - RAUL A. DAZA v. LUIS C. SINGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87721-30 December 21, 1989 - BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, ET AL. v. ADELINA INDAY LARRAZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88265 December 21, 1989 - SANTIAGO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO R. BENGZON

  • G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19328 December 22, 1989 - ALEJANDRO KATIGBAK, ET AL. v. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989 - JOSE PILAPIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55159 December 22, 1989 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 60741-43 December 22, 1989 - NEEDLE QUEEN CORP. v. MANUELA A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69260 December 22, 1989 - MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN v. JOSE MAR GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84111 December 22, 1989 - JIMMY O. YAOKASIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86625 December 22, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88243 December 22, 1989 - ROGELIO O. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87687 December 26, 1989 - ISABELO T. SABELLO v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 72085 December 28, 1989 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989 - OSCAR D. RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58122 December 29, 1989 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58768-70 December 29, 1989 - LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59581 December 29, 1989 - TARCISIO ICAO v. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65376 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO PETALCORIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68422 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO B. BRAVO

  • G.R. No. 72313 December 29, 1989 - RICARDO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75602 December 29, 1989 - TRANS-ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75618 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MARMITA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77418 December 29, 1989 - RODERICK CASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79025 December 29, 1989 - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80612-16 December 29, 1989 - AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81798 December 29, 1989 - LAO GI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82121 December 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO B. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83885 December 29, 1989 - NICANOR A. CATRAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.