Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > December 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 87001 December 4, 1989 - LA UNION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. BRAULIO D. YARANON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 87001. December 4, 1989.]

LA UNION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (LUELCO), represented by its President and Chairman of the Board MANUEL L. MANGASER, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE BRAULIO D. YARANON, Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 30, San Fernando, La Union and NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), Respondents. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO. (La Union Branch) as Interpleader.

Roman R. Villalon, Jr. for petitioner LUELCO.

Dulcemarie M. Guerrero-Manikan for interpleader.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW; POLICY OF COURTS TO INDULGE THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY; RATIONALE. — The reason courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins on each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments. In line with this policy, courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that "to doubt is to sustain." The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted. Hence, as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched upon and the case will be decided on other available grounds.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION; POWER OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ORGANIZED AND EXISTING PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 269, AS AMENDED; DESIGNATION OF GENERAL MANAGER/PROJECT SUPERVISOR WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY. — As found by the court a quo it is not seriously disputed that the NEA had taken over the control and supervision of the LUELCO by installing one of its personnel as acting general manager/project supervisor of the LUELCO. It is within the power of control and supervision of the NEA over the LUELCO as an electric cooperative organized and existing pursuant to Presidential Decree 269 as amended by Presidential Decree 1645 particularly Section 5(a) thereof. In view of the circumstances which, in the interest of the cooperative and the program of electrification whereby said Acting General Manager effectively took over the actual supervision and control of the management and operation of the LUELCO on February 8, 1988, it was deemed necessary that the matter of disposal of funds deposited with the FEBTC should be guided by the NEA ruling of April 8, 1988 authorizing the general manager to sign checks of withdrawals and disbursement only in the amount of P3,000.00 and beyond which amount the same shall be countersigned by either the President or Treasurer of the LUELCO.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


In the herein petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitioner seeks to annul the decision dated January 13, 1989 and the order dated February 10, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union in Civil Case No. 4132 and to declare Presidential Decree No. 269 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645 unconstitutional.

Civil Case No. 4182 is an action for interpleader filed by the Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC), La Union branch, against the La Union Electric Cooperative Inc. (LUELCO) and the National Electrification Administration (NEA), to determine the proper signatories to checks relating to withdrawals and disbursements of LUELCO deposits with the said bank. It appears that in LUELCO Board Resolution No. 33-02-88 dated February 20, 1988, the authorized signatories are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RESOLVED TO APPROVE, as it hereby APPROVES, to revert to the amended Board Policy No. 1 allowing the General Manager to sign checks and/or disbursements to a maximum of P5,000 and that any amount beyond this shall be countersigned by both the President and the Secretary-Treasurer of the Board and all transactions should be paid in a single check payment whether it is more or less than P5,000." 1

The said Resolution was amended by the LUELCO Board under Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 dated March 20, 1988, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That all checks and disbursements made in any amount shall bear both the signatures of the Acting General Manager and the President of the Board of Directors of LUELCO effective immediately." 2

However, the NEA in its letter of April 8, 1988 to the LUELCO Board of Directors amended Board Resolution No. 33-02-88 in this manner —

"This refers to your Board Resolution No. 33-02-88 authorizing the General Manager to sign checks of withdrawals or disbursements to a maximum of P5,000.00.

"Please be informed that such authorization is approved for the amount of P3,000.00 only for single disbursement or withdrawal and that any amount beyond this shall be counter-signed by either the Coop President or Treasurer." 3

It is alleged in the interpleader that LUELCO through its President and Chairman of the Board insists that the bank should follow Board Resolution No. 53-03-88, LUELCO being the owner of the funds deposited, while on the other hand the NEA through its project supervisor and acting general manager in the LUELCO alleges that Board Resolution No. 33-02-88 as amended by the NEA should be observed as the NEA has taken over LUELCO and that Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 was disapproved by said general manager pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645, which empowers the NEA to exercise control and supervision over electric cooperatives and borrowers. The bank through the interpleader thus sought the resolution of these conflicting claims.cralawnad

LUELCO in its amended answer contended that the power granted to the NEA pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1645 is unconstitutional as it violates the Bill of Rights, that it is an arbritrary exercise of power, is confiscatory in character and violates due process; and that it destroys or infringes the autonomous character of the cooperative. LUELCO also asked for damages because it was compelled to litigate.

On the other hand the NEA alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) that the management of LUELCO as an electric cooperative, is "vested in its Board subject to the supervision and control of NEA which shall have the right to be represented and to participate in all Board Meetings and deliberations and to approve all policies and resolutions of the Board;" by virtue of the provisions of Section 24 of Presidential Decree No. 269 as amended;

b) that NEA, pursuant to Section 10 of the same law, is "empowered to issue orders, rules and regulations . . . in all matters affecting said electric cooperatives and borrowers, or supervised or controlled entities;

c) that NEA is authorized under Section 5 (a) of the said decree, to designate an acting general manager and/or project supervisor for a cooperative, under certain circumstances, such as when the interest of the cooperative and the program so requires, and for such purpose, "to prescribe the functions of said Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor, which powers shall not be nullified, altered or diminished by any policy or resolution of the Board of Directors of the cooperative concerned;

"d) that pursuant to its power aforestated, NEA has taken over the direct control and supervision of LUELCO, and for such purpose designated Eufemio C. Genovia, one of its own personnel, on February 5, 1988, as Acting General Manager and Project Supervisor of the LUELCO, with powers and duties among which was to "exercise full control and supervision over the management and operations of LUELCO, including functions to review and approve/disapprove all board resolutions and policies and to sign/countersign all checks, withdrawal slips and other banking transactions;

"e) that NEA having taken over the direct control and supervision of LUELCO, through its Acting General Manager/Project Supervisor, it is the latter, in representation of NEA, who should be considered to properly represent the cooperative and the representation in the Petition of the President and Chairman of the board of the LUELCO as representing LUELCO, is ‘misplaced, false and improper’;

f) that the said President and Chairman of the Board of the LUELCO does not have any lawful and material interest in the subject matter of the action;

g) that the LUELCO board, upon insistence of the President and Chairman of the Board, adopted Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 for no other purpose than to render ineffective the powers of the Acting General Manager/Project Supervisor and prevent him from carrying out his program to rehabilitate the electric cooperative;

h) that Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 has not been approved by the Acting General Manager/Project Supervisor of NEA, hence is invalid and of no force and effect; and

i) that Resolution No. 33-02-88 was approved with amendment by NEA, and is the valid and controlling resolution which should govern the transactions between LUELCO and the petitioner bank, instead of Resolution no. 53-03-88."cralaw virtua1aw library

A counterclaim for damages arising from the refusal of petitioner to honor Board Resolution No 33-02 88 was filed with the Answer. 4

The following facts are undisputed as found by the court a quo —

There is no dispute that the funds deposited with the petitioner, pertain to the La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc., (LUELCO), an electric cooperative organized and subsisting pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

It cannot also be disputed that the National Electrification Administration exercises supervision and control over electric cooperatives organized pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended. NEA is further granted express authority to designate an acting general manager and/or project supervisor for any electric cooperative, and for the purpose, "to prescribe the functions of said officer, which powers shall not be nullified, altered or diminished by any policy or resolution of the Board of Directors of the cooperative concerned" (Section 5(a) Presidential Decree 269 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645).

The record indicates that under Board Resolution No. 33-02-88 dated February 20, 1988, the general manager was authorized to sign checks and/or disbursements to a maximum of P5,000 and that any amount beyond the same shall be countersigned by both the President and the Secretary-Treasurer of the Board and all transactions should be paid in a single check payment whether it is more or less than P5,000.00 (Annex "B", Petition).

The record further indicates that on March 20, 1988, Board Resolution No. 53-03-88, was adopted by the LUELCO Board, pursuant to which "all checks and disbursements made in any amount should bear both the signatures of the Acting General Manager and the President of the Board of Directors, LUELCO effective immediately" (Annex "A", petition).

It is further established by the record that on April 8, 1988, the NEA, through Luis O. Cerrafon, NEA Director for Cooperatives Development modified Board Resolution No. 33-02-88, by limiting the authorization to the amount of P3,000.00 only for single disbursement or withdrawal and that any amount beyond the same shall be countersigned by either the Coop President or Treasurer (Annex "C" Petition).

The Petition itself indicates that Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 was disapproved by the NEA through its Acting General Manager/Project Supervisor in the LUELCO (petition, par. 6)." 5

In due course on January 13, 1989 a decision was rendered by the RTC the dispositive portion of which provides —

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the petitioner bank to be bound by the communication dated April 8, 1988, of the NEA Director for Cooperatives Development, to the effect that the General Manager (Acting General Manager Project Supervisor) designated by the National Electrification Administration is authorized to sign checks of withdrawals or disbursements only in the amount of P3,000.00 and beyond which amount the same shall be countersigned by either the President or Treasurer of the LUELCO.

The counterclaim and crossclaim are dismissed.

No pronouncement will be made as to costs." 6

Not satisfied therewith, LUELCO filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision which, however, was denied by the trial court for lack of merit in an order dated February 10, 1989. 7

Hence the herein petition wherein petitioner raises the following issues:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. Is P.D. 269, as amended by P.D. 1645 violative of the 1987 Philippine Constitution when it authorized NEA to potentially cripple the management of LUELCO by its duly elected Board of Directors and President Manuel Mañgaser by insisting in a letter dated April 8, 1988 of Luis Q. Cerrafon, Director for Cooperative Development, that every withdrawal of LUELCO deposits with Far East Bank (La Union Branch) in the amount of P3,000.00 by respondent Eufemio Genovia alone is authorized to the exclusion of LUELCO’s President and not jointly with the LUELCO’s President as stated in LUELCO’s Board Resolution No. 53-03-88 dated March 20, 1988, amending the questioned Board Resolution dated February 20, 1988?

II. Does LUELCO through its Board of Directors, Chairman and President Manuel L. Mañgaser have the legal personality to resist the takeover of LUELCO and its bank deposits by respondent Eufemio Genovia as an indispensable step in a concerted plan of said Genovia upon orders of NEA Administration to destroy the very existence of a viable electric cooperative as LUELCO under the pretext of the assertion of powers not granted by the Philippine Constitution?

III. Is the respondent court (RTC-San Fernando, La Union, Branch XXX) unjustified in conveniently rejecting the constitutional objection to the continued existence of an oppressive and utterly void law as P.D. 269, as amended by P.D. 1645, on its mere pronouncement that LUELCO through its Chairman and President Manuel L. Mañgaser has no legal standing to raise constitutional issues involving the said law in question?

IV. In tearing away LUELCO’s resistance to respondent Eufemio Genovia’s dictatorial take-over by means of LUELCO’s own bank deposits and trust funds, does P.D. 269, as amended by P.D. 1645, have constitutional imprimatur to obliterate the autonomous character of cooperatives declared to be free of any imposition of any condition that might affect or infringe their autonomy in all government loan assistance extended to them either through original loans or relending program?" 8

The petition is devoid of merit. The Court reproduces with approval the disquisition of the trial court on the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645, to wit —

"The rule is well-settled that the party raising a constitutional question." . . must be able to show direct injury to or invasion of his constitutional rights arising from the operation or enforcement of the questioned act . . ." (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 477; cited in Jose P. Laurel on the Constitution, by J. Enrique M. Fernando, p. 11).

LUELCO itself admits that what has been taken over by the NEA, is the management of the cooperative. Indeed there is nothing in the record to establish a conclusion that the designation by the NEA of a project supervisor and acting general manager for the LUELCO, for purposes of management of the electric cooperative, has resulted in the takeover by the NEA, of the business, properties, and assets of the cooperative itself.cralawnad

Takeover of management by the NEA is in effect a change of management. It cannot however be equated with a takeover of the business, property, and assets of the electric cooperative, by the NEA. The ruling made by the NEA Director for Cooperatives Development, dated April 8, 1988, which authorizes the General Manager to sign checks or withdrawals or disbursements only in the amount of P3,000.00, and beyond which amount the same shall be countersigned by either the President or Treasurer of the LUELCO (Annex "C", Petition), indicates that the LUELCO funds deposited with the petitioner bank, remain as funds of the LUELCO and have not been converted into funds of the NEA.

The foregoing considerations lead to no other conclusion than that the LUELCO has not established by competent and sufficient proof that the questioned decree as amended, has caused direct injury to or invasion of its constitutional rights arising from the operation thereof. Consequently the attempt to question the validity of P.D. 269 as amended, must fail.

It should be noted further that under the 1986 (sic) Constitution, cooperatives and similar collective organizations shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State . . . to intervene when the common good so demands. (Sec. 6, Article XII, 1986 [sic] Constitution). LUELCO admits, and the Court will take judicial notice, of the fact that the State has issued huge amounts of public funds to support electric cooperatives in line with the national policy objective of total electrification of the Philippines on an area coverage basis. It is evident, considering the requirements of public interest in safeguarding public funds, that the law-making authority deemed it wise that "when the interest of the cooperative and the program so requires", the National Electrification Administration (NEA), is empowered to designate an acting general manager and/or project supervisor for an electric cooperative, with powers and duties which include control and supervision over the management and operations of LUELCO, including functions to review and approve disapprove all board resolutions and policies and to sign/countersign all checks, withdrawal slips and other banking transactions . . . (Secs. 5(a), 24, etc., P.D. 269, as amended.).

There is thus reasonable basis for the exercise of control and supervision by the NEA over all electric cooperatives including the defendant LUELCO. At any rate, courts ‘. . . do not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation . . .’ (Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158-159)." 9

Moreover, the reason courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins on each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments. In line with this policy, courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that "to doubt is to sustain." The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted. Hence, as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched upon and the case will be decided on other available grounds. 10

As found by the court a quo it is not seriously disputed that the NEA had taken over the control and supervision of the LUELCO by installing one of its personnel as acting general manager/project supervisor of the LUELCO. It is within the power of control and supervision of the NEA over the LUELCO as an electric cooperative organized and existing pursuant to Presidential Decree 269 as amended by Presidential Decree 1645 particularly Section 5(a) thereof. In view of the circumstances which, in the interest of the cooperative and the program of electrification whereby said Acting General Manager effectively took over the actual supervision and control of the management and operation of the LUELCO on February 8, 1988, it was deemed necessary that the matter of disposal of funds deposited with the FEBTC should be guided by the NEA ruling of April 8, 1988 authorizing the general manager to sign checks of withdrawals and disbursement only in the amount of P3,000.00 and beyond which amount the same shall be countersigned by either the President or Treasurer of the LUELCO.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The trial court correctly found that the parties appear to have acted in utmost good faith in filing their respective pleadings in the case and consequently the matter of damages was not passed upon.

The Court finds no need to dispose of the other issues in this petition in the light of the foregoing discussion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Annex F to Petition; Page 120, Rollo.

2. Ibid at page 121.

3. Supra, Page 121, Rollo.

4. Ibid, pages 122-124, Rollo.

5. Pages 124-125, Rollo.

6. Page 126, Rollo.

7. Annex I to Petition; page 136, Rollo.

8. Pages 31 to 33, Rollo.

9. Annex I to Petition, pages 136-138, Rollo.

10. Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1989 ed., page 232.




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.