Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > December 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 79554 December 14, 1989 - LEOPOLDO G. DIZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 79554. December 14, 1989.]

LEOPOLDO G. DIZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., Respondents.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Petitioner.

Marcos S. Pagaspas for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL; BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE EMPLOYER TO PROVE THE LAWFUL CAUSE TO SUSTAIN THEREOF. — It is firmly settled that in an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. Respondent Consunji did show that petitioner Dizon was not in his workplace on 17 May 1982, the day the strike was declared and went into effect, as well as on 24 May 1982, the day the return-to-work order became effective; actually, petitioner himself so stated in his pleadings before the POEA. Thus, Consunji was able to make out (even if only by petitioner’s own statements) a prima facie case that petitioner had joined in the strike and had failed to comply with the return-to-work order of Director Imson, which constituted grounds for holding petitioner liable for breach of his contract of employment and hence for dismissing him from his employment. It must be noted, however, that petitioner Dizon showed, by a letter dated 4 January 1983 of respondent Consunji’s project-nurse, that he had been afflicted with severe skin rashes for sometime and that he had reported at the Company clinic thrice before 17 May 1982 and visited the same clinic five (5) times after 21 May 1982, for treatment and medication. Petitioner Dizon denied participation in the strike and disclaimed any intent to defy the return-to-work order. He stated that on 17 May 1982, he went to the Company clinic and thereafter returned to his quarters but that the project-nurse had failed to include 17 May 1982 among the dates he had gone to the Company clinic. 10 Thus, while petitioner’s evidence (as distinguished from his pleadings) did not show affirmatively that he had indeed visited the Company clinic on 17 May 1982, it appears to the Court that petitioner submitted on at least prima facie basis an adequate explanation for his absence from his work station on the day the strike began and the day the return-to-work order went effective. Petitioner, in other words, offset or negatived the prima facie case made out by private respondent Consunji for a lawful dismissal: the balance of evidence thus moved to equipoise.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY SHOW ADEQUATE EVIDENCE THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS FOR A JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE. — The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. The burden of proof in effect moved back to and once again rested on respondent Consunji, the employer asserting the existence of a just cause for dismissal. This burden of proof Consunji did not discharge. As a large and well organized company, Consunji may be presumed to have kept personnel records showing, e.g., which employees were present or absent for work on particular days. No records were submitted in evidence to show whether or not petitioner Dizon reported for work or went on sick call on or between the dates he went to the clinic for treatment. It is contended that Dizon’s skin rashes were not debilitating and not sufficient to explain his failure to report for work; but no certificate or statement relating to the medical or physiological nature and effect of those rashes, or to the cause thereof, was presented by employer Consunji’s counsel. Moreover, even should competent proof of the "non-debilitating" character of Dizon’s skin rashes have been put into the record, such would not necessarily have shown intent to participate in the strike to defy Director Imson’s order; such proof would have been consistent with, for instance, laziness and gold-bricking on Dizon’s part. The list of the strikers’ names made on the project site while the strike was in progress was similarly, and conspicuously, not submitted in evidence.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEE MUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE OR EXPLANATION. — The failure of Consunji to discharge the onus probandi resting on it, must be taken in conjunction with its conceded failure to conduct an investigation on the project site before serving Dizon his notice of termination. It may be supposed that the carrying out of such an investigation on site before repatriation, would not have been easy. But petitioner was entitled under our law to an investigation where he would be informed of the charges against him and have an opportunity to present his defense or explanation before being dismissed. What is at stake in such a case is not simply a property right but also the employee’s means of livelihood. Besides, if an investigation had been conducted, Consunji might well have been convinced by Dizon’s explanation. We conclude that private respondent Consunji had failed to show that justifiable cause had attended petitioner Dizon’s dismissal and that public respondent NLRC’s decision relieving Consunji of liability for such dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence of record and hence constituted a grave abuse of discretion.


R E S O L U T I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


Petitioner Leopoldo G. Dizon seeks to annul and set aside the decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 6 March 1987 reversing the decision rendered by the Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA decision had ordered private respondent D.M. Consunji, Inc. (Consunji), to pay petitioner the amounts of RP P1,837.86 and US $6,720.00 representing his unpaid salaries for the period from May to June 1982 and his wages for twenty-one (21) months covering the unexpired portion of his contract, respectively.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On 4 December 1981, petitioner Leopoldo Dizon entered into an Overseas Employment Contract 1 with respondent Consunji which stipulated, among other things, that for a period of two (2) years petitioner would work as a senior carpenter for Consunji at its New Istana Construction Project in the State of Brunei for a monthly salary of US $320.00; that should the petitioner voluntarily resign before the expiry date of the contract or should his contract be terminated for cause as provided therein, petitioner shall be liable for the reimbursement of his transportation fare back to the Philippines and other incidental expenses incurred by the company in his favor. Petitioner departed for Brunei on 3 March 1982, the date when his contract took effect.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Sometime in April 1982, Petitioner, according to him, became afflicted with skin rashes which forced him to seek medical help from the Company’s clinic at the project site. He was treated there on the following dates: 13, 29 April; 3, 25, 28, 29 May; 1 and 7 June. 2 On some of those days, Petitioner, by his own averment, did not report for work and was oftentimes constrained to remain inside his quarters while taking oral medication.

On 17 May 1982, petitioner was again absent from his work place when respondent’s workers in the New Istana Project staged a strike demanding an increase of salary. Considering that what was being constructed on the site was the Sultan’s Palace which had to be finished in time for the Independence Day of the State of Brunei in 1984, POEA Director Manuel G. Imson, upon request of Consunji, and after Brunei authorities had made clear that the strike was illegal under Brunei law, was dispatched by the Ministry of Labor and Employment to the site to resolve that problem. Director Imson, however, failed to convince the workers to enter into a compromise agreement with Consunji. Consequently, after visually observing the strike and after Consunji listed the names 3 of the participants in said strike, Director Imson issued on 21 May 1982 a return-to-work order. 4 Petitioner failed to comply with that directive; according to him, he was then still suffering from severe skin rashes. He reported to the medical clinic on 29 May 1982 and on 1 and 7 June 1982 to continue his treatment and medication.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On 9 June 1982, or barely three (3) months from the date of effectivity of petitioner’s employment contract, Consunji terminated the services of some three hundred sixty (360) workers in the New Istana Project, including those of petitioner, upon the ground that they had breached paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 13 of their employment contracts. 5

On 18 August 1982, after repatriation to the Philippines, petitioner commenced BES Case No. 82-8764 charging Consunji with illegal dismissal; non-payment of seventy percent (70%) of his salary for the months of May and June 1982; unfair deductions for his repatriation expenses; and unfair labor practice.

Consunji denied the illegal dismissal charge and claimed that petitioner had been validly dismissed, considering that he had breached the contract of employment by taking part in an illegal strike and disobeying the return-to-work order issued by the POEA Director.

On 7 March 1985, Administrator Patricia Sto. Tomas of the Workers’ Assistance and Adjudication Office of the POEA, after finding that there was no evidence clearly showing that petitioner had participated in the illegal strike and had defied the return-to-work order of the POEA, rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, consistent with the above findings, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent D.M. Consunji, Inc. to pay the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) the sum of P1,837.86 representing the complainant’s unpaid salary (70%) for the months of May and June 1982; and

(b) the sum of US $6,720.00 or its equivalent [in] Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing complainant’s wages for the unexpired portion of his contract which is 21 months at the rate of US $320.00 a month.

SO ORDERED." 6

Consunji went on appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC reversed the POEA Administrator in a decision 7 dated 6 March 1987 declaring petitioner’s dismissal to have been effected for justifiable cause. Hence this recourse on certiorari.

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether the dismissal of petitioner Dizon was justified on the ground that he had participated in the illegal strike and had refused to obey Director Imson’s return-to-work order.

The petition must be granted.

It is firmly settled that in an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. 8 Respondent Consunji did show that petitioner Dizon was not in his workplace on 17 May 1982, the day the strike was declared and went into effect, as well as on 24 May 1982, the day the return-to-work order became effective; actually, petitioner himself so stated in his pleadings before the POEA. Thus, Consunji was able to make out (even if only by petitioner’s own statements) a prima facie case that petitioner had joined in the strike and had failed to comply with the return-to-work order of Director Imson, which constituted grounds for holding petitioner liable for breach of his contract of employment and hence for dismissing him from his employment. It must be noted, however, that petitioner Dizon showed, by a letter dated 4 January 1983 of respondent Consunji’s project-nurse, that he had been afflicted with severe skin rashes for sometime and that he had reported at the Company clinic thrice before 17 May 1982 and visited the same clinic five (5) times after 21 May 1982, for treatment and medication. 9 Petitioner Dizon denied participation in the strike and disclaimed any intent to defy the return-to-work order. He stated that on 17 May 1982, he went to the Company clinic and thereafter returned to his quarters but that the project-nurse had failed to include 17 May 1982 among the dates he had gone to the Company clinic. 10 Thus, while petitioner’s evidence (as distinguished from his pleadings) did not show affirmatively that he had indeed visited the Company clinic on 17 May 1982, it appears to the Court that petitioner submitted on at least prima facie basis an adequate explanation for his absence from his work station on the day the strike began and the day the return-to-work order went effective. Petitioner, in other words, offset or negatived the prima facie case made out by private respondent Consunji for a lawful dismissal: the balance of evidence thus moved to equipoise.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

But equipoise is not enough; the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. The burden of proof in effect moved back to and once again rested on respondent Consunji, the employer asserting the existence of a just cause for dismissal. This burden of proof Consunji did not discharge.

As a large and well organized company, Consunji may be presumed to have kept personnel records showing, e.g., which employees were present or absent for work on particular days. No records were submitted in evidence to show whether or not petitioner Dizon reported for work or went on sick call on or between the dates he went to the clinic for treatment. It is contended that Dizon’s skin rashes were not debilitating and not sufficient to explain his failure to report for work; but no certificate or statement relating to the medical or physiological nature and effect of those rashes, or to the cause thereof, was presented by employer Consunji’s counsel. Moreover, even should competent proof of the "non-debilitating" character of Dizon’s skin rashes have been put into the record, such would not necessarily have shown intent to participate in the strike to defy Director Imson’s order; such proof would have been consistent with, for instance, laziness and gold-bricking on Dizon’s part. The list of the strikers’ names made on the project site while the strike was in progress was similarly, and conspicuously, not submitted in evidence.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The failure of Consunji to discharge the onus probandi resting on it, must be taken in conjunction with its conceded failure to conduct an investigation on the project site before serving Dizon his notice of termination. It may be supposed that the carrying out of such an investigation on site before repatriation, would not have been easy. But petitioner was entitled under our law to an investigation where he would be informed of the charges against him and have an opportunity to present his defense or explanation before being dismissed. What is at stake in such a case is not simply a property right but also the employee’s means of livelihood. 11 Besides, if an investigation had been conducted, Consunji might well have been convinced by Dizon’s explanation.

We conclude that private respondent Consunji had failed to show that justifiable cause had attended petitioner Dizon’s dismissal and that public respondent NLRC’s decision relieving Consunji of liability for such dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence of record and hence constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

As to the amount of damages to which petitioner Dizon is entitled, the Court considers that, given all the circumstance of this case, and to avoid the delay and difficulty of proving that petitioner had earned some income during the relevant period to mitigate his damages, an award equivalent to his contract salary for fourteen (14) months, (rather than for the full unexpired term of the contract — twenty-one [21] months) without any qualification or deduction, would be sufficient and reasonable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

We must similarly hold that private respondent Consunji had no basis for withholding from petitioner his last two months salary (for May and June 1982) and deducting therefrom his repatriation and related expenses.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the public respondent NLRC dated 6 March 1987 is hereby SET ASIDE and the decision of the POEA dated 7 March 1985 is hereby REINSTATED and MODIFIED so as to require private respondent Consunji to pay petitioner Dizon the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) the sum of RP P1,837.86 representing petitioner’s unpaid salary (70%) for the months of May and June 1982; and

b) the sum of US $4480 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment representing his wages for fourteen (14) months at the rate of US $320 a month.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Record, pp. 11-16.

2. Ibid., p. 56.

3. Ibid., p. 59.

4. Record, Annex "2," p. 9.

5." (e) Indulging in activities contrary to the COMPANY’s interest, or such activities as would cause stoppage or slow downs of work, or violate company rules and regulations, violate Overseas Employment Agreement.(f) EMPLOYEE shall have engaged himself in any activity, political or subversive, or any act of misconduct during the enforcement of this Employment Agreement; It is specially understood that under the state laws of Brunei, misbehavior amounting to a violation of Brunei laws committed inside or outside the jobsite is punishable by deportation; unless the act itself involves the possession of any FIREARM, AMMUNITION, or any other kind of DEADLY WEAPON, which acts are strictly prohibited, and severally punishable by death under Brunei laws;" Record, Annex "2" of respondent’s Position Paper, p. 9.

6. Rollo, p. 30.

7. Rollo, Annex "H" of Petition, pp. 47-53.

8. Egypt Air v. National Labor Relations Commission, 148 SCRA 125 (1987); Polymedic General Hospital v. National Labor Relations Commission, 134 SCRA 420 (1985).

9. Annex A to Petitioner’s "Reply to Rejoinder" dated 14 February 1983 in BES Case No. 82-2764; Record, p. 60.

10. Petitioner’s "Reply to Rejoinder", ibid; Record, p. 59.

11. International Harvester Macleod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 149 SCRA 641 (1987); and Remerco Garments Manufacturing Co. v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 135 SCRA 167 (1985).




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.