Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > February 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40824 February 23, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40824. February 23, 1989.]

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and MR. & MRS. ISABELO R. RACHO, Respondents.

The Government Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.

Lorenzo A. Sales for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW; ACCOMMODATION PARTY; DEFINED. — Both parties relied on the provisions of Section 29 of Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, which provide that an accommodation party is one who has signed an instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor of indorser without receiving value therefor, but is held liable on the instrument to a holder for value although the latter knew him to be only an accommodation party.

2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; DEED OF MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, NOT CONSIDERED NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. — The promissory note hereinbefore quoted, as well as the mortgage deeds subject of this case, are clearly not negotiable instruments. These documents do not comply with the fourth requisite to be considered as such under Section 1 of Act No. 2031 because they are neither payable to order nor to bearer. The note is payable to a specified party, the GSIS. Absent the aforesaid requisite, the provisions of Act No. 2031 would not apply, governance shall be afforded, instead, by the provisions of the Civil Code and special laws on mortgages.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR; ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED, NOT OBJECTED TO IN THE COURT BELOW. — The parol evidence rule cannot be used by petitioner as a shield in this case for it is clear that there was no objection in the court below regarding the admissibility of the testimony and documents that were presented to prove that the private respondents signed the mortgage papers just to accommodate their co-owners, the Lagasca spouses. Besides, the introduction of such evidence falls under the exception to said rule, there being allegations in the complaint of private respondents in the court below regarding the failure of the mortgage contracts to express the true agreement of the parties.

4. CIVIL LAW; MORTGAGE CONTRACTS; PARTY GIVING WRITTEN CONSENT TO ACCOMMODATE A CO-OWNER OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY SOLIDARILY LIABLE. — Contrary to the holding of the respondent court, it cannot be said that private respondents are without liability under the aforesaid mortgage contracts. The factual context of this case is precisely what is contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2085 of the Civil Code to the effect that third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. So long as valid consent was given, the fact that the loans were solely for the benefit of the Lagasca spouses would not invalidate the mortgage with respect to private respondents’ share in the property. In consenting thereto, even assuming that private respondents may not be assuming liability for the debt, their share in the property shall nevertheless secure and respond for the performance of the principal obligation. The parties to the mortgage could not have intended that the same would apply only to the aliquot portion of the Lagasca spouses in the property, otherwise the consent of the private respondents would not have been required. The supposed requirement of prior demand on the private respondents would not be in point here since the mortgage contracts created obligations with specific terms of the compliance thereof. The facts further show that the private respondents expressly bound themselves as solidary debtors in the promissory note.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; PERSONAL NOTICE TO MORTGAGOR, NOT NECESSARY. — Coming now the extrajudicial foreclosure effected by GSIS, We cannot agree with the ruling of respondent court that lack of notice to the private respondents of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale impairs the validity thereof. In Bonnevie, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., the Court ruled that Act No. 3135, as amended, does not require personal notice on the mortgagor, quoting the requirement on notice in such cases as follows: "Section 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality where the property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city." There is no showing that the foregoing requirement on notice was not complied with in the foreclosure sale complained of.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


Private respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Isabelo R. Racho, together with the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Flaviano Lagasca, executed a deed of mortgage, dated November 13, 1957, in favor of petitioner Government Service Insurance System (hereinafter referred to as GSIS) and subsequently, another deed of mortgage, dated April 14, 1958, in connection with two loans granted by the latter in the sums of P11,500.00 and P3,000.00, respectively. 1 A parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38989 of the Register of Deed of Quezon City, co-owned by said mortgagor spouses, was given as security under the aforesaid two deeds. 2 They also executed a "promissory note" which states in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . for value received, we the undersigned . . . JOINTLY, SEVERALLY and SOLIDARILY, promise to pay the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM the sum of . . . (P11,500.00) Philippine Currency, with interest at the rate of six (6%) per centum compounded monthly payable in . . .(120) equal monthly installments of . . . (P127.65) each." 3

On July 11, 1961, the Lagasca spouses executed an instrument denominated "Assumption of Mortgage" under which they obligated themselves to assume the aforesaid obligation to the GSIS and to secure the release of the mortgage covering that portion of the land belonging to herein private respondents and which was mortgaged to the GSIS. 4 This undertaking was not fulfilled. 5

Upon failure of the mortgagors to comply with the conditions of the mortgage, particularly the payment of the amortizations due, GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and caused the mortgaged property to be sold at public auction on December 3, 1962. 6

More than two years thereafter, or on August 23, 1965, herein private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner and the Lagasca spouses in the former Court of First Instance of Quezon City, 7 praying that the extrajudicial foreclosure "made on their property and all other documents executed in relation thereto in favor of the Government Service Insurance System" be declared null and void. It was further prayed that they be allowed to recover said property, and/or the GSIS be ordered to pay the them the value thereof, and/or they be allowed to repurchase the land. Additionally, they asked for actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees.

In their aforesaid complaint, private respondents alleged that they signed the mortgage contracts not as sureties or guarantors for the Lagasca spouses but they merely gave their common property to the said co-owners who were solely benefited by the loans from the GSIS.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The trial court rendered judgment on February 25, 1968 dismissing the complaint for failure to establish a cause of action. 8

Said decision was reversed by the respondent Court of Appeals 9 which held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . although formally they are co-mortgagors, they are so only for accommodation (sic) in that the GSIS required their consent to the mortgage of the entire parcel of land which was covered with only one certificate of title, with full knowledge that the loans secured thereby were solely for the benefit of the appellant (sic) spouses who alone applied for the loan."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


"It is, therefore, clear that as against the GSIS, appellants have a valid cause for having foreclosed the mortgage without having given sufficient notice to them as required either as to their delinquency in the payment of amortization or as to the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage by reason of any default in such payment. The notice published in the newspaper, `Daily Record’ (Exh. 12) and posted pursuant to Sec. 3 of Act 3135 is not the notice to which the mortgagor is entitled upon the application being made for an extrajudicial foreclosure. . . ." 10

On the foregoing findings, the respondent court consequently decreed that —

"In view of all the foregoing the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one entered (1) declaring the foreclosure of the mortgage void insofar as it affects the share of the appellants; (2) directing the GSIS to reconvey to appellants their share of the mortgaged property, or the value thereof if already sold to third party, in the sum of P35,000.00, and (3) ordering the appellees Flaviano Lagasca and Esther Lagasca to pay the appellants the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs." 11

The case is now before Us in this petition for review.

In submitting their case to this Court, both parties relied on the provisions of Section 29 of Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, which provide that an accommodation party is one who has signed an instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor of indorser without receiving value therefor, but is held liable on the instrument to a holder for value although the latter knew him to be only an accommodation party.

This approach of both parties appears to be misdirected and their reliance misplaced. The promissory note hereinbefore quoted, as well as the mortgage deeds subject of this case, are clearly not negotiable instruments. These documents do not comply with the fourth requisite to be considered as such under Section 1 of Act No. 2031 because they are neither payable to order nor to bearer. The note is payable to a specified party, the GSIS. Absent the aforesaid requisite, the provisions of Act No. 2031 would not apply, governance shall be afforded, instead, by the provisions of the Civil Code and special laws on mortgages.

As earlier indicated, the factual findings of respondent court are that private respondents signed the documents "only to give their consent to the mortgage as required by GSIS", with the latter having full knowledge that the loans secured thereby were solely for the benefit of the Lagasca spouses. 12 This appears to be duly supported by sufficient evidence on record. Indeed, it would be unusual for the GSIS to arrange for and deduct the monthly amortizations on the loans from the salary as an army officer of Flaviano Lagasca without likewise affecting deductions from the salary of Isabelo Racho who was also an army sergeant. Then there is also the undisputed fact, as already stated, that the Lagasca spouses executed a so-called "Assumption of Mortgage" promising to exclude private respondents and their share of the mortgaged property from liability to the mortgagee. There is no intimation that the former executed such instrument for a consideration, thus confirming that they did so pursuant to their original agreement.

The parol evidence rule 13 cannot be used by petitioner as a shield in this case for it is clear that there was no objection in the court below regarding the admissibility of the testimony and documents that were presented to prove that the private respondents signed the mortgage papers just to accommodate their co-owners, the Lagasca spouses. Besides, the introduction of such evidence falls under the exception to said rule, there being allegations in the complaint of private respondents in the court below regarding the failure of the mortgage contracts to express the true agreement of the parties. 14

However, contrary to the holding of the respondent court, it cannot be said that private respondents are without liability under the aforesaid mortgage contracts. The factual context of this case is precisely what is contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2085 of the Civil Code to the effect that third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

So long as valid consent was given, the fact that the loans were solely for the benefit of the Lagasca spouses would not invalidate the mortgage with respect to private respondents’ share in the property. In consenting thereto, even assuming that private respondents may not be assuming liability for the debt, their share in the property shall nevertheless secure and respond for the performance of the principal obligation. The parties to the mortgage could not have intended that the same would apply only to the aliquot portion of the Lagasca spouses in the property, otherwise the consent of the private respondents would not have been required.

The supposed requirement of prior demand on the private respondents would not be in point here since the mortgage contracts created obligations with specific terms of the compliance thereof. The facts further show that the private respondents expressly bound themselves as solidary debtors in the promissory note herein before quoted.

Coming now the extrajudicial foreclosure effected by GSIS, We cannot agree with the ruling of respondent court that lack of notice to the private respondents of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale impairs the validity thereof. In Bonnevie, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 15 the Court ruled that Act No. 3135, as amended, does not require personal notice on the mortgagor, quoting the requirement on notice in such cases as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality where the property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no showing that the foregoing requirement on notice was not complied with in the foreclosure sale complained of.

The respondent court, therefore, erred in annulling the mortgage insofar as it affected the share of private respondents or in directing reconveyance of their property of the payment or value thereof. Indubitably, whether or not private respondents herein benefited from the loan, the mortgage and the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings were valid.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals and REINSTATING the decision of the court a quo in Civil Case No. Q-9418 thereof.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Record on Appeal, 9, 22; Rollo, 54.

2. Rollo, 58.

3. Ibid., 26.

4. Record on Appeal, 27-31; Rollo, 54.

5. Rollo, 59.

6. Ibid., id.; Record on Appeal, 64.

7. Branch IV, Civil Case No. Q-9418; Record on Appeal, 1-38; Rollo, 54.

8. Record on Appeal, 69-73; ibid.

9. CA-G.R. No. 42193-R; Justice Pacifico P. de Castro, ponente, Justices Luis B. Reyes and Ramon G. Ganola, Jr., concurring.

10. Rollo, 61-63.

11. Ibid., 66.

12. Ibid., 61.

13. Sec. 7, Rule 130, Rules of Court.

14. Record on Appeal, 3-4; Rollo, 54.

15. 125 SCRA 122 (1983).




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






February-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 79690-707 February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 50422 February 8, 1989 - NICOLAS ARRADAZA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50954 February 8, 1989 - EDUARDO SIERRA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 53515 February 8, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES UNION v. OPLE

  • G.R. No. 55665 February 8, 1989 - DELTA MOTOR CORPORATION v. EDUARDA SAMSON GENUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57664 February 8, 1989 - ANGELITO ORTEGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 58910 February 8, 1989 - ROBERT DOLLAR CO. v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77828 February 8, 1989 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79752 February 8, 1989 - SOLID HOMES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989 - WENPHIL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82819 February 8, 1989 - LUZ LUMANTA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84141 February 8, 1989 - TOP RATE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1616 February 9, 1989 - RODORA D. CAMUS v. DANILO T. DIAZ

  • Adm. Case No. 2361 February 9, 1989 - LEONILA J. LICUANAN v. MANUEL L. MELO

  • G.R. No. 38969-70 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELICIANO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 48705 February 9, 1989 - EDUARDO V. REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64362 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL M. DECLARO

  • G.R. No. 67662 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS T. MANALANG

  • G.R. No. 73022 February 9, 1989 - GEORGIA ADLAWAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77930-31 February 9, 1989 - JEREMIAS EBAJAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989 - SALVACION A. MONSANTO v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 83320 February 9, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 44 February 10, 1989 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

  • G.R. No. 34710 February 10, 1989 - ARMANDO LOCSIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51450 February 10, 1989 - VALENTIN SOLIVEL, ET AL. v. MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76018 February 10, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79596 February 10, 1989 - C.W. TAN MFG., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72424 February 13, 1989 - INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 - RICARDO VALMONTE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80058 February 13, 1989 - ERNESTO R. ANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72476 February 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. MACABENTA

  • G.R. Nos. 75440-43 February 14, 1989 - ALEJANDRO G. MACADANGDANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55322 February 16, 1989 - MOISES JOCSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-30859 February 20, 1989 - MARIA MAYUGA VDA. DE CAILLES, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR MAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35825 February 20, 1989 - CORA LEGADOS, ET AL. v. DOROTEO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39451 February 20, 1989 - ISIDRO M. JAVIER v. PURIFICACION C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44642 February 20, 1989 - AURIA LIMPOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45323 February 20, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-63561 February 20, 1989 - MARCELINA LOAY DINGAL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68021 February 20, 1989 - HEIRS OF FAUSTA DIMACULANGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81031 February 20, 1989 - ARTURO L. ALEJANDRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84076 February 20, 1989 - ANTONIO Q. ROMERO, ET AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 28661 February 21, 1989 - RAYMUNDO SERIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47275 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. L-47917 February 21, 1989 - RUFINO MENDIVEL, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48122 February 21, 1989 - VISIA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 53969 February 21, 1989 - PURIFICACION SAMALA, ET AL. v. LUIS L. VICTOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64571 February 21, 1989 - TEODORO N. FLORENDO v. LUIS R. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76427 February 21, 1989 - JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LABOR UNION-FFW, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81385 February 21, 1989 - EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NCJR, BRANCH 48, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81389 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO C. DACUDAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81520 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEIL TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 83699 February 21, 1989 - PHILAMLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84673-74 February 21, 1989 - FLORENCIO SALVACION v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35578 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO DETALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40824 February 23, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41423 February 23, 1989 - LUIS JOSEPH v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49344 February 23, 1989 - ARISTOTELES REYNOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53569 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 75866 February 23, 1989 - NEW OWNERS/MANAGEMENT OF TML GARMENTS, INC., v. ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82998 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BALUYOT

  • G.R. No. L-40628 February 24, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-55090 February 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CANIZAR GOHOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85497 February 24, 1989 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY v. RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL

  • G.R. No. L-34807 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FABIO TACHADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46955 February 27, 1989 - CONSORCIA AGUSTINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48129 February 27, 1989 - TERESITA M. ESQUIVEL v. JOAQUIN O. ILUSTRE

  • G.R. No. 62968-69 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO GIMONGALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66634 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO MOLATO

  • G.R. No. 74065 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NERIO C. GADDI

  • G.R. No. 74657 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 74871 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO I. JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. 74964 February 27, 1989 - DILSON ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76893 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO T. PACO

  • G.R. No. 77980 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78269 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. BACHAR

  • G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989 - GABINO ALITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80001 February 27, 1989 - CARLOS LEOBRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83558 February 27, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABRAHAM P. VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44237 February 28, 1989 - VICTORIA ONG DE OCSIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53597 February 28, 1989 - D.C. CRYSTAL, INC. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55226 February 28, 1989 - NIC V. GARCES, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55228 February 28, 1989 - MIGUELA CABUTIN, ET AL. v. GERONIMO AMACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56803 February 28, 1989 - LUCAS M. CAPARROS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59438 February 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE J. SALONDRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 62219 February 28, 1989 - TEOFISTO VERCELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78210 February 28, 1989 - TEOFILO ARICA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80391 February 28, 1989 - ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA v. CONTE MANGELIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81123 February 28, 1989 - CRISOSTOMO REBOLLIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82252 February 28, 1989 - SEAGULL MARITIME CORP., ET AL. v. NERRY D. BALATONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83635-53 February 28, 1989 - DELIA CRYSTAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.