Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 58797. January 31, 1989.]

ANTONIO QUIRINO, as Special Administrator, Testate Estate of Natividad C. Raquiza, and Intestate Estate of Carmen M. Castellvi, Petitioner, v. HON. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, and WILFREDO M. GOINGCO, Administrator, Testate Estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, Respondents.

Juan F. Gomez for and in his own behalf.

Antonio, Quirino and Ernesto P. Pangalangan for Petitioner.

Valentino LL. Quevedo for Raquiza children.

Engelberto A. Farol for Jasmin Raquiza.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE; TERM "CLAIMS," CONSTRUED. — As held in Gabin v. Malleja (84 Phil. 794), the term "claims" required to be presented against a decedent’s estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime or liability contracted by the deceased before his death.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; FILING OF MOTION FOR INTERVENTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CURED LACK THEREOF. — We find no merit in movant’s contention that he was deprived of due process, on the ground that he was not impleaded as party respondent in, and required to answer the petition for certiorari, subject of this Court’s decision dated 25 April 1988. Prior to the promulgation of said decision, movant had already filed a motion for intervention, and the allegations set forth therein were duly considered and studied by the Court. Furthermore, even if Gomez was not impleaded as party respondent in said petition for certiorari, his act of filing the said motion for intervention as well as his present motion for reconsideration, indubitably gave him an adequate opportunity to present his side of the controversy, and therefore cured any defect of alleged lack of due process.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CERTIORARI; CERTIORARI GENERALLY WILL NOT LIE UNLESS LOWER COURT HAS, THROUGH A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO CORRECT ERRORS IMPUTED TO IT; EXCEPTIONS. — Although as a general rule, certiorari will not lie unless the lower court has, through a motion for reconsideration, been given a chance to correct the errors imputed to it, this rule, however, admits of exceptions, like: (1) when the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) where public interest is involved; and (3) in case of urgency. In the case at bar, the questioned orders of the trial court were already being executed, hence, there was an urgency which caused the case to fall under one of the exceptions, thereby allowing petitioner to file a petition for certiorari without need of first filing a motion for reconsideration.

4. ID.; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE; ADMINISTRATION UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION OF COURT AND ADMINISTRATOR IS SUBJECT TO ITS AUTHORITY. — The rule is that where the monetary claim against the administrator has a relation to his acts of administration in the ordinary course thereof, such claims can be presented for payment with the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is pending, although said claims were not incurred by the deceased during his lifetime and collectible after his death. This is so, because the administration is under the direct supervision of the court and the administrator is subject to its authority.


R E S O L U T I O N


PADILLA, J.:


For resolution are the separate motions for reconsideration of the decision of this Court, dated 25 April 1988, filed by Juan F. Gomez, Jesus T. David, Raquiza children and their father Antonio V. Raquiza (as alleged heirs of Natividad Castellvi), and petitioner Antonio Quirino; motion for intervention of Carmen Castellvi Et. Al. (as alleged heirs of Don Juan Castellvi); the motion for clarificatory order of Juan F. Gomez; and omnibus motion for early resolution and immediate release of funds, filed by the Raquiza children. The Court will resolve the motions separately.

1. Motion for Reconsideration of Juan F. Gomez.

Movant’s claims are for attorney’s fees equivalent to 12% of one-third (1/3) of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi and P30,000.00 representing transportation and representation expenses, for services admittedly rendered to the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi. These claims may not be properly charged against the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.

As held in Gabin v. Malleja (84 Phil. 794), the term "claims" required to be presented against a decedent’s estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime or liability contracted by the deceased before his death. It is important to note that movant’s claims for attorney’s fees and transportation as well as representation expenses are for services rendered to the alleged substituted heirs of Don Juan Castellvi and such services did not inure to the benefit of Don Alfonso Castellvi or his estate. The court charged with the settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi is bound to protect the estate from any disbursements based on claims not chargeable to the estate.

We find no merit in movant’s contention that he was deprived of due process, on the ground that he was not impleaded as party respondent in, and required to answer the petition for certiorari, subject of this Court’s decision dated 25 April 1988. Prior to the promulgation of said decision, movant had already filed a motion for intervention, 1 and the allegations set forth therein were duly considered and studied by the Court. Furthermore, even if Gomez was not impleaded as party respondent in said petition for certiorari, his act of filing the said motion for intervention as well as his present motion for reconsideration, indubitably gave him an adequate opportunity to present his side of the controversy, and therefore cured any defect of alleged lack of due process.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned orders of the court a quo is not fatal. Although as a general rule, certiorari will not lie unless the lower court has, through a motion for reconsideration, been given a chance to correct the errors imputed to it, this rule, however, admits of exceptions, like: (1) when the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) where public interest is involved; and (3) in case of urgency. 2 In the case at bar, the questioned orders of the trial court were already being executed, hence, there was an urgency which caused the case to fall under one of the exceptions, thereby allowing petitioner to file a petition for certiorari without need of first filing a motion for reconsideration.

2. Motion for Reconsideration of Jesus T. David.

The claim for attorney’s fees of intervenor Jesus T. David is for services rendered for the benefit of Dona Carmen Castellvi, and not for the benefit of Don Alfonso Castellvi or his estate. As discussed earlier, only claims which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime are allowed to be presented against his estate, with the exception of funeral expenses, expenses for the last sickness 3 and administration expenses in the ordinary course thereof. 4

As to the alleged attachment and levy of Dona Carmen’s alleged administratrix’ fees and share in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, the same cannot be given force and effect in the special proceedings for the settlement of Don Alfonso’s estate. It must be stressed that the subject of settlement in this case is not the estate of Dona Carmen Castellvi. For intervenor to insist on enforcing in this proceeding his claim against Dona Carmen’s alleged fees as administratrix and share in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, would be irregular and untenable. It should be borne in mind that the respondent court is one of limited jurisdiction, and it has no authority to determine as to who are the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi and/or decide the claims or demands which may be properly paid out of the funds of the estate of Dona Carmen Castellvi. Such issues have to be determined in separate proceedings.

For this Court to allow in this proceeding — which is for the settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi — the enforcement of the claim of David against Dona Carmen’s alleged share in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, would amount to summarily declaring Dona Carmen an heir of Don Alfonso, without giving the other heirs or claimants to the latter’s estate an opportunity to oppose the same. Moreover, whatever fees Dona Carmen might have earned during her lifetime as administratrix of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi should go to her estate. Hence, whatever claim herein intervenor has against the deceased Dona Carmen Castellvi, should be presented before the court with jurisdiction in settling her estate. Intervenor cannot resort to a short cut and present his claim directly to this Court to suit his own end and convenience thereby brushing aside the settled rules of applicable procedure.

3. Motion for Reconsideration of the Raquiza children.

Movants would like to impress upon this Court that the award of attorney’s fees to Atty. Mendoza equivalent to 12% of the gross value of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi is not valid on the ground that they never gave their consent thereto, nor did Dona Carmen Castellvi, then administratix of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi. However, the record of this case shows that Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza, the instituted heir to two-third (2/3) of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, gave her conformity to such award of attorney’s fees in favor of Atty. Mendoza. 5 Moreover, movants, through their father and general guardian Atty. Antonio V. Raquiza, had agreed to grant said attorney’s fees. In fact, separate manifestations 6 were filed by Atty. Raquiza and Carmen Castellvi with the court a quo stating that they were withdrawing their oppositions to said claim.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

With regard to Floro’s claim for payment for services rendered to the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, the rule is that where the monetary claim against the administrator has a relation to his acts of administration in the ordinary course thereof, such claims can be presented for payment with the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is pending, although said claims were not incurred by the deceased during his lifetime and collectible after his death. This is so, because the administration is under the direct supervision of the court and the administrator is subject to its authority. 7

As to the question of whether or not the movants are the heirs of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza, thus, entitled to her share in the estate of Don Alfonso, determination of said issue is again not within the jurisdiction of the court a quo charged only with the settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso.

4. Motion for Reconsideration of Antonio Quirino.

As discussed earlier, Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza and Dona Carmen Castellvi (as administratrix of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi) had given their conformity to the award of attorney’s fees to Atty. Mendoza. Petitioner who now is acting as special administrator of the estates of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza and Carmen Castellvi is estopped from questioning said award.

Insofar as payment of service fees to Exequiel Floro, the same was allowed for services rendered by claimant for the benefit of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi and the same falls under the category of "administration expense" which may be paid out of the funds of the estate. Moreover, the heirs of Don Alfonso Castellvi had dropped their opposition to said claim, thus, they are barred from questioning the same at this stage.

5. Motion for Intervention of Carmen Castellvi, Et. Al.

Intervenors (as alleged substituted heirs of Don Juan Castellvi) seek clarification of the term "instituted heirs" and a modification of the decision dated 25 April 1988, so that the term "instituted heirs" would include the substituted heirs of Don Juan Castellvi. They likewise move for the setting aside of the portion of the decision which provides for the final settlement and distribution of the estate of Don Alfonso to the instituted heirs or their respective estates, if it would mean that delivery of the one third (1/3) share of the estate of Don Alfonso is to be made only to Don Juan Castellvi or his estate.

They further claim that for this Court to order the delivery of the residue of the estate of Don Alfonso to the estate of Don Juan Castellvi (to the extent of 1/3 as decreed in Don Alfonso’s last will) instead of his substituted heirs, will result in the latter re-litigating among themselves and/or with other parties for their respective shares over the estate of Don Juan Castellvi, when they had already ventilated the issue of heir-ship over the same before the court a quo, and they were declared heirs of Don Juan Castellvi and substituted heirs to his one-third (1/3) share in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi. 8 We find intervenors’ contention to be without merit. To allow intervenors instead of the estate of the instituted heir, Don Juan Castellvi to receive the residue of the estate of Don Alfonso would be not only prejudicial to the creditors of Don Juan but also to the government in the form of non-payment of taxes required by law. The transfer of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi to his instituted heirs (Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza and Don Juan Castellvi) is subject to payment of estate taxes. Before the estates of Don Juan Castellvi (and Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza) can be transferred to their heirs, again, estate taxes must first be paid to the government. To allow intervenors, as substituted heirs of Don Juan Castellvi, to receive directly from the estate of Don Alfonso, the share pertaining to Don Juan, could result in a single transfer of property and a single payment of estate taxes, in fraud of the government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Moreover, the court a quo has no jurisdiction to determine who are the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi; said issue has to be ventilated in a separate proceeding.

6. Motion for Clarificatory Order of Juan F. Gomez.

Movant seeks clarification of the decision of this Court, dated 25 April 1988, denying his claim for attorney’s fees, as to whether or not it is meant to annul not only the order fixing his fees but also the contract for services approved in the order issued by the court a quo, dated 5 October 1981.

Movant’s claim is chargeable to the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi, his clients, and the court a quo has no jurisdiction to fix such fees for services rendered not to the estate of Don Alfonso, but to the heirs of Don Juan. It follows that the court a quo has no jurisdiction to approve a contract of legal services between claimant and the heirs of Don Juan. The court a quo is of limited jurisdiction, empowered to settle only the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi: any act done in excess of such limits may not be given force and effect.

7. Omnibus Motion for Early Resolution and Immediate Release for Funds by the Raquiza Children.

In the motion at bar, movants seek approval for the release of the amount of P300,000.00 to allegedly take care of the burial expenses incurred upon the death of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza. Said motion for release of funds was previously presented before the court a quo and subsequently denied.

What movants are actually praying of this Court is to reverse the order of denial of their motion for release of funds. Before a review can be made of said order of denial, movants should have filed a proper petition before this Court and not a mere motion. This incident is not covered by the petition for certiorari resolved in the decision of 25 April 1988.

ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration filed by Juan F. Gomez, Jesus T. David, Raquiza children, and Antonio Quirino are hereby DENIED. This denial is FINAL.

The motion for intervention of Carmen Castellvi, Et Al., the motion for clarificatory order of Juan F. Gomez, and the omnibus motion for early resolution and release of funds by the Raquiza children, are also DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Filed 11 December 1987, Rollo pp. 516-525.

2. Gonzales, Jr. IAC, 131 SCRA 468, 28 August 1984.

3. Sec. 5., Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

4. Paula v. Escay, 97 Phil. 617.

5. Rollo, p. 619.

6. Rollo, pp. 85-87.

7. Paula v. Escay, Supra.

8. Rollo, p. 648.




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






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA