Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > November 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 66944 November 13, 1989 - ALLIANCE TOBACCO CORPORATION, INC. v. PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 66944. November 13, 1989.]

ALLIANCE TOBACCO CORPORATION, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, FARMER’S VIRGINIA TOBACCO REDRYING COMPANY, INC. and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Respondents.

Clarence J. Villanueva for Petitioner.

The Government Corporate Counsel for Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; SALES; OWNERSHIP TRANSFERRED UPON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY; DELIVERY IS PLACING CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF THING SOLD TO VENDEE. — The Civil Code provides that ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. There is delivery when the thing sold is placed in the control and possession of the vendee.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION; PROCEDURE IN TRADING; DELIVERY SEALS THE CONTRACT OF SALE. — In tobacco trading, actual delivery plays a pivotal role. The peculiar procedure undergone in trading, which procedure was set out at length in both the Santiago and the PVTA v. De los Angeles cases, reveals that delivery seals the contract of sale because the trader loses not only possession but also control over the shipment. Outlined by the PVTA pursuant to its power "to take over and assume, and therefore exclusively direct, supervise and control, all functions and operations with respect to the processing, warehousing, and trading of Virginia tobacco, the provisions of any existing law to the contrary notwithstanding," the procedure is observed by everyone involved in the trade.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SIMILAR TO A CONTRACT OF ADHESION; FLAW IS FOUND IN THE PERSON-IN-CHARGE. — The tobacco trading procedure conceived and formulated by the PVTA is akin to a contract of adhesion wherein only one party has a hand in the determination of the terms. But observance of the procedure more often than not renders a trader at a disadvantage. The moment the shipment is placed in the hands of the PVTA or its representative and it is lost, the trader is left empty-handed. While the flaw may not really be in the procedure itself, the same may be found in the persons charged with the implementation of the procedure. Some personnel mishandle the shipment to the detriment of the trader. Some demand grease money to facilitate the trading process. Sadly, this is what happened in this case.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; STRICT INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 1475 OF THE CIVIL CODE MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT SHALL FARMERS. — Hence, while under an ideal situation, we would have found merit in respondent PVTA’s contention that the contract of sale could not have been perfected pursuant to Article 1475 of the Civil Code because to determine the price of the tobacco traded, the shipment should first be inspected, graded and weighed, we find said contention misplaced herein. A strict interpretation of the provision of Article 1475 may result in adverse effects to small planters who would not be paid for the lost products of their toil. Such situation was what the ruling in PVTA v. De los Angeles sought to avoid. Equity and fair dealing, the anchor of said case, must once more prevail. Since PVTA had virtual control over the lost tobacco bales, delivery thereof to the FVTR should also be considered effective delivery to the PVTA.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, C.J.:


The issue in the instant petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court is whether or not petitioner’s delivery of 174 bales of tobacco to the Farmer’s Virginia Tobacco Redrying Company, Inc. (FVTR), a contractee of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA), perfected the contract of sale between petitioner and the (PVTA) so as to hold the latter liable for the loss of said bales while in the possession of the FVTR.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The PVTA, a government corporation created under Republic Act No. 2265 to promote the tobacco industry, entered into a contract of procuring, redrying and servicing with the FVTR for the 1963 tobacco trading operation. 1 In June of that year, the PVTA also entered into a merchandising loan agreement with the petitioner, a duly incorporated and authorized tobacco trading entity, whereby the PVTA agreed to lend P25,500 to the petitioner for the purchase of flue-cured Virginia tobacco from bona fide Virginia tobacco farmer-producers. 2

The following month, petitioner shipped to the FVTR 96 bales of tobacco weighing 4,800 kilos covered by Guia No. 1 and 167 bales weighing 8,350 kilos covered by Guia No. 2. In the words of the lower court, the following transpired:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Before shipping the tobacco to the Redrying Plant, the plaintiff (petitioner herein) obtained a Clearance issued by the Tobacco Inspector, authorizing the tobacco shipment to proceed to the Redrying Plant. Upon the arrival of the tobacco shipments in the Redrying Plant, defendant FVTR, at Bauang, La Union (Bauang for short), they were listed in the Log Book, after which the tobacco were brought inside the Redrying Compound. The Log Book was then submitted to the Marketing Department, formerly the Trading Department and kept by the Branch Manager, Bauang, Mr. Jovencio Pimentel, assisted by Mr. Pio Balagot. The documents submitted accompanying the tobacco shipments were the BIR clearance, Clearance from the Regional Tobacco Inspector at San Fernando, La Union (San Fernando for short) and Guias Nos. 1 and 2. After several days, the grading of the plaintiffs tobacco took place but only 89 bales from Guia No. 2 were graded, weighed and accepted. The remaining bales of tobacco in Guia No. 2 and the whole of Guia No. 1 were not graded and weighed because after grading and weighing 89 bales of Guia No. 2, some officers and employees in the premises of defendant FVTR asked money for the separate grading and weighing of the ungraded and unweighed tobacco bales. Because the rest of the plaintiffs tobacco were not graded and weighed, Aldegunda Villanueva, Business Manager of the plaintiff, saw the Branch Manager of the defendant FVTR and asked him to have their tobacco graded and weighed. Since the grading and weighing of the plaintiffs tobacco was (sic) not resumed, in 1965, said Business Manager personally called on Atty. Eduardo Bananal, Manager of the defendant PVTA in Manila and told the latter that some tobacco of the plaintiff were not graded and weighed and were no longer in the premises of defendant FVTR’s Redrying Plant, Manager Bananal told her that the plaintiffs tobacco in question were considered accepted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"The operations of defendant FVTR in Bauang, stopped in October 1963. The plaintiff asked that its ungraded and unweighed tobacco be withdrawn from the Redrying Plant. The defendants PVTA and FVTR refused to allow the plaintiff’s request because according to them the tobacco sought to be withdrawn were subject of a merchandising loan and owned by defendant, PVTA." 3

Unfortunately, the remaining ungraded and unweighed 174 bales with a total value of P28,382 were lost while they were in the possession of the FVTR. Having learned of such loss in 1965, petitioner demanded for its value and the application of the same to its merchandising loan with PVTA but both the latter and the FVTR refused to heed said demands. 4

Consequently, petitioner filed in the then Court of First Instance of La Union a complaint against PVTA and FVTR praying that the two defendants be ordered to pay it P4,443 representing the value of the 89 bales which were weighed, graded and accepted by the defendants, P28,382.00 representing the value of the lost bales of tobacco and/or that the said amount be applied to its loan with PVTA, and P4,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. 5 They prayed that interest be charged on the first two amounts.

FVTR was declared in default. 6 Thereafter, petitioner and the PVTA submitted a stipulation of facts and agreed that a partial judgment be rendered as to the 89 bales of tobacco which had been weighed and graded. 7

In its decision, 8 the lower court, citing Santiago Virginia Tobacco Planters Association v. PVTA, 9 ruled that the PVTA should not be held responsible for the lost bales of tobacco because they were not yet properly graded and weighed and that petitioner failed to present the weigher’s tally sheets and warehouse receipts or quedans. The dispositive portion of the decision states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Ordering the defendant PVTA to pay the plaintiff the amount of P9,323.11 which is the agreed value of the plaintiff’s uncontested 89 bales of tobacco, with interest at the legal rate, from the filing of the Complaint on December 27, 1968, up to its full payment;

2. Ordering the defendant PVTA to pay the plaintiff the amount of P1,000 as attorney’s fee;

Since the plaintiff admitted that it has a merchandising loan of P20,000 from defendant PVTA, the amounts to be paid to the former may be applied by the latter to the payment of said loan and its interest at the agreed rate.

3. Dismissing the plaintiffs complaint regarding the 96 bales and 78 bales of tobacco under Guias Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.

There is no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED." 10

Petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which, in its decision of March 20, 1984, 11 affirmed in toto the lower court’s decision. Hence, petitioner interposed the instant petition for review on certiorari of the appellate court decision. It contends that the question of substance decided by the said court is not in accord with the decision of this Court in Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. De los Angeles, 12 and that the said "question of substance boils down (to) whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between petitioner and respondent PVTA with respect to the aforesaid remaining bales of tobacco." 13

On the other hand, the herein respondent alleges that, without having been weighed or graded, the tobacco shipment could not be deemed to have been accepted by FVTR, much less the PVTA. It insists that the Santiago Virginia Tobacco Planters Association, Inc. v. PVTA case (Santiago case for brevity) should be applied. Furthermore, the petition having presented only the factual question of whether or not the tobacco shipment was indeed weighed and graded at the redrying plant, the same must be denied. 14

On January 13, 1986, this Court denied the petition for lack of merit. However upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying the petition, the Court set aside said resolution of January 13, 1986 and gave due course to the petition. 15

At the outset, it should be emphasized that the lower court made a definitive factual finding on the actual and physical delivery of the lost bales of tobacco from the petitioner to the FVTR. 16 The parties, however, disagree as to the legal implications of such delivery. Petitioner contends that it bound not only FVTR but also the PVTA and perfected the contract ,of sale between petitioner and the PVTA. On the other hand, the PVTA argues that the delivery was not valid and binding on it considering that, not having been weighed and graded by its agents, it had not duly accepted the shipments so as to perfect the contract of sale.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Under the Santiago case, shipping documents and checklists which are accomplished prior to delivery do not prove actual delivery. To prove such delivery, documents such as the weigher’s tally sheet and the warehouse receipts which are accomplished when the actual delivery is made are necessary. It should be noted, however, that the factual circumstances extant in this case are different from those in the Santiago case.

In said case, there was a need to prove actual delivery because the petitioner therein demanded for the payment of tobacco shipments which were allegedly delivered to the FVTR. 17 In other words, the actual, physical delivery of the shipments was not proven. On the other hand, in this case, the lower court established from the testimonies of witnesses the fact that petitioner entrusted to the FVTR a total of 263 bales of tobacco 89 bales of which were even actually weighed and graded in the redrying plant. 18 However, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the FVTR refused to weigh and grade the remaining 174 bales. On top of this, the FVTR also refused to grant petitioner’s request to withdraw the unweighed and ungraded shipments. As it turned out later, said shipments were lost while in the custody of FVTR, thereby placing the petitioner in a "no win" situation.

The Civil Code provides that ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. 19 There is delivery when the thing sold is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. 20 Indeed, in tobacco trading, actual delivery plays a pivotal role. The peculiar procedure undergone in trading, which procedure was set out at length in both the Santiago and the PVTA v. De los Angeles cases, reveals that delivery seals the contract of sale because the trader loses not only possession but also control over the shipment. Outlined by the PVTA pursuant to its power "to take over and assume, and therefore exclusively direct, supervise and control, all functions and operations with respect to the processing, warehousing, and trading of Virginia tobacco, the provisions of any existing law to the contrary notwithstanding," 21 the procedure is observed by everyone involved in the trade.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Verily, the tobacco trading procedure conceived and formulated by the PVTA is akin to a contract of adhesion wherein only one party has a hand in the determination of the terms. But observance of the procedure more often than not renders a trader at a disadvantage. The moment the shipment is placed in the hands of the PVTA or its representative and it is lost, the trader is left empty-handed. While the flaw may not really be in the procedure itself, the same may be found in the persons charged with the implementation of the procedure. Some personnel mishandle the shipment to the detriment of the trader. Some demand grease money to facilitate the trading process. Sadly, this is what happened in this case.

Hence, while under an ideal situation, we would have found merit in respondent PVTA’s contention that the contract of sale could not have been perfected pursuant to Article 1475 22 of the Civil Code because to determine the price of the tobacco traded, the shipment should first be inspected, graded and weighed, we find said contention misplaced herein. A strict interpretation of the provision of Article 1475 may result in adverse effects to small planters who would not be paid for the lost products of their toil. Such situation was what the ruling in PVTA v. De los Angeles sought to avoid.

Equity and fair dealing, the anchor of said case, must once more prevail. Since PVTA had virtual control over the lost tobacco bales, delivery thereof to the FVTR should also be considered effective delivery to the PVTA.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court insofar as it affirms the decision of the lower court directing the PVTA to pay petitioner the amount of P9,323.11 for the 89 bales of tobacco is hereby affirmed.

Respondent PVTA is likewise ordered to pay petitioner’s claim of P28,382.00 for the lost 174 bales of tobacco. Both amounts are subject to interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint on December 27, 1968 up to their full payment.chanrobles law library

Should the petitioner still owe respondent PVTA pursuant to the merchandising loan agreement between them, the same shall be offset by whatever amount the petitioner would receive from the respondent PVTA by virtue of this decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 48.

2. Rollo, pp. 51-53.

3. Rollo, pp. 81-82.

4. Rollo, p. 26.

5. Ibid.

6. Rollo, p. 32.

7. Rollo, pp. 79-80.

8. Penned by Judge Antonio G. Bautista.

9. L-26292, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 528.

10. Rollo, p. 85.

11. Penned by Justice Mariano A. Zosa and concurred in by Justices Jorge R. Coquia and Floreliana Castro-Bartolome.

12. L-33079, December 11, 1978, 87 SCRA 197.

13. Rollo, p. 9.

14. Rollo, pp. 118-128.

15. Rollo, p. 107.

16. Rollo, p. 81.

17. Santiago decision, supra, at p. 533.

18. Rollo, p. 81.

19. Art. 1477.

20. Art. 1497.

21. Sec. 4(a), Republic Act No. 2265.

22. This article was erroneously cited as Art. 1425 in respondent PVTA’s memorandum (p. 11). Art. 1475 provides that" (t)he contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price."




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






November-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 50654 November 6, 1989 - RUDY GLEO ARMIGOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53401 November 6, 1989 - ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57876 November 6, 1989 - FRANCISCA PUZON GAERLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60159 November 6, 1989 - FAUSTO ANDAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63462 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PIRRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71871 November 6, 1989 - TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 74431 November 6, 1989 - PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74989-90 November 6, 1989 - JOEL B. CAES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76019-20 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN BRUCA

  • G.R. No. 79743 November 6, 1989 - MARIA PILAR MARQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY B. BASILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84458 November 6, 1989 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84497 November 6, 1989 - ALFONSO ESCOVILLA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84979 November 6, 1989 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO. INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85085 November 6, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86540-41 November 6, 1989 - MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555 November 6, 1989 - SIXTO P. CRISOSTOMO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 68580-81 November 7, 1989 - AGUSTIN T. DIOQUINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82895 November 7, 1989 - LLORA MOTORS, INC., ET AL. v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48518 November 8, 1989 - GREGORIO SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55750 November 8, 1989 - RUBEN MELGAR, ET AL. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74817 November 8, 1989 - SIMEON ESTOESTA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78051 November 8, 1989 - ISAGANI M. JUNGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78413 November 8, 1989 - CAGAYAN VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80796 November 8, 1989 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 82180 November 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAIDE DE LUNA

  • G.R. No. 72323 November 9, 1989 - MANUEL VILLAR, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76193 November 9, 1989 - UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. v. MUNSINGWEAR CREATION MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 82805 November 9, 1989 - BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DIONISIO DELA CERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86819 November 9, 1989 - ADAMSON UNIVERSITY v. ADAMSON UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89651 November 10, 1989 - FIRDAUSI I.Y. ABBAS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 53926-29 November 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MATEO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65017 November 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STALIN P. GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. 66944 November 13, 1989 - ALLIANCE TOBACCO CORPORATION, INC. v. PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75041 November 13, 1989 - ROSA N. EDRA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79403 November 13, 1989 - EMETERIO M. MOZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82238-42 November 13, 1989 - ANTONIO T. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 83664 November 13, 1989 - RENATO S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49668 November 14, 1989 - POLICARPIO GALICIA, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. POLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60490 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO SERENIO

  • G.R. Nos. 79050-51 November 14, 1989 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. MARICAR BASCOS BAESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83870 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNATO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84951 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANA M. NAPAT-A

  • G.R. No. 39632 November 15, 1989 - APOLONIO G. MALENIZA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 63396 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO LISTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64414 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABINO VERONAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71159 November 15, 1989 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76531 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. SALITA

  • G.R. No. 80486 November 15, 1989 - SALVADOR ESMILLA, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989 - MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84484 November 15, 1989 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88379 November 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90273-75 November 15, 1989 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP. v. WILLIAM INOCENCIO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2974 November 15, 1989 - ROGELIO A. MIRANDA v. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69122 November 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO T. OLAPANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83286 November 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO T. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83828 November 16, 1989 - LEONOR MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. CITY OF OLONGAPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84628 November 16, 1989 - HEIRS OF ILDEFONSO COSCOLLUELA, SR., INC. v. RICO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45061 November 20, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 30475-76 November 22, 1989 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v. UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 48468-69 November 22, 1989 - ORLANDO PRIMERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61466 November 22, 1989 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. ALFONSO BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69450 November 22, 1988

    EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79886 November 22, 1989 - QUALITRANS LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC. v. ROYAL CLASS LIMOUSINE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88725 November 22, 1989 - ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38984 November 24, 1989 - MACARIO D. EMBUSCADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60690 November 24, 1989 - VIRGINIA JORGE, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79564 November 24, 1989 - AURORA B. CAMACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80405 November 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ARNEL MITRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 46898-99 November 28, 1989 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RUSTICO DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79351 November 28, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85141 November 28, 1989 - FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86025 November 28, 1989 - RODOLFO R. AQUINO, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1334 November 28, 1989 - ROSARIO DELOS REYES v. JOSE B. AZNAR

  • G.R. No. 51655 November 29, 1989 - VICENTE DEL ROSARIO v. JULIO BANSIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72199 November 29, 1989 - ADELINO R. MONTANEZ, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 82304 November 29, 1989 - HONORATO M. FRUTO v. RAINERO O. REYES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3249 November 29, 1989 - SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA v. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA