Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > September 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 61272 September 29, 1989 - BAGONG BAYAN CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 61272. September 29, 1989.]

BAGONG BAYAN CORPORATION, REALTY INVESTORS & DEVELOPERS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ANTONIO A. RABE and ERNANI T. MAGPUSAO, Respondents.

Mario F.M. Clutario, Jr. for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; EMPLOYMENT; GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION; REQUISITE QUANTUM OF PROOF. — The evidence presented must constitute more than a mere scintilla of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner miserably failed to satisfy the requisite quantum of proof. Its continued reliance on the statement of the accused Milo Mitra obviously rests on an infirm foundation since the investigating fiscal himself disbelieved or accorded insignificant weight thereto when he recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint against herein private respondents. The position of the fiscal that no probable cause existed against private respondents is not hard to appreciate. As correctly pointed out by respondent commission, there were serious inconsistencies in said statements of Mitra, aside from the fact that coming from a polluted source, there is ample reason to distrust the same.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; TERMINATION MUST BE BASED ON JUST AND LAWFUL CAUSES. — An employer has the right to dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of confidence but its exercise must be actuated by and based on just and lawful causes, duly substantiated.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — The force of this requirement, derived as it is from such constitutional protection, is but a manifestation of our consistent adherence to the policy of promoting social justice. Thus, any arbitrary termination of employment must invariably be struck down as an attack on such constitutional precepts.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIOR CLEARANCE TO TERMINATE, DISPENSED WITH BY BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 130. — A prior clearance to terminate the services of an employee, which was a policy requirement at the inception of this controversy, is today no longer required. Under Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, which took effect on August 21, 1981, the employer is no longer bound to secure clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment before the services of an employee can be terminated.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; GOOD FAITH, A VALID DEFENSE AGAINST PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES; CASE AT BAR. — Special circumstances supporting the finding of good faith were present therein. The same can hardly be said in the present case.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSEQUENCES THEREOF. — Consequent to the finding of absence of sufficient justification to terminate the services of private respondents, they should be reinstated to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with backwages, subject to the present jurisprudential policy on the conditions and extent thereof.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


Private respondents Antonio A. Rabe and Ernani T. Magpusao were regular employees of petitioner Bagong Bayan Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of operating and managing a hotel known as El Grande Tropical Palace Resort Hotel located in Parañaque, Metro Manila.

On April 11, 1980, private respondents, who worked as dishwashers or stewards in the hotel, were placed on preventive suspension on the basis of the sworn statement of one Milo Mitra implicating them, together with Leopoldo C. Ramos and Juanito S. Baldonado, as being involved in an alleged pilferage in the hotel.

The supposed pilferage was said to have been discovered on April 8, 1980 by a security guard who immediately reported the same to the petitioner’s security manager, Eufemio R. Musa. The padlock of the kitchen of the hotel was allegedly destroyed and several pieces of plates were missing. The incident was referred to the police for a proper investigation. Two days after the discovery, Milo Mitra, who at that time was an employee of the hotel’s contractor agency, Top Rate Agency, and assigned as janitor in the hotel, was apprehended by the police in connection with the loss.

While in police custody, Mitra executed a handwritten statement, dated April 10, 1980, stating the alleged complicity of private respondent Antonio A. Rabe who was referred to as "Tony." The statement was subsequently sworn to on the next day before Investigating Fiscal Corazon C. Chaves of Las Piñas, Metro Manila. It was during this investigation when the four persons, who were charged in the criminal complaint filed thereafter, were implicated. These allegations were reiterated by Mitra in another handwritten statement executed and sworn to before Assistant Provincial Fiscal Rodolfo Mateo during the preliminary investigation on June 30, 1980.

In the meantime, during the pendency of the preliminary investigation in the fiscal’s office and after the suspension of private respondents, petitioner filed on April 24, 1980 an application with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment for clearance to terminate their services. Reacting to such application, private respondents filed on May 15, 1980 a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal before said ministry in the National Capital Region. The case was docketed as Case No. AB-0-6704-80 and assigned to Labor Arbiter Jesus C. Cuenca.

After the respective position papers were filed, the labor arbiter rendered a decision, dated October 28, 1980, ordering petitioner corporation to reinstate both private respondents to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges and with corresponding backwages from April 11, 1980, the date of their preventive suspension, up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The evidence presented were declared to be insufficient to substantially prove the complainant’s guilt. On the other hand, the charge of unfair labor practice was dismissed, with the observation that no specific acts of the employer tending to interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization was pointed out by the complainants therein. 1

From this decision, petitioner seasonably appealed to respondent commission. During the pendency of said appeal, the investigating fiscal, in his resolution dated June 4, 1981, recommended that the complaint against all those implicated by Milo Mitra be dropped since no probable cause existed against them. 2

Thereafter, public respondent dismissed the appeal of petitioner, affirming the findings of the labor arbiter that there was no basis to suspect that the respondents were involved in the theft. 3 Furthermore, the commission pointed out what it considered as incredible and impossible averments in the sworn written statements submitted before the fiscal’s office, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Mitra averred that after coming out from work on 10 April 1980, at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, complainant Tony Rabe met him and asked him to bring a box to the house of Carol located at the CAA; and that accordingly he brought the box to the house of Carol upstairs, but he did not know the contents of the box. Yet, per the ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay’ of Patrolmen Artemio Trinidad, Jaime Avila and Genaro Osias, Milo sold the loot consisting of kitchen wares (sic) to different houses. Moreover, in relation to the averments contained in the joint affidavit of the three policemen, the averment of Milo Mitra cited above is not only incredible but also impossible. Thus, according to the policemen, they apprehended the persons implicated by Milo Mitra at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning of 10 April 1980; while according to Mitra, he brought the box containing the kitchen wares (sic) recovered by the Policemen to the house of Carol at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 10 April 1980. This means that the act of apprehension preceded the act of pilferage, which is an impossibility. Obviously, therefore, Milo Mitra implicated the individual appellees, one of whom (Ernani Magpusao) is even a recipient of a commendation for honesty, for the sole purpose of absolving himself." 4

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, resulting in the filing of the present petition for certiorari on August 3, 1987. Submitted therein for our consideration were petitioner’s contentions that (1) public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioner had absolutely no basis in suspecting the involvement of private respondents in the theft of its properties despite substantial evidence to the contrary, and (2) there was grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner liable for backwages despite the finding that petitioner never committed any unfair labor practice. 5

Although on August 18, 1982, we initially issued a temporary restraining order 6 to prevent the enforcement and or carrying out of the questioned resolution, this petition was dismissed in our resolution of May 18, 1983 for lack of merit and said restraining order was consequently lifted. 7 However, upon motion of petitioner, the Court, in a resolution dated September 19, 1983, set aside said resolution of May 18, 1983 which dismissed the petition for certiorari and lifted the restraining order, and gave due course to the petition. 8

Petitioner maintains that the statements executed by Milo Mitra and the police investigators constitute substantial evidence against private respondents and that the dismissal of the criminal charge does not necessarily exculpate private respondents from the cause for which they were sought to be dismissed, that is, loss of confidence. Parenthetically, it will be noted that while the present case involved preventive suspension, the indefiniteness thereof makes it tantamount to termination and should be treated accordingly.

It is obvious that the present controversy, as formulated by the parties, is centered on the presence or absence of substantial evidence warranting the dismissal of private respondents. What is actually involved is the determination of whether or not the evidence presented constitute more than a mere scintilla of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. 9 Only if the evidence is inadequate to satisfy the test of reason may we then consider the issue of whether there was grave abuse of discretion which constitutes the ground for petitioner’s present recourse.

We are convinced that petitioner miserably failed to satisfy the requisite quantum of proof. Its continued reliance on the statement of the accused Milo Mitra obviously rests on an infirm foundation since the investigating fiscal himself disbelieved or accorded insignificant weight thereto when he recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint against herein private respondents. The position of the fiscal that no probable cause existed against private respondents is not hard to appreciate. As correctly pointed out by respondent commission, there were serious inconsistencies in said statements of Mitra, aside from the fact that coming from a polluted source, there is ample reason to distrust the same.

A large body of precedents supports the recognition of the right of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of confidence. 10 Nevertheless, the exercise of such prerogative must be actuated by and based on just and lawful causes, duly substantiated, otherwise it could easily be used as a pretext to reduce to a barren form of words the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. 11 The force of this requirement, derived as it is from such constitutional protection, is but a manifestation of our consistent adherence to the policy of promoting social justice. Thus, any arbitrary termination of employment must invariably be struck down as an attack on such constitutional precepts.

This continued vigilance on the part of the Court, as well as the administrative bodies concerned, assumes further significance since a prior clearance to terminate the services of an employee, which was a policy requirement at the inception of this controversy, is today no longer required. Under Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, which took effect on August 21, 1981, the employer is no longer bound to secure clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment before the services of an employee can be terminated.

The finding that there was no unfair labor practice does not detract from the illegality of the dismissal of private respondents. Neither would petitioner’s allegation of good faith excuse it from the consequences thereof. Although in the cases relied upon by petitioner, 12 good faith excused the employers involved from the payment of backwages, special circumstances supporting the finding of good faith were present therein. The same can hardly be said in the present case.

Consequent to the finding of absence of sufficient justification to terminate the services of private respondents, they should be reinstated to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with backwages, subject to the present jurisprudential policy on the conditions and extent thereof.

WHEREFORE, the petition at bar is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to reinstate private respondents to the last positions they occupied or any other similar position of the same category and with the same compensation, without loss of seniority rights. Should such reinstatement not be feasible due to supervening causes, petitioner shall pay private respondents separation pay equivalent to one (1) month’s salary for every year of service computed at their respective rates of pay at the time their services were terminated. Petitioner is FURTHER ORDERED to pay private respondents backwages at the same rates of pay, without qualification and deduction, not exceeding three (3) years.

The temporary restraining order issued in this case on August 18, 1982 is hereby LIFTED. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, 38.

2. Ibid., 149.

3. Ibid., 47.

4. Ibid., 47-48.

5. Ibid., 11.

6. Ibid., 63-64.

7. Ibid., 101-103.

8. Ibid., 129.

9. Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971).

10. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 75755, Nov. 24, 1988, and cases cited therein.

11. Central Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Et Al., 90 SCRA 9 (1979). See also Bustillos v. Inciong, Et Al., 120 SCRA 262 (1983).

12. Baron, Et. Al. v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 8 SCRA 579 (1963); San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 64 SCRA 56 (1975); Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Et Al., 117 SCRA 523 (1982).




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






September-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39215 September 1, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. UTILITY ASSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 63118 September 1, 1989 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73642 September 1, 1989 - RESTITUTO PALMA GIL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 84960 September 1, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN M. ASIO

  • G.R. No. 83216 September 4, 1989 - TERESITA QUINTOS-DELES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71681 September 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO S. MARILAO

  • G.R. No. 75206 September 5, 1989 - TOMAS GALGALA, ET AL. v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79416 September 5, 1989 - ROSALINA BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46064 September 7, 1989 - MIGUELA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51632 September 7, 1989 - PEPSICO, INCORPORATED vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989 - LEONIDA CUREG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76883 September 7, 1989 - VASSAR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78975 September 7, 1989 - IGNACIO V. SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82458 September 7, 1989 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82478 September 7, 1989 - JUANITO DE ASIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84578 September 7, 1989 - JOSE VICENTE SANTIAGO, IV v. BONIER DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85468 September 7, 1989 - QUINTIN S. DOROMAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87140 September 7, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88637 September 7, 1989 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74978 September 8, 1989 - MARKET DEVELOPERS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75819 September 8, 1989 - FERMIN ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81861 September 8, 1989 - BERNABE QUE, ET AL. v. RODRIGO V. COSICO

  • G.R. No. 82696 September 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOELITO MANZANARES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-89-251 September 8, 1989 - CONRADO SANTOS v. OSCAR I. LUMANG

  • G.R. No. 68203 September 13, 1989 - METUROGAN L. SAREP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 69251 September 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO GOLE CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83907 September 13, 1989 - NAPOLEON GEGARE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87014-16 September 13, 1989 - SALIC B. DUMARPA, ET AL. v. JAMIL DIMAPORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76216 September 14, 1989 - GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76573 September 14, 1989 - MARUBENI CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989 - NORBERTO SORIANO v. OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35453 September 15, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63996 September 15, 1989 - EUSEBIO FRANCISCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL,

  • G.R. No. 67880 September 15, 1989 - FELIX ESMALIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72355-59 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN P. DAVID

  • G.R. No. 73053 September 15, 1989 - CARMELITA U. CRUZ v. GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74060 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESTITO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75693 September 15, 1989 - MARCELO BONDOC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80599 September 15, 1989 - ERNESTINA CRISOLOGO-JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81949 September 15, 1989 - METERIO GUZMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82670 September 15, 1989 - DOMETILA M. ANDRES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82703 September 15, 1989 - MAURO DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82971 September 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82973 September 15, 1989 - MARIO CARTAGENAS, ET AL. v. ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83695 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROY ALZAGA

  • G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL. v. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71116 September 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HORTILLANO

  • G.R. No. 81231 September 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65418 September 25, 1989 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43810 September 26, 1989 - TOMAS CHIA v. ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75305 September 26, 1989 - MICHAEL PEÑALOSA, ET AL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78412 September 26, 1989 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78519 September 26, 1989 - VICTORIA YAU CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80719 September 26, 1989 - HILDA RALLA ALMINE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82325 September 26, 1989 - ESPIRITU SANTO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83250 September 26, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47206 September 27, 1989 - GLORIA M. DE ERQUIAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-86-11 September 27, 1989 - DAVID G. OMPOC v. NORITO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 39507 September 28, 1989 - IN RE: FRANCISCO SIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 46454 September 28, 1989 - NICETAS C. RODRIGUEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54472-77 September 28, 1989 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35652 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIO TAACA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42782 September 29, 1989 - FIGURADO O. PLAZA v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48603 September 29, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 50702 September 29, 1989 - ALFREDO CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61272 September 29, 1989 - BAGONG BAYAN CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69190 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO NIEBRES

  • G.R. No. 73006 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO PERIODICA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75009 September 29, 1989 - FRANCISCO M. ANGELES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 September 29, 1989 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

  • G.R. No. 76612 September 29, 1989 - ROMELITO ZAGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78339 September 29, 1989 - WENCESLAO D. MONSERRATE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79622 September 29, 1989 - ENRIQUETO F. TEJADA v. HOMESTEAD PROPERTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80352 September 29, 1989 - BENJAMIN G. INDINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80892 September 29, 1989 - ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82508 September 29, 1989 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83751 September 29, 1989 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83946 September 29, 1989 - NENITA E. BABIDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 - RICARDO C. VALMONTE, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85879 September 29, 1989 - NG SOON v. 0ALOYSIUS ALDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86105-06 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.