Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 87617. April 6, 1990.]

JOE HODGES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF LEON P. GELLADA, plaintiff-appellee in Civil Case No. 6512, ROMEO MEDIODIA, plaintiff-appellant in Civil Case No. 6513, and HEIRS OF FERNANDO MIRASOL, plaintiff-appellee in Civil Case No. 6516, Respondents.

Tivol & Tivol Law Office for Petitioner.

Efrain Treñas for Romeo Mediodia.

Villa and Partners for Private Respondents.

Norberto Posecion for Heirs of Gellada.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; NO-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE; LEGAL EFFECT. — As early as Lazaro v. Endencia, [57 Phil. 552 (1932)] this Court held that an appeal is not deemed perfected if the appellate court docket fee is not fully paid. In Lee v. Republic, [10 SCRA 65 (1964)] this Court ruled that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing fee is paid. In Malimit v. Degamo, [12 SCRA 450 (1964)] We held that the date of payment of the docket fee must be considered the real date of filing of a petition for quo warranto and not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi v. Ramolete, [115 SCRA 193, 204 (1982)] the well-settled rule was reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filling in court. At the time, therefore, that the three (3) cases subject of the herein petition were filed, the rule was already clear that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over a case until after the prescribed docket is paid. In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals (149 SCRA 562 (1987), this rule was emphasized when this Court stated "The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amount sought in the amended pleading." The rule in Manchester was relaxed in Sun Insurance v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, whereby this Court declared that the trial court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Nevertheless, in Sun Insurance, this Court reiterated the rule that it is the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial Court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT DOES NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER; CASE AT BAR. — In the present petition, it appears that in the case of Gellada v. Hodges the total amount of the claim for damages is about P460,000.00, the estimated docket fee due is P770.00 but what was paid only was P32.00. Despite the order of the trial court on August 31, 1972 and another order ten years later, that is on March 11, 1982, requiring plaintiff to pay the correct docket fee, Gellada paid the amount of P168.00 only. Thus his total payment amounts to just P200.00, which is still much less than the amount of P770.00 due. Similarly, in Mediodia v. Hodges where the claim is approximately P360,000.00 and the appropriate filing fee would be about P570.00, the plaintiff paid only P32.00 upon filing the complaint. After the two aforesaid orders of the trial Court were issued, Mediodia paid on September 5, 1982 the amount of P168.00 bringing his payment to a total of P200.00 which is also much less than the amount of P570.00 due for docket fee. Thus, the entire proceedings undertaken in said cases are null and void. The plaintiffs in said cases are practicing lawyers who are expected to know this mandatory requirement in the filing of any complaint or similar pleading. Their non-payment of the prescribed docket fee was deliberate and inexcusable.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


What is the legal effect of the non-payment of the docket fees even before the promulgation of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals? 1 This is the decisive issue in this petition.

On April 7, 1964 Leon P. Gellada, a practicing lawyer, filed an action for damages against Joe Hodges in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo City, wherein plaintiff claimed damages against defendant for some alleged defamatory statements of defendant against plaintiff and his associates thus entitling him to moral damages of P400,000.00, damage to his law practice of P30,000.00, attorney’s fees of P30,000.00, and exemplary damages as well as temperate damages. A special appearance questioning the jurisdiction of the court on the subject matter and the mode of extrajudicial service of summons dated June 24, 1964 was filed by defendant. The defendant pointed out that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case unless the corresponding docket fee is paid. The defendant maintained that considering the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff, the docket fee to be paid should be no less than P770.00 which is way beyond the P32.00 docket fee paid by plaintiff.

An answer, amended answer and a reply thereto were filed. The amended answer was admitted.

On March 31, 1964, Romeo H. Mediodia, also a practicing lawyer, filed in the same court a similar action for damages against Joe Hodges for alleged defamatory statements of defendant against plaintiff, wherein plaintiff claimed for moral damages of not less than P300,000.00, damage to his law practice of not less than P20,000.00, attorney’s fee of P40,000.00 and exemplary damages as well as temperate damages. A special appearance questioning the jurisdiction over the subject matter and the mode of extrajudicial service of summons dated June 25, 1964 was also filed by defendant pointing that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case when plaintiff claimed damages of P360,000.00 and he paid a docket fee of only P32.00 when it should not be less than P570.00. After an answer, amended answer, and a reply thereto were filed, the amended answer was admitted by the trial court.

On April 8, 1964, another complaint for damages was filed by Fernando P. Mirasol, another practicing lawyer, against Joe Hodges, for alleged defamatory statements of defendant against plaintiff, wherein plaintiff claimed moral damages of not less than P350,000.00, damage to his law practice of not less than P25,000.00, attorney’s fees of P35,000.00, and exemplary damages as well as temperate damages. A similar special appearance for the defendant questioning the jurisdiction on the subject matter of the court and the mode of extrajudicial service of summons dated June 25, 1964 and pointing out that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case as the plaintiff claimed damages of P410,000.00 but he paid a docket fee of only P32.00 when it should not be less than P670.00. After an answer, an amended answer and a reply thereto was filed, the amended answer were admitted by the trial court.

On August 31, 1972, these three cases were ordered consolidated by trial court. On the same date another order was issued directing the plaintiffs to pay the docket fee commensurate to their respective demands. This was reiterated in another order dated March 11, 1982.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On March 16, 1982 plaintiff Gellada paid the amount of P168.00 bringing his total payment of docket fees to P200.00. On September 5, 1972 plaintiff Mediodia paid P168.00 so he had paid a total of P200.00 for docket fees. Plaintiff Mirasol failed to comply with the said orders.

Plaintiff Gellada died on February 4, 1974 so an order was issued for the substitution of his heirs. Plaintiff Mirasol also died on March 29, 1979, so another order was issued by the trial court for the substitution of his heirs.

After trial on the merits, a judgment was rendered by the trial court on February 18, 1988, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant Joe Hodges —

In Civil Case No. 6512, to pay the heirs of plaintiff Leon Gellada, the sums of P50,000.00 and P10,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively; P20,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as expenses of litigation, plus costs;

In Civil Case No. 6513, to pay the plaintiff Romeo Mediodia the sums of P50,000.00 and P10,000 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively; P20,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as expenses of litigation, plus costs; and

In Civil Case No. 6516, to pay the heirs of plaintiff Fernando Mirasol, with the exception of Ferdinand Mirasol, the sums of P50,000.00 and P10,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively; P20,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as expenses of litigation, plus costs." 2

Not satisfied therewith, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, wherein in due course a decision was rendered on October 28, 1988 affirming the decision appealed from, with costs against petitioner. 3

A motion for reconsideration of the said decision having been denied in are solution of March 8, 1989 the instant petition was then filed in this Court, wherein nine (9) errors are alleged to have been committed by the appellate court. The Court finds it necessary to dispose of the first assigned error on the question of non-payment of docket fees.

As early as Lazaro v. Endencia, 4 this Court held that an appeal is not deemed perfected if the appellate court docket fee is not fully paid. In Lee v. Republic, 5 this Court ruled that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing fee is paid. In Malimit v. Degamo, 6 We held that the date of payment of the docket fee must be considered the real date of filing of a petition for quo warranto and not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi v. Ramolete, 7 the well-settled rule was reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filling in court. 8

At the time, therefore, that the three (3) cases subject of the herein petition were filed, the rule was already clear that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over a case until after the prescribed docket is paid.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In Manchester, this rule was emphasized when this Court stated "The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amount sought in the amended pleading." 9

The rule in Manchester was relaxed in Sun Insurance v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 10 whereby this Court declared that the trial court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Nevertheless, in Sun Insurance, this Court reiterated the rule that it is the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial Court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case. 11

In the present petition, it appears that in the case of Gellada v. Hodges the total amount of the claim for damages is about P460,000.00, the estimated docket fee due is P770.00 but what was paid only was P32.00. Despite the order of the trial court on August 31, 1972 and another order ten years later, that is on March 11, 1982, requiring plaintiff to pay the correct docket fee, Gellada paid the amount of P168.00 only. Thus his total payment amounts to just P200.00, which is still much less than the amount of P770.00 due.

Similarly, in Mediodia v. Hodges where the claim is approximately P360,000.00 and the appropriate filing fee would be about P570.00, the plaintiff paid only P32.00 upon filing the complaint. After the two aforesaid orders of the trial Court were issued, Mediodia paid on September 5, 1982 the amount of P168.00 bringing his payment to a total of P200.00 which is also much less than the amount of P570.00 due for docket fee.

In the case of Mirasol v. Hodges, the total claim is for P410,000.00 and the amount of filing fee due is P670.00. Mirasol paid only P32.00 upon filing the complaint. He did not pay any additional sum even after the two orders of the court had been issued.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

No doubt, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter in said three (3) cases due to the failure to pay in full the prescribed docket fee. Thus, the entire proceedings undertaken in said cases are null and void. The plaintiffs in said cases are practicing lawyers who are expected to know this mandatory requirement in the filing of any complaint or similar pleading. Their non-payment of the prescribed docket fee was deliberate and inexcusable.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 28, 1988 and its resolution dated February 8, 1989 are hereby reversed and set aside and another judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints in said three (3) cases. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 149 SCRA 562 (1987).

2. Pages 85-86, Rollo.

3. Justice Cecilio L. Pe was the ponente, concurred in by Justice Lorna S. Lombos-De la Fuente and Antonio M. Martinez.

4. 57 Phil. 552 (1932).

5. 10 SCRA 65 (1964).

6. 12 SCRA 450 (1964).

7. 115 SCRA 193, 204 (1982).

8. Citing Malimit and Lee, Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. G.R No. 79937-38, Feb. 13, 1989.

11. Ibid.




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






April-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALDEGUER

  • G.R. No. 49856 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAYBAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59154 April 3, 1990 - MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61965 April 3, 1990 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63225 April 3, 1990 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN v. VALERIANO P. TOMOL

  • G.R. No. 75619 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

  • G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81493 April 3, 1990 - SUPERSTAR SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82112 April 3, 1990 - ROSA SABADLAN VALENCIA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86164 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR SIMENE

  • G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEILITO ORITA

  • G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990 - CAPRICORN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69386 April 4, 1990 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46208 April 5, 1990 - FIDELITY SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63735 April 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MALINAO

  • G.R. No. L-64735 April 5, 1990 - ATLAS DEVELOPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SARMIENTO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72194 April 5, 1990 - HEIRS OF CLARO L. LAURETA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75640 April 5, 1990 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990 - IN RE: ROSITA LABRADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84324 April 5, 1990 - SANTIAGO AQUINO, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. LUNTOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42281 April 6, 1990 - GODOFREDA B. SUMALINOG v. CORAZON Q. DORONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46364 April 6, 1990 - SULPICIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47422 April 6, 1990 - ILDEFONSA CERDON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57025 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO C. ARSENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL B. TANGLIBEN

  • G.R. No. 76028 April 6, 1990 - SPS. JOSE R. LANSANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76213 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990 - VICTORIANO ZAMORAS v. ROQUE SU, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86728 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VARGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 87203 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN

  • G.R. No. 87245 April 6, 1990 - UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88400 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51973 April 16, 1990 - ELY CHAN SA VELASCO v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35205 April 17, 1990 - NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR v. JOSE JUEZAN

  • G.R. No. L-47916 April 17, 1990 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60323 April 17, 1990 - MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69816 April 17, 1990 - POLICARPIO Y. FAUSTO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70393 April 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LATI

  • G.R. No. 71889 April 17, 1990 - SOCORRO VDA. DE MONDRAGON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74203 April 17, 1990 - JOSE T. TAYOTO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75773 April 17, 1990 - TOMAS JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76838 April 17, 1990 - LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO v. PURIFICACION VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88537 April 17, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990 - OSCAR PALMA PAGASIAN v. CESAR P. AZURA

  • G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990 - SALEM ALEX T. PALO v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE

  • G.R. No. 77755 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO P. CONSUELO

  • G.R. No. 82375 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83260 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88550 April 18, 1990 - INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85742 April 19, 1990 - JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70835 April 20, 1990 - ROGELIO P. CELI, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78750 April 20, 1990 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 86220 April 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO P. CIOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 - HERMAN ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89604 April 20, 1990 - ROQUE FLORES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89879 April 20, 1990 - JAIME PABALAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57308 April 23, 1990 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44905 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL MONEGRO TORRE

  • G.R. No. 68152 April 25, 1990 - CEFERINO ZAIDE, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI

  • G.R. No. 88092 April 25, 1990 - CITADEL LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88538 April 25, 1990 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89431 April 25, 1990 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43277 April 26, 1990 - STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49298 April 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 - GENARO NAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70008 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 79311 April 26, 1990 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 - EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LEONOR SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81564 April 26, 1990 - ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS OF PASAY, ET AL. v. RTC, BRANCH 57, IN MKT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82362 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO C. CLORES

  • G.R. No. 84313 April 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF DECEASED COSME RABE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85822 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO ALBURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 April 26, 1990 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87958 April 26, 1990 - NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL. v. STOLT-NIELSEN PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46845 April 27, 1990 - PEDRO T. SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47281 April 27, 1990 - JUAN SALA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL (Branch V), ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49241-42 April 27, 1990 - RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68997 April 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO C. LIBAG

  • G.R. No. 73010 April 27, 1990 - REVA RAZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88586 April 27, 1990 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.