Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > May 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 45815 May 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERTAD LAGON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 45815. May 18, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LIBERTAD LAGON AND HON. JUDGE ISIDRO O. BARRIOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF ROXAS CITY, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF COURT IN CRIMINAL LAW MATTERS; MEASURED BY THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION. — At the time of the institution of the criminal prosecution on 7 July 1976, the penalty imposable for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 had been increased by P.D. No. 818 (effective 22 October 1975) to prision mayor in its medium period. It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged. 1 Thus, in accordance with the above rule, jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 to a level in excess of the maximum penalty which a city court could impose.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE NOT A DISREGARD OF THE RULE AGAINST RETROACTIVITY OF PENAL LAWS; RATIONALE. — The real question raised by the petitioner is: would application of the above-settled doctrine to the instant case not result in also applying Presidential Decree No. 818 to the present case, in disregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws? Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code permits penal laws to have retroactive effect only "insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, . . . ." We do not believe so. In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information. In People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 341 (1976), the Court stressed that: ". . . The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court’s legal competence to try a case ab origine. In criminal prosecutions, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for by law are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is presented has jurisdiction, that court must assume jurisdiction." (Citations omitted; Emphasis supplied.) The same rule was set forth and amplified in People v. Buissan (105 SCRA 547 [1981]) in the following terms: ". . . [i]n criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial (People v. Cuello, 1 SCRA 814) or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented during the trial (People v. Co Hiok, 62 Phil. 503) but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes, together with other legal obligations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or information (People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 347) constitutive of the offense charged, for once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged in the information (People v. Mision, 48 O.G. 1330)" (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, it may be that after trial, a penalty lesser than the maximum imposable under the statute is proper under the specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial. In such a case, that lesser penalty may be imposed by the trial court (provided it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the rule above referred to) even if the reduced penalty otherwise falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — In the case at bar, the increased penalty provided for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 by P.D. No. 818 (prision mayor in its medium period) is obviously heavier than the penalty provided for the same offense originally imposed by paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (up to prision correccional in its minimum period). Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper court, that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may not impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent Libertad Lagon (assuming the evidence shows that the offense was committed before 22 October 1975). But the Regional Trial Court would remain vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the (refiled) case even though the penalty properly imposable, given the date of the commission of the offense charged, should be the lower penalty originally provided for in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City. In other words, the circumstance that P.D. No. 818 would be inapplicable to the refiled case would not result in the Regional Trial Court losing subject-matter jurisdiction, nor in the case falling back into the City Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.


R E S O L U T I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


On 7 July 1976, a criminal information was filed with the City Court of Roxas City and docketed as Criminal Case No. 7362, charging private respondent Libertad Lagon with the crime of estafa under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The information charged that the accused had allegedly issued a check in the amount of P4,232.80 as payment for goods or merchandise purchased, knowing that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check, which check therefore subsequently bounced.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The case proceeded to trial and the prosecution commenced the presentation of its evidence. However, in an Order dated 2 December 1976, the City Court dismissed the information upon the ground that the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged was beyond the court’s authority to impose. The judge held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. At the time of the alleged commission of the crime in April 1975, jurisdiction over the offense was vested by law in the City Court. However, by the time the criminal information was filed, paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code had already been amended and the penalty imposable upon a person accused thereunder increased, which penalty was beyond the City Court’s authority to impose. Accordingly, the court dismissed the information without prejudice to its being refiled in the proper court.

Hence this Petition for Review brought by the People, arguing that the City Court of Roxas City had jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 7362 and that it had erred in issuing its Order dismissing the case. Because the Petition for Review was signed by the City Fiscal and Assistant City Fiscal of Roxas City as counsel for the People, the Court referred the petition to the Office of the Solicitor General for comment. Responding to the Court’s resolution, the then acting Solicitor General Vicente Mendoza stated that the Office of the Solicitor General, having been previously consulted by the Assistant City Fiscal of Roxas City, agreed with the position taken by the latter that the City Court had jurisdiction over the criminal case involved, and asked that the petition be given due course.

After deliberation on the instant Petition for Review, the Court considers that petitioner has failed to show that the City Court had committed reversible error in dismissing the criminal information in Criminal Case No. 7362 without prejudice to its refiling in the proper court.

Under the penultimate paragraph of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, the law governing the subject matter jurisdiction of municipal and city courts in criminal cases in 1975 and 1976," [m]unicipal judges in the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not exceeding P6,000.00 or both . . . ." It appears that at the time of the commission of the offense charged on 5 April 1975, the penalty imposable for the offense charged under paragraph 2(d) in relation to the third sub-paragraph of the first paragraph, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, was arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period; at that time therefore, the offense clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City.

At the time of the institution of the criminal prosecution on 7 July 1976, the penalty imposable for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 had been increased by P.D. No. 818 (effective 22 October 1975) to prision mayor in its medium period.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged. 1 Thus, in accordance with the above rule, jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 to a level in excess of the maximum penalty which a city court could impose.

The real question raised by the petitioner is: would application of the above-settled doctrine to the instant case not result in also applying Presidential Decree No. 818 to the present case, in disregard of the rule against retroactivity of penal laws? Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code permits penal laws to have retroactive effect only "insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, . . . ." We do not believe so.

In the first place, subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information. In People v. Purisima, 2 the Court stressed that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


. . . The issue here is one of jurisdiction, of a court’s legal competence to try a case ab origine. In criminal prosecutions, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged in the complaint. If the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for by law are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is presented has jurisdiction, that court must assume jurisdiction. 3 (Citations omitted; Emphasis supplied.)

The same rule was set forth and amplified in People v. Buissan, 4 in the following terms:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


. . . [i]n criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial (People v. Cuello, 1 SCRA 814) or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented during the trial (People v. Co Hiok, 62 Phil. 503) but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes, together with other legal obligations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or information (People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 347) constitutive of the offense charged, for once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged in the information (People v. Mision, 48 O.G. 1330)" 5 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, it may be that after trial, a penalty lesser than the maximum imposable under the statute is proper under the specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial. In such a case, that lesser penalty may be imposed by the trial court (provided it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the rule above referred to) even if the reduced penalty otherwise falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court.

In People v. Buissan, 6 the Court also said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


. . . It is unquestionable that the Court of First Instance, taking cognizance of a criminal case coming under its jurisdiction, may, after trial, impose a penalty that is proper for a crime within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city court as the evidence would warrant. It may not be said, therefore, that the Court of First Instance would be acting without jurisdiction if in a simple seduction case, it would impose penalty of not more than six months of imprisonment, if said case, for the reason already adverted to, be held to fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, not a city or municipal court." 7 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar, the increased penalty provided for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 7362 by P.D. No. 818 (prision mayor in its medium period) is obviously heavier than the penalty provided for the same offense originally imposed by paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (up to prision correccional in its minimum period).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper court, that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may not impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent Libertad Lagon (assuming the evidence shows that the offense was committed before 22 October 1975). But the Regional Trial Court would remain vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the (refiled) case even though the penalty properly imposable, given the date of the commission of the offense charged, should be the lower penalty originally provided for in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City. In other words, the circumstance that P.D. No. 818 would be inapplicable to the refiled case would not result in the Regional Trial Court losing subject-matter jurisdiction, nor in the case falling back into the City Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Order dated 2 December 1976 of the public respondent Presiding Judge of the City Court of Roxas City is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715 [1933]; People v. Romualdo, 90 Phil. 739 [1952]; People v. Pecson, 92 Phil. 172 [1952]; Lee v. Presiding Judge, 145 SCRA 408 [1986]; Dela Cruz v. Moya, 160 SCRA 838 [1988].

2. 69 SCRA 341 (1976).

3. 69 SCRA at 347.

4. 105 SCRA 547 (1981).

5. 105 SCRA at 552-553.

6. Supra.

7. 105 SCRA at 551-552.




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






May-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 39456 May 7, 1990 - ELIAS V. PACETE v. ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68053 May 7, 1990 - LAURA ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74969 May 7, 1990 - TELESFORO MAGANTE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74998 May 7, 1990 - FRANCISCO VERGARA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75315 May 7, 1990 - BELL CARPETS INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80502 May 7, 1990 - ENRIQUE RAZON, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81144 May 7, 1990 - MEYCAUAYAN COLLEGE v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81405-06 May 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO CARMINA

  • G.R. No. 83614 May 7, 1990 - AHMAD E. ALONTO, JR., ET AL. v. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84664 May 7, 1990 - SERGIO MEDADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86117 May 7, 1990 - DIMANGADAP DIPATUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44594 May 8, 1990 - ANGEL A. PELAEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54191 May 8, 1990 - ISAAC MAGISTRADO, ET AL. v. DOROTEA ESPLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54470 May 8, 1990 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69592 May 8, 1990 - FRANCISCO P. TESORERO, ET AL. v. PONCIANO G.A. MATHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70717 May 8, 1990 - SIMEON PAREDES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73249-50 May 8, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CABALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73471 May 8, 1990 - RUFINA ORATA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83325 May 8, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE S. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 84695 May 8, 1990 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91086 May 8, 1990 - VIRGILIO S. CARIÑO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791 May 9, 1990 - KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77631 May 9, 1990 - POLYSTERENE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85790 May 9, 1990 - SPS. MANUEL CAPULONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87088-89 May 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO YAP, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case Nos. 2033 & 2148 May 9, 1990 - E. CONRAD GEESLIN, ET AL. v. FELIPE C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 31305 May 10, 1990 - HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 55525 May 10, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59534 May 10, 1990 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90204 May 11, 1990 - MANUEL BELARMINO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 37679 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MALBAGO

  • G.R. Nos. 44555-56 May 14, 1990 - EDILBERTO MUNSAYAC, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47421 May 14, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49825 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 69983 May 14, 1990 - PRIMITIVO MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70263 May 14, 1990 - FRANCISCA SALOMON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79451 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81249-51 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO LAREDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85296 May 14, 1990 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86816 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO SAGUN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90229 May 14, 1990 - VIVENCIO B. PATAGOC v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80885 May 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABAYA

  • G.R. Nos. 85140 & 86470 May 17, 1990 - TOMAS EUGENIO, SR. v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30716 May 18, 1990 - AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, ET AL. v. ERIBERTO A. UNSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45815 May 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERTAD LAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 45985 & 46036 May 18, 1990 - CHINA AIR LINES, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55793 May 18, 1990 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 57190-91 & 58532 May 18, 1990 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH VI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81401 May 18, 1990 - VIRGINIA FRANCO VDA. DE ARCEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84702 May 18, 1990 - DIOSDADO TINGSON, JR., ET AL v. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 88373, 82380 & 82398 May 18, 1990 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. IGNACIO CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990 - ARIEL NON, ET AL. v. SANCHO DAMES II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66160 May 21, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNION SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69317 May 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO O. BADILLA

  • G.R. No. 71176 May 21, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76386 May 21, 1990 - HEIRS OF CELSO AMARANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77459 May 21, 1990 - ELIGIO GUNDAYAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77822-23 May 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO NABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79328 May 21, 1990 - ELENA J. TOMAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81547 May 21, 1990 - VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87647 May 21, 1990 - TOMAS T. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88943 May 21, 1990 - ROGELIO INCIONG, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 31469 May 22, 1990 - DIOGENES O. RUBIO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83988 May 24, 1990 - RICARDO C. VALMONTE, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87018 May 24, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MABUBAY

  • G.R. No. 34232 May 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO JAPITANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76564 May 25, 1990 - SOUTH CITY HOMES, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57667 May 28, 1990 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75656 May 28, 1990 - YUCO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76884 May 28, 1990 - PEDRO M. ESTELLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78860 May 28, 1990 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81552 May 28, 1990 - DIONISIO FIESTAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71994 May 31, 1990 - EDNA PADILLA MANGULABNAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86355 May 31, 1990 - JOSE MODEQUILLO v. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39456 May 7, 1990 - ELIAS V. PACETE v. ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68053 May 7, 1990 - LAURA ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74969 May 7, 1990 - TELESFORO MAGANTE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74998 May 7, 1990 - FRANCISCO VERGARA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75315 May 7, 1990 - BELL CARPETS INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80502 May 7, 1990 - ENRIQUE RAZON, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81144 May 7, 1990 - MEYCAUAYAN COLLEGE v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81405-06 May 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO CARMINA

  • G.R. No. 83614 May 7, 1990 - AHMAD E. ALONTO, JR., ET AL. v. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84664 May 7, 1990 - SERGIO MEDADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86117 May 7, 1990 - DIMANGADAP DIPATUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44594 May 8, 1990 - ANGEL A. PELAEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54191 May 8, 1990 - ISAAC MAGISTRADO, ET AL. v. DOROTEA ESPLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54470 May 8, 1990 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69592 May 8, 1990 - FRANCISCO P. TESORERO, ET AL. v. PONCIANO G.A. MATHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70717 May 8, 1990 - SIMEON PAREDES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73249-50 May 8, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CABALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73471 May 8, 1990 - RUFINA ORATA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83325 May 8, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE S. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 84695 May 8, 1990 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91086 May 8, 1990 - VIRGILIO S. CARIÑO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791 May 9, 1990 - KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77631 May 9, 1990 - POLYSTERENE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85790 May 9, 1990 - SPS. MANUEL CAPULONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87088-89 May 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO YAP, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case Nos. 2033 & 2148 May 9, 1990 - E. CONRAD GEESLIN, ET AL. v. FELIPE C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 31305 May 10, 1990 - HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 55525 May 10, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59534 May 10, 1990 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90204 May 11, 1990 - MANUEL BELARMINO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 37679 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MALBAGO

  • G.R. Nos. 44555-56 May 14, 1990 - EDILBERTO MUNSAYAC, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47421 May 14, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49825 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 69983 May 14, 1990 - PRIMITIVO MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70263 May 14, 1990 - FRANCISCA SALOMON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79451 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81249-51 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO LAREDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85296 May 14, 1990 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86816 May 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO SAGUN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90229 May 14, 1990 - VIVENCIO B. PATAGOC v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80885 May 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABAYA

  • G.R. Nos. 85140 & 86470 May 17, 1990 - TOMAS EUGENIO, SR. v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30716 May 18, 1990 - AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, ET AL. v. ERIBERTO A. UNSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45815 May 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERTAD LAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 45985 & 46036 May 18, 1990 - CHINA AIR LINES, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55793 May 18, 1990 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 57190-91 & 58532 May 18, 1990 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH VI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81401 May 18, 1990 - VIRGINIA FRANCO VDA. DE ARCEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84702 May 18, 1990 - DIOSDADO TINGSON, JR., ET AL v. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 88373, 82380 & 82398 May 18, 1990 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. IGNACIO CAPULONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990 - ARIEL NON, ET AL. v. SANCHO DAMES II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66160 May 21, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNION SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69317 May 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO O. BADILLA

  • G.R. No. 71176 May 21, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76386 May 21, 1990 - HEIRS OF CELSO AMARANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77459 May 21, 1990 - ELIGIO GUNDAYAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77822-23 May 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO NABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79328 May 21, 1990 - ELENA J. TOMAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81547 May 21, 1990 - VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87647 May 21, 1990 - TOMAS T. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88943 May 21, 1990 - ROGELIO INCIONG, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 31469 May 22, 1990 - DIOGENES O. RUBIO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83988 May 24, 1990 - RICARDO C. VALMONTE, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87018 May 24, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MABUBAY

  • G.R. No. 34232 May 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO JAPITANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76564 May 25, 1990 - SOUTH CITY HOMES, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57667 May 28, 1990 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75656 May 28, 1990 - YUCO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76884 May 28, 1990 - PEDRO M. ESTELLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78860 May 28, 1990 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81552 May 28, 1990 - DIONISIO FIESTAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71994 May 31, 1990 - EDNA PADILLA MANGULABNAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86355 May 31, 1990 - JOSE MODEQUILLO v. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, ET AL.