Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > April 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 82985 April 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 82985. April 22, 1991.]

MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ and EDGARDO M. SALANDANAN, Respondents.

Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson & Bengson for Petitioner.

E.M. Salandanan, Linato and Associates for Respondents. Nicanor T. Santos, Bernadette G. Santos and Associates for Intervenor.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION; ISSUANCE THEREOF PENDENTE LITE, PROPER ONLY IN EXTREME URGENCY. — A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper remedy to take property, possession of which is being disputed, out of the possession and control of one party and to deliver the same to the other party. It may issue pendente lite only is case of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession pendente lite; where there was wilful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s rights, over his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary mandatory injunction is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing and continuing relationship between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, rather than to establish a new relationship during the pendency of the principal case. Obviously, it is for the party requesting the writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the above grounds.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PROPER IN CASE AT BAR. — Under the terms and conditions of the amended contract of lease, private respondent Salandanan is entitled to possess and manage the waterworks system for a period of ten (10) years beginning 20 March 1981, unless, of course, the contract is judicially rescinded. Petitioner’s action for the rescission of the amended lease contract was pending before the trial court at the time petitioner had recourse to the Supreme Court, and that action, so far as the records before us show, remains pending to this date. Petitioner has failed to show the existence of some extraordinary situation imposing upon it irreparable injury and clearly calling for the issuance and maintenance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioner alleged that sometime in 1984, the power supply of the water pumps had been cut off by Meralco for failure of private respondent Salandanan to pay his electric bills, resulting in a severe water shortage within the Subdivision. There was, however, no showing that this condition remained subsisting three (3) years later, at the time respondent Judge’s orders here assailed were rendered (August 1987 and March 1988) and at the time the Petition for Certiorari was filed (May 1988) before the Supreme Court. There was, in other words, no showing that the severe water shortage had not been remedied at or before the said material times and that a clear and present danger of the same or similar default on Salandanan’s part, threatening the same severe consequences for the subdivision residents, persisted. On the contrary, it appears from the record that the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System ("MWSS") had commenced servicing the Subdivision before issuance of the respondent Judge’s orders here sought to be annulled, which circumstance surely reduced the probabilities of recurrence of such breakdown of water supply. Succinctly put, petitioner has not shown that the continued possession of the leased waterworks system by respondent Salandanan created a continuing, clear and imminent danger that the Subdivision would suffer from lack of adequate supply of potable water.

3. ID.; SUPREME COURT; MAY REQUIRE THE POSTING OF ADDITIONAL CASH DEPOSIT OR A SURETY BOND TO ENSURE THAT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES ARE COMPLIED WITH. — It appears to the Court that the relations between the petitioner MPHAI and private respondent Salandanan have been strained and frayed by the controversies and litigation between them. In order to protect the Subdivision residents from the hardships that would ensue from any recurrence of the problems encountered in 1984 after delivery of the possession of the waterworks system to private respondent Salandanan, private respondent should be required to post either a cash deposit or a surety bond from a company of indubitable solvency, in the amount of P100,000.00, conditioned upon the continued and adequate supply of potable water to Subdivision residents by private respondent and faithful compliance with his other obligations under existing agreements with petitioner. This deposit or bond shall be in addition to any performance bond required from private respondent under existing contractual arrangements. Moreover, it goes without saying that the trial court has full authority to issue such further order or orders as may become necessary to protect adequately the Subdivision residents from disruption of water service within the Subdivision, attributable to the failure of either petitioner MPHAI or private respondent Salandanan to comply with any of their respective contractual obligations during the pendency of the action for rescission of contract.


R E S O L U T I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


Petitioner Merville Park Homeowners Association, Inc. ("MPHAI"), a non-stock, non-profit corporation, became the owner of the pipelines and waterworks system ("waterworks system") of Merville Park Subdivision in Parañaque, Metro Manila, by virtue of a deed of donation dated 24 February 1977 executed in its favor by Merville Development Corporation.

On 19 December 1978, MPHAI, through its then President Ernesto N. Gonzales, entered into a contract of lease with private respondent Edgardo Salandanan covering its waterworks system to insure efficient water service within the Merville Park Subdivision ("Subdivision"). That lease contract required respondent Salandanan to construct additional wells, to put into full operational condition Wells Nos. 4 and 5 as well as to rehabilitate Wells Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The contract also allowed respondent Salandanan to increase annually the water rates but only to the extent of ten percent (10%) of the preceding year’s rates. The water rates set out in the contract could be charged only upon completion of Well No. 5. The lease contract was later on amended to provide for, inter alia, a period of ten (10) years commencing from its signing on 20 July 1981. In that amended contract, the parties agreed to increase the water rates which increase was in turn approved by the National Water Resources Council. It was also there provided that each homeowner shall pay a deposit in the amount of P300.00 which was to be used to pay for respondent Salandanan’s overdue electric bill with Meralco, and thereafter, to be credited against the homeowner’s future water bills.

Subsequently, respondent Salandanan again asked for an increase in water rates. MPHAI was at first adamant to the point of filing a case in court against respondent Salandanan. But sometime in 1982, MPHAI and respondent Salandanan arrived at a compromise. In that compromise agreement, MPHAI consented to an increase in the water rates as urged by respondent Salandanan but conditioned upon his completion of Well No. 2 (New Madrid Well). The compromise agreement was later amended and provided for a new water rate schedule effective 1 July 1984, but similarly conditioned upon Salandanan’s completion of Well No. 2

On 16 July 1985, MPHAI commenced an action, Civil Case No. 11124, before Branch 136 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, presided over by Judge Ricardo Francisco, against respondent Salandanan. In this suit, MPHAI sought to rescind the amended lease contract and the amended compromise agreement, and prayed for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. MPHAI alleged in its complaint that sometime in 1984 for failure of respondent Salandanan to pay his electric bills amounting to P1,035,000.00, Meralco had cut off the electric power supply of his rented water pumps resulting in a severe water shortage within the Subdivision and thereby endangering the lives and health of the residents thereof; that aside from respondent Salandanan’s failure to pay his electric bills, he had violated his contract with petitioner by neglecting to drill and complete new wells and undertake immediate repairs of broken water pumps; that there was an immediate need to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in its favor to enable it to take possession and control of the water works system.

Judge Francisco, in an order dated 23 July 1985, granted MPHAI’s prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and directed respondent Salandanan to turn over to MPHAI the operation and control of the waterworks system. This prompted respondent Salandanan to file an urgent motion for reconsideration stating, among other things, that the regular courts had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the same being under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council; and that the case was filed prematurely considering that MPHAI had not as yet exhausted the available administrative remedies.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

After private respondent had filed an answer with counterclaim and third-party complaint, the case was re-raffled to Branch 180 presided over by Judge Benigno M. Puno, who in an order dated 12 August 1985, lifted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The case, however, was once more re-raffled and this time it went to Branch 149 with Judge Manuel Yuzon presiding. Judge Yuzon, upon MPHAI’s motion for reconsideration and upon its filing of a surety bond in the amount of P26,000.00, issued an order dated 11 August 1986 reinstating the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Respondent Salandanan, however, in turn moved for reconsideration on the ground that such a writ was not a proper remedy to deliver property in the possession of one party to another. But, before Salandanan’s motion could be resolved, the case was, for the third time, re-raffled and transferred this time to the sala of respondent Judge Francisco X. Velez. Judge Velez, on 6 August 1987, issued an order lifting and setting aside the writ, and on 30 March 1988, an order directing the Deputy Sheriff to return and restore to respondent Salandanan the possession of the waterworks system.

And so the present Petition for Certiorari was filed.

The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 6 May 1988 enjoining respondent Judge Velez from enforcing his two (2) orders, ordering petitioner MPHAI to file a bond in the amount of P50,000.00, and requiring private respondent Salandanan to file a Comment on the Petition. After additional pleadings and counter-pleadings, the Court granted due course to the Petition and required the parties to file simultaneous Memoranda. The parties complied; private respondent Salandanan also submitted a Supplemental Memorandum.

Deliberating on the instant Petition for Certiorari and after careful examination of the record of this case, the Court considers that petitioner has failed to show any grave abuse of discretion, or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction, on the part of respondent Judge in issuing the orders dated 6 August 1987 and 30 March 1988, lifting and setting aside the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction earlier issued in Civil Case No. 11124, and ordering private respondent restored to the possession of the waterworks system involved.

A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper remedy to take property, possession of which is being disputed, out of the possession and control of one party and to deliver the same to the other party. It may issue pendente lite only in cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession pendente lite; where there was willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s rights, over his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary mandatory injunction is to re-establish and maintain a preexisting and continuing relationship between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, rather than to establish a new relationship during the pendency of the principal case. 1 Obviously, it is for the party requesting the writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the above grounds.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Under the terms and conditions of the amended contract of lease, private respondent Salandanan is entitled to possess and manage the waterworks system for a period of ten (10) years beginning 20 March 1981, unless, of course, the contract is judicially rescinded. Petitioner’s action for the rescission of the amended lease contract was pending before the trial court at the time petitioner had recourse to the Supreme Court, and that action, so far as the records before us show, remains pending to this date. Petitioner has failed to show the existence of some extraordinary situation imposing upon it irreparable injury and clearly calling for the issuance and maintenance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioner alleged that sometime in 1984, the power supply of the water pumps had been cut off by Meralco for failure of private respondent Salandanan to pay his electric bills, resulting in a severe water shortage within the Subdivision. There was, however, no showing that this condition remained subsisting three (3) years later, at the time respondent Judge’s orders here assailed were rendered (August 1987 and March 1988) and at the time the Petition for Certiorari was filed (May 1988) before the Supreme Court. There was, in other words, no showing that the severe water shortage had not been remedied at or before the said material times and that a clear and present danger of the same or similar default on Salandanan’s part, threatening the same severe consequences for the subdivision residents, persisted. On the contrary, it appears from the record that the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System ("MWSS") had commenced servicing the Subdivision before issuance of the respondent Judge’s orders here sought to be annulled, which circumstance surely reduced the probabilities of recurrence of such breakdown of water supply. Succinctly put, petitioner has not shown that the continued possession of the leased waterworks system by respondent Salandanan created a continuing, clear and imminent danger that the Subdivision would suffer from lack of adequate supply of potable water.

Accordingly, the Court believes that respondent Judge was not merely acting arbitrarily and capriciously in holding that private respondent Salandanan was entitled to be maintained in the possession of the leased waterworks system pending resolution of the on-going action for rescission of the amended contract of lease and amended compromise agreement. At the same time, it appears to the Court that the relations between the petitioner MPHAI and private respondent Salandanan have been strained and frayed by the controversies and litigation between them. In order to protect the Subdivision residents from the hardships that would ensue from any recurrence of the problems encountered in 1984 after delivery of the possession of the waterworks system to private respondent Salandanan, private respondent should be required to post either a cash deposit or a surety bond from a surety company of indubitable solvency, in the amount of P100,000.00, conditioned upon the continued and adequate supply of potable water to Subdivision residents by private respondent and faithful compliance with his other obligations under existing agreements with petitioner. This deposit or bond shall be in addition to any performance bond required from private respondent under existing contractual arrangements. Moreover, it goes without saying that the trial court has full authority to issue such further order or orders may become necessary to protect adequately the Subdivision residents from disruption of water service within the Subdivision, attributable to the failure of either petitioner MPHAI or private respondent Salandanan to comply with any of their respective contractual obligations during the pendency of the action for rescission of contract.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Private respondent Salandanan is hereby REQUIRED to put up either a cash deposit or a surety bond issued by a surety company of indubitable solvency acceptable to this Court in the amount of P100,000.00, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice hereof, to indemnify the members of petitioner MPHAI for any damages or inconvenience they may suffer by reason of failure of private respondent Salandanan to provide a continuous and adequate supply of potable water and otherwise to comply faithfully with all of his obligations under the amended contract of lease and amended compromise agreement. No pronouncement as to costs. This Resolution is immediately executory.

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

Endnotes:



1. Acting Registrars of Lands and Deeds v. Regional Trial Court, Et Al., 184 SCRA 622 (1990); Philippine National Bank v. Adil, 118 SCRA 110 (1982); Mara, Inc. v. Estrella, 65 SCRA 471 (1975); Pio v. Marcos, 56 SCRA 726 (1970); Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, 19 SCRA 234 (1967); Iman Sahin v. Montejo, 8 SCRA 333 (1963); and Coronado v. Court of First Instance, 96 Phil. 729 (1955).




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-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 74854 April 2, 1991 - JESUS DACOYCOY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75504 April 2, 1991 - VICENTE CU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79981 April 2, 1991 - ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-238 April 8, 1991 - GENEROSO V. MIRASOL v. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-89-348 April 8, 1991 - ESTELITA PADRONES v. MELCHOR DIVINAGRACIA

  • G.R. No. 49470 April 8, 1991 - DARIO N. LOZANO v. IGNACIO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. 52179 April 8, 1991 - MUN. OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. 55109 April 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO M. AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 73647 April 8, 1991 - JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83959 April 8, 1991 - RUPERTO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991 - CECILIO S. DE VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89745 April 8, 1991 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991 - RUBEN SAW v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90596 April 8, 1991 - SOLID MANILA CORPORATION v. BIO HONG TRADING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2709-RTC April 16, 1991 - MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v. RODOLFO P. TORRELLA

  • G.R. No. 85718 April 16, 1991 - FEDERICO CARANDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87119 April 16, 1991 - GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88589 April 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO D. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. 91259 April 16, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • G.R. No. 91925 April 16, 1991 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. ANTONIO J. ROXAS

  • A.M. No. P-89-327 April 19, 1991 - THELMA GARCIA v. ROMEO EULLARAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-570 April 19, 1991 - ANTONIO SOYANGCO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • A.C. No. 2152 April 19, 1991 - TEODORO I. CHAVEZ v. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA

  • A.C. No. 2697 April 19, 1991 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. CIPRIANO A. TAN

  • A.C. No. 2731 April 19, 1991 - GLORIA DELA ROSA OBIA v. BASILIO M. CATIMBANG

  • G.R. No. 73610 April 19, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78162 April 19, 1991 - J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • G.R. Nos. 85939 & 86968 April 19, 1991 - NEW PANGASINAN REVIEW, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92299 April 19, 1991 - REYNALDO R. SAN JUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95861 April 19, 1991 - FRANCISCO L. ABALOS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 31408 April 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42725 April 22, 1991 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45125 April 22, 1991 - LORETA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50501 April 22, 1991 - RODOLFO GUIANG v. RICARDO C. SAMANO

  • G.R. No. 74783 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO B. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 75389 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO B. MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. 75894 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TUGBO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76562 April 22, 1991 - ROGER B. PATRICIO v. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO

  • G.R. No. 76953 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO MANDAPAT

  • G.R. No. 77315 April 22, 1991 - CIRCLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80767 April 22, 1991 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82985 April 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 85647 April 22, 1991 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92570 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. v. GUILLERMO CARAGUE

  • G.R. No. 94925 April 22, 1991 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94951 April 22, 1991 - APEX MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991 - MY SAN BISCUITS INC. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 78254 April 25, 1991 - JOINT MOH-MOLE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78556 April 25, 1991 - ALFARO FORTUNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83354 April 25, 1991 - LEON MATEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90296 April 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES M. INDAYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-466 April 26, 1991 - DOMINGA AZOR v. SOFRONIO G. SAYO

  • A.C. No. 1302,1391 and 1543 April 26, 1991 - PAULINO VALENCIA v. ARSENIO FER. CABANTING

  • G.R. No. 45142 April 26, 1991 - SIMPROSA VDA. DE ESPINA, ET AL. v. OTILIO ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 49839-46 April 26, 1991 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. PEDRO ALMANZOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51461 April 26, 1991 - CRISPIN DASALLA, SR. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 69344 April 26, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76212 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO TUGBANG

  • G.R. No. 83957 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CABANBAN

  • G.R. No. 84728 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ATENTO

  • G.R. No. 86641 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIC C. ANSING

  • G.R. No. 88838 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES MOKA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92586 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. PUEDAN

  • G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991 - ROMEO G. ELEPANTE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 50098 April 30, 1991 - ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK v. RAMON V. JAPSON

  • G.R. No. 69999 April 30, 1991 - LUZVIMINDA VISAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 71835 April 30, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74670-74 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLY S. GANOHON

  • G.R. No. 76211 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO M. CUYO

  • G.R. No. 76585 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 81374 April 30, 1991 - JOSE R. BAUTISTA v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 85322 April 30, 1991 - ALFREDO M. ALMEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86042 April 30, 1991 - FEAGLE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MAURO DORADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86517 April 30, 1991 - ANDRES MAMA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86760 April 30, 1991 - CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 87215 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO I. DE LAS MARINAS

  • G.R. No. 87928 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS F. GRAZA

  • G.R. No. 88631 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO COLLADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92505 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MOTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92591 April 30, 1991 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92658 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94151 April 30, 1991 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94209 April 30, 1991 - FEATI BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94436 April 30, 1991 - LAGRIMAS V. ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.