Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > July 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 85757 July 8, 1991 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 85757. July 8, 1991.]

ALFREDO MONTELIBANO and ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING COMPANY, INC., Respondents.

Ledesma, Saludo & Associates, for Petitioners.

Antonio P. Barredo for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; RES JUDICATA; CONSTRUED. — It is a well-settled principle of remedial law that matters already determined and decided are res judicata and are no longer subject to review by any court. The underlying philosophy of the doctrine of res judicata is that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once and when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491; Alvarez v. IAC and Yanes, 185 SCRA 8; Miranda v. CA, 141 SCRA 302).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES. — The essential requisites for the application of the bar by judgment are: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity of cause of action (Cruz v. Mossesgeld, 24 SCRA 1006; Maglalang v. CA, 175 SCRA 808; Asuncion v. Pineda, 175 SCRA 719).

3. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT; EFFECT OF JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM. — All the elements of res judicata being present, the judgment is, with respect to all matters directly adjudged or which could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity (Rule 39, Section 49(b), Rules of Court). The decision in G.R. No. L-15092 (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36) is therefore binding not only as to matters actually litigated and determined therein, but also as to matters necessarily involved or coming within the legitimate purview of the original action, both in respect to matters of claim and of defense (Mapa v. Guanzon, 77 SCRA 398).

4. ID.; ID.; PIECEMEAL APPEAL; DISCOURAGED BY COURT. — A defendant should not be permitted to split his defenses and present them piecemeal in successive actions growing out of the same transaction, for there must be an end to litigation. Hence, where a party has an opportunity to present his defense and neglects to do so, the law requires that he take the consequences. Having submitted the case on the legal issue or defense without adverting to the factual defenses until the case was decided, despite ample opportunity to do so, the party (in this case Bacolod-Murcia) must be regarded as having waived all such factual defenses. Its inaction is evidence of its intention to so waive (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia, 6 SCRA 89). The policy of this Court has always been to discourage piecemeal appeals.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


The petitioners seek a review of the decision dated October 19, 1988 of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision in their favor of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch XLVII in Civil Case No. 8134 entitled, "Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc."cralaw virtua1aw library

In 1919, Alfredo and Alejandro Montelibano, together with other planters, entered into contracts with Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., for the milling of sugar cane at a sharing ratio of 55% for the planters and 45% for the miller. The contracts were to be in force for thirty (30) years starting with the 1920-21 crop.

In 1936, a proposal was made to amend the milling contracts by increasing the planters’ share to 60% of the manufactured sugar and molasses and giving them other concessions besides, but the term of the contracts was extended to 45 years instead of 30. On August 30, 1936, the milling company’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution granting further concessions to the planters over and above those contained in the amended milling contract (Contrato de Molienda Enmendado), which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ACTA NO. 11

"SESION DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA

"AGOSTO 20, 1936

"Acuerdo No. 1 — Previa mocion debidamente secundada, la Junta en consideracion a una peticion de los plantadores hecha por un comite nombrado por los mismos, acuerda emmendar el contrato de molienda enmendado mediante las siguientes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"9.a. Que si durante la vigencia de este contrato de Molienda Enmendado, las centrales azucareras, de Negros Occidental, cuya produccion anual de azucar centrifugado sea mas de una tercera parte de la produccion total de todas las centrales azucareras de Negros Occidental, concedieren a sus plantadores mejores condiciones que la estipuladas en el presente contrato, entoncas esas mejores condiciones se cor cederan y por el presente se entenderan concedidas a los plantadores gue hayan otorgado este Contrato de Molienda Enmendado." (Montelibano, Et. Al. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36, 38.)

The Montelibanos signed and executed the printed Amended Milling Contract on September 10, 1936. A copy of the resolution of August 20, 1936 signed by the Central’s General Manager was attached to the printed contract on April 27, 1937, with the following notation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Las enmmiendas arriba transcritas forman parte del contrato de molienda enmendado, otorgado por — y la Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc." (Montelibano, Et. Al. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36, 38.)

In 1953, the Montelibanos sued the milling company in Civil Case No. 2603 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, alleging that the three other centrals in the province were granting increased participation to their planters; therefore, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the August 20, 1936 Resolution, Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. was obligated to grant similar concessions to the Montelibanos.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The milling company opposed the claim, on the ground that the resolution was null and void for lack of a valid consideration, and that it was, in effect, a donation which was not within the power of the Board of Directors to grant. The trial court dismissed the action, but on appeal to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-15092 (Alfredo Montelibano, Et. Al. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36), the Supreme Court, in a decision dated May 18, 1962, reversed the lower court. It held that the August 20, 1936 resolution, passed in good faith by the board of directors, was valid and binding and formed an integral part of the amended milling contracts, the milling company having agreed to give concessions to the planters, precisely to induce them to agree to an extension of their contracts. In that decision, the Supreme Court ordered Bacolod-Murcia to pay the planters the differential or increase in participation in the milled sugar, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Resolution dated August 20, 1936, over and in addition to their 60% share under the printed Amended Milling Contract, or the value thereof when due, starting with the 1951-52 crop year up to the 1955-56 crop year, with legal rate of interest on the value of such differentials.

The appellee, Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., filed two motions for reconsideration urging the Supreme Court to set aside its decision and to refer the factual issues raised in its original answer to appellant’s complaints to the court a quo or the Court of Appeals for determination.

In a Resolution dated September 29, 1962 (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 6 SCRA 89), this Court denied the motions for reconsideration. Since the Court of First Instance, in dismissing the complaint, limited itself exclusively to the questions of law posited by the company and disregarded its factual defenses, and the milling company for its part, submitted the case for decision on the legal issue raised by it, without adverting to its factual defenses until the case was decided against it, this Court regarded it as having waived all such factual defenses, its inaction being evidence of its intention to waive.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

As a sequel to G.R. No. L-15092, the Montelibanos on June 27, 1972, filed Civil Case No. 8134 in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod to recover the differentials due them for the crop years 1956-57 up to 1964-65 on the basis of concessions granted by the other sugar centrals whose total production exceeded one-third of the total sugar production in the province. The Montelibanos claimed that their share should have been increased as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

CROP YEAR PLAINTIFF’S SHARE

1956-1957 64%

1957-1958 64%

1958-1959 63.83%

1959-1960 64.5%

1960-1961 64.5%

1961-1962 64.5%

1962-1963 64.5%

1963-1964 64.66%

1964-1965 64.66%

Bacolod-Murcia, answering the complaint, alleged that the Montelibanos could not invoke paragraph 9 of the resolution of August 20,1936 because they had not complied with the mandatory conditions of paragraph 11 thereof, i.e., the registration of contracts with the Register of Deeds and compliance with the "secret agreement" between R. Nolan for the milling company and Montelibano for the planters.

On December 16, 1983, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs-appellees. It held itself bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in the earlier case (G.R. No. L-15092) between the parties and, accordingly, ordered the defendant-appellant to pay the plaintiffs-appellees, jointly and severally, the differential or increase of participation in the milled sugar and molasses in accordance with paragraph 9 of the resolution, over and in addition to the 60% share stipulated in the printed Amended Milling Contract, or the value thereof when due, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

CROP YEAR SUGAR MOLASSES

1956-57 P14,074.24 P433.09

1957-58 16,077.23 537.59

1958-59 12,916.12 227.70

1959-60 15,047.33 261.72

1960-61 27,251.60 572.64

1961-62 25,887.45 876.99

1962-63 40,083.06 1,680.51

1963-64 32,096.69 1,618.03

1964-65 30,426.61 1,532.57

with interest at the legal rate on the value of the said differentials from the time the same were due until fully paid, and the sum of P10,000 as attorney’s fees, plus costs (p. 36, Rollo).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On January 4, 1984, the milling company appealed the lower court’s decision to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 08391, contending that the matter of petitioner’s entitlement to the differential is res judicata.

In a decision dated October 19, 1988, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the complaint against the milling company. It held that the milling company was not barred from proving the defenses raised in its answer to the original complaint since the only matter that was decided in G.R. No. L-15092 was a legal one, i.e., whether the resolution of August 20, 1936 was an integral part of the amended milling contracts. The question of whether sugar planters, like the plaintiffs-appellees, were entitled to the increased benefit under paragraph 9 solely upon proof that other millers (the sugar centrals of La Carlota, Hawaiian Philippines, San Carlos and Binalbagan), whose total production exceeded one-third of the total production of sugar in Occidental Negros, had given increased benefits, or whether they must, in addition, show compliance with the conditions in paragraph 11, was not adjudicated in that case. It held that the Supreme Court decision reserved to the Montelibanos the right to sue not for "additional increases" per se, but only for such additional increases as they may be entitled to for the crop years subsequent to those herein adjudged" (p. 11, Decision).

On November 10,1988, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision, but it was denied.

The petition is impressed with merit.

It is a well-settled principle of remedial law that matters already determined and decided are res judicata and are no longer subject to review by any court. The underlying philosophy of the doctrine of res judicata is that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once and when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491; Alvarez v. IAC and Yanes, 185 SCRA 8; Miranda v. CA, 141 SCRA 302).

The essential requisites for the application of the bar by judgment are: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions; (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity of cause of action (Cruz v. Mossesgeld, 24 SCRA 1006; Maglalang v. CA, 175 SCRA 808; Asuncion v. Pineda, 175 SCRA 719).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

All the elements of res judicata being present, the judgment is, with respect to all matters directly adjudged or which could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity (Rule 39, Section 49(b), Rules of Court). The decision in G.R. No. L-15092 (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 36) is therefore binding not only as to matters actually litigated and determined therein, but also as to matters necessarily involved or coming within the legitimate purview of the original action, both in respect to matters of claim and of defense (Mapa v. Guanzon, 77 SCRA 398).

A defendant should not be permitted to split his defenses and present them piecemeal in successive actions growing out of the same transaction, for there must be an end to litigation. Hence, where a party has an opportunity to present his defense and neglects to do so, the law requires that he take the consequences. Having submitted the case on the legal issue or defense without adverting to the factual defenses until the case was decided, despite ample opportunity to do so, the party (in this case Bacolod-Murcia) must be regarded as having waived all such factual defenses. Its inaction is evidence of its intention to so waive (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia, 6 SCRA 89). The policy of this Court has always been to discourage piecemeal appeals.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and set aside and that of the trial court is affirmed in toto. Costs against the private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., is on leave.




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






July-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 82708 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO S. CLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 85250 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. ALERTA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 90804-05 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO DE LA TORRE

  • G.R. No. 94127 July 1, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMAN RECEPTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60054 July 2, 1991 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89125 July 2, 1991 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. FAR EAST MOLASSES CORPORATION

  • A.M. No. P-87-72 July 3, 1991 - ANTONIO C. SY v. MARLEO J. ACADEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70722 July 3, 1991 - CANUTA PAGKATIPUNAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85991-94 July 3, 1991 - REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87353 July 3, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-486 July 4, 1991 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ALICIA F. RICAFORTE

  • G.R. No. 33174 July 4, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81015 July 4, 1991 - CRESENCIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83232 July 4, 1991 - TRINIDAD M. VILLAS v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84378 July 4, 1991 - NENITA L. LEANO v. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92862 July 4, 1991 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85757 July 8, 1991 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92503 July 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO MANUEL

  • G.R. No. 92989 July 8, 1991 - PERFECTO DY, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95595 July 8, 1991 - JOSE DE GUIA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53851 July 9, 1991 - CHUA HUAT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 67823 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO S. MESIAS

  • G.R. No. 92534 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMENIO B. DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 93628 July 9, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 88809 July 10, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-286 July 11, 1991 - ROAN I. LIBARIOS v. ROSARITO F. DABALOS

  • G.R. No. 82808 July 11, 1991 - DENNIS L. LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-447 July 12, 1991 - EMMA J. CASTILLO v. MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 52439 July 12, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK

  • G.R. No. 83759 July 12, 1991 - CIPRIANO VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 85240 July 12, 1991 - HEIRS OF CECILIO CLAUDEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92284 July 12, 1991 - TEODORO J. SANTIAGO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 93359 July 12, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO C. CAPULONG

  • G.R. Nos. 93437-45 July 12, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO CABALLES

  • G.R. No. 93507 July 12, 1991 - HEIRS OF MARIA REVILLEZA VDA. DE VEGA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95336 July 12, 1991 - JUAN GARCIA RIVERA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 59640 July 15, 1991 - DAMIAN ROBLES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77356 July 15, 1991 - TRAVEL WIDE ASSOCIATED SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97238 July 15, 1991 - JULIA L. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 58340 July 16, 1991 - KAWASAKI PORT SERVICE CORP. v. AUGUSTO M. AMORES

  • G.R. No. 60502 July 16, 1991 - PEDRO LOPEZ DEE v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74814 July 16, 1991 - JOSE LUSTERIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 91787 July 16, 1991 - TERMINAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92605 July 16, 1991 - APEX MINING CO. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 94452 July 16, 1991 - ALLURE MANUFACTURING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94750 July 16, 1991 - FELIX P. GONZALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 68109 July 17, 1991 - SEVERINO GAYAPANAO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-406 July 18, 1991 - ENRIQUETA GARGAR DE JULIO v. BENJAMIN A.G. VEGA

  • A.C. No. 1311 July 18, 1991 - RAMONA L. VDA. DE ALISBO v. BENITO JALANDOON, SR.

  • G.R. No. 39460 July 18, 1991 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49327 July 18, 1991 - AMELIA C. ELAYDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 64965 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVEN BAUSING

  • G.R. No. 74633 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ECAL

  • G.R. No. 75222 July 18, 1991 - RADIOLA-TOSHIBA PHIL., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 79516 July 18, 1991 - ROMEO R. ECHAUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83568 July 18, 1991 - PORSPERO NAVAL v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83804 July 18, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO M. ALON

  • G.R. No. 84295 July 18, 1991 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS INVESTMENT DEV’T CORP. v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 86384 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO PLACIDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 88750 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 90672-73 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO H. MARANION

  • G.R. No. 94385 July 18, 1991 - LYDIA ARRIOLA v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

  • G.R. No. 94681 July 18, 1991 - JEREMIAS F. DAYO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 96266 July 18, 1991 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD

  • G.R. Nos. 97475-76 July 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO O. VILLAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 76645 July 23, 1991 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. ALICIA LAPLANA

  • G.R. No. 78646 July 23, 1991 - PABLO RALLA v. PEDRO RALLA

  • G.R. No. 84929 July 23, 1991 - JULIO F. LAGMAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86679 July 23, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK

  • G.R. No. 87202 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL VELAGA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 88643 July 23, 1991 - ARIEL C. SANTOS v. WILLIAM BAYHON

  • G.R. No. 92418 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LABRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 93076 July 23, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94913 July 23, 1991 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 95275-76 July 23, 1991 - SIXTO DE LA VICTORIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 88538 July 25, 1991 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA

  • G.R. No. 88872 July 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO M. OSIAS

  • G.R. No. 91260 July 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN BELIBET

  • G.R. No. 95279 July 26, 1991 - ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95469 July 25, 1991 - AGAPITO MANUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 39274 July 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO A. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991 - PACIFIC MILLS, INC. v. ZENAIDA ALONZO

  • G.R. No. 81476 July 26, 1991 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. TANODBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 82976 July 26, 1991 - EMPLOYEES ASSOC. OF THE PHILAM LIFE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 89664 July 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PERMISON

  • G.R. No. 92436 July 26, 1991 - MARIA VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92606 July 26, 1991 - ZOSIMO R. MAGNO v. RENATO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. 94348 July 26, 1991 - TADEO M. CANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 76221 July 29, 1991 - RUBEN GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991 - ANTONIO Y. CO v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  • G.R. No. 100318 July 30, 1991 - EMILIO M.R. OSMEÑA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.C. No. R-94-RTJ July 31, 1991 - NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AUTHORITY v. VALENTINO G. TABLANG

  • G.R. No. 44664 July 31, 1991 - BERNARDO MENDOZA I v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45338 July 31, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 51221 July 31, 1991 - FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 68033 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO HAVANA

  • G.R. No. 78576 July 31, 1991 - FILCON MANUFACTURING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 78953 July 31, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MELCHOR J. JAVIER, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85670 July 31, 1991 - ROGELIO A. TRIA v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS

  • G.R. No. 86645 July 31, 1991 - HIPOLITO O. TATLONGHARI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 89420 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO DUNGO

  • G.R. No. 91721 July 31, 1991 - CONSTANCIO ORDONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92813 July 31, 1991 - PEROXIDE PHILIPPINES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93142 July 31, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE C. FONTANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96032 July 31, 1991 - JESUS N. BORROMEO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION