Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > October 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 92241. October 17, 1991.]

LILIA T. ONG, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND VIRGINIA SARMIENTO, Respondents.

Diosdado P. Peralta for Petitioner.

Adelaido J. Rivera for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL’ PERFECTION THEREOF, DETERMINED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD THEREFOR. — Section 23 of the Interim Rules (implementing the 1981 Judiciary Act, BP No. 129) promulgated on January 11, 1983, provides: brought about a change in the procedure for appeal by dispensing with the appeal bond, as well as the record on appeal (except in cases of multiple appeals). As a result, what determines perfection of the appeal is the expiration of the reglementary period for appeal (Universal Far East Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 6493l, August 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 642; and other cases)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING OF NOTICE THEREOF; DOES NOT DIVEST THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION. — The mere filing of appellant’s notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. The court may still take cognizance of the other party’s motion for new trial under Rule 37, if he should opt to file one, or, as in the instant case, a motion for execution pending appeal, provided of course, such motions are filed within 15 days from said party’s notice of the decision. What is crucial to determine is the timeliness of the filing of the motion for execution pending appeal (Sonia Industries, Inc. v. Wasan, Sr., supra).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY TO DISAPPROVE THEREOF; LODGED WITH THE APPELLATE COURT. — Where the reason given is that an appeal is frivolous and dilatory, execution pending appeal cannot be justified. It is not proper for the trial court to find that an appeal is frivolous and consequently to disapprove it since the disallowance of an appeal by said court constitutes a deprivation of the right to appeal. The authority to disapprove an appeal rightful pertains to the appellate court (Heirs of Gavino Sabenal v. Hon. Benjamin Gorospe, G.R. No. 50168, September 30, 1988, 166 SCRA 145). Having declared that the trial judge may not rightfully determine that an appeal from its own decision is frivolous or dilatory, it is clear that the writ of execution pending appeal would be premised solely on the bond posted by Sarmiento. The next question to be resolved then is whether or not the filing of a bond, without anything more, can be considered a good reason to justify immediate execution under Section 2 of Rule 39.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; FILING OF SUFFICIENT BOND; NOT A GOOD REASON FOR GRANTING THEREOF. — In the case of Roxas v. Court of Appeals (157 SCRA 370), we clarified the doctrine as follows: ". . . to consider the mere posting of a bond a ‘good reason’ would precisely make immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal routinary, the rule rather than the exception. Judgments would be executed immediately, as a matter of cause, once rendered, if all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bound to answer for damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither contemplated nor intended by law. "There are, to be sure, statements in some of this Court’s decisions which do generate the perception that ‘the filing of the bond by the successful party is a good reason for ordering execution. Petitioner Roxas herself cites City of Manila v. C.A. to support her postulation of this effect. From that case — which adverts to Hacienda Navarra, Inc. v. Labrador, Et. Al. (65 Phil. 531) and People’s Bank and Trust Co., etc. v. San Jose, Et. Al. (96 Phil. 895) — she quotes the following: ‘From what has been said, it is thus clear that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the city’s posting to a bond as [heirs of the estate of a deceased person under administra] (sic) good and special reason to justify execution pending appeal.’ "But sight should not be lost of the factual context in which the quoted statement was made. In that case, the City of Manila had succeeded in obtaining judgment for the recovery of a piece of land it had lent to the Metropolitan Theater, and immediate execution became imperative because the theater was insolvent and there was imminent danger of its creditor’s foreclosing a mortgage on the property. This combination of circumstances was the dominant consideration which impelled the grant of immediate execution, the requirement of a bond having been imposed merely as an additional factor, no doubt for the protection of the defendant’s creditor. In Hacienda Navarra, there was a special reason for immediate execution in addition to the posting of a bond. There, the Court said that ‘Inasmuch as the purpose in depositing the money is to insure its receipts by the party obtaining a favorable judgment in the above cited civil case, the filing of a sufficient bond for the delivery of said proceeds secures said receipt.’ And in People’s Bank, the order involved in the case decreed payment of allowances for the support of one of the heirs of the estate of a deceased person under administration and the urgent need of the party entitled thereto was the paramount consideration for immediate execution, not the filing of a bond."


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This petition seeks to review on certiorari, the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the writ of execution pending appeal issued by the trial judge.

The facts of the case are stated in the Court of Appeals decision.

Private respondent Virginia Sarmiento (Sarmiento) sued Eligio Dee (Dee) for the collection of the amount of P121,759.00, representing the value of construction materials allegedly obtained by him, for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. Dee had earlier issued checks in the total amount of P40,000.00, but these subsequently, bounced for insufficiency of funds. Sarmiento also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

The complaint was subsequently amended to include petitioner Lilia Ong (Ong) as party-defendant on the allegation that she and Eligio Dee had issued the checks and that the construction materials were delivered to the piggery farm of Ong.

A writ of attachment was issued by the trial judge and served upon Ong, resulting in the levy of certain hogs valued at P40,000.00. The court later issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against further enforcement of the writ, pending resolution of a motion to quash filed by Ong.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On November 4, 1988, the trial judge rendered a decision, which was received by Ong on November 29, 1988 (p. 91, Rollo) finding Dee and Ong jointly and severally liable for the sum of P121,759.00.

Dee and Ong filed a notice of appeal on December 2, 1988.

On December 12, 1988, Sarmiento filed a "Motion for Immediate Execution Pending Appeal," dated December 9, 1988, alleging that the appeal is dilatory and frivolous.

Ong opposed the motion claiming that the trial court no longer had any jurisdiction to act on said motion since the appeal had clearly been perfected, and besides, there was already a writ of attachment to secure the court’s judgment.

On January 26, 1989, the trial judge issued an order granting Sarmiento’s motion for execution pending appeal, conditioned upon a bond in the amount of P121,759.00.

On February 2, 1989, Ong filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed it on October 18, 1989.

Hence this petition questioning the validity of the appellate court’s ruling upholding the writ of execution pending appeal.

In upholding the writ of execution pending appeal, the appellate court observed that the trial judge had, prior to its issuance, duly noted the presence of the circumstances laid down by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, allowing execution as an exception, or pending appeal, even before final judgment; viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"a. . . . motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;

"b. . . . good reasons for issuing execution; and

"c. . . . the good reasons be stated in a Special Order (Lao v. Mencias, G.R No. L-23554, November 25, 1967; 21 SCRA 1021) (See p. 92, Rollo, CA decision).

Likewise, it accepted as "good reasons" Sarmiento’s statements in support of her motion, that "the appeal of said defendants is clearly and obviously frivolous and dilatory in nature, considering that they have not adduced substantial valid and meritorious defenses against the plaintiffs." (p. 92, Rollo, CA decision) The appellate court also ruled that "the filing of the bond required by the court constitutes special ground authorizing the court to issue writ of execution pending appeal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

". . . the determination of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the special reasons rests upon the sound discretion of the court issuing the writ of execution pending appeal. The appellate court cannot interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless it appears that there had been a grave abuse or excess of authority in doing so (Buenaventura v. Peña, 78 Phil. 795; Naredo v. Yatco, 80 Phil. 220) or conditions have so far changed since the order was issued as to require the intervention of the appella(te) court (Buenaventura v. Peña, supra). In the present case, this Court finds no abuse of discretion nor a change of condition since the order was issued as to require the intervention of this court (CA decision, pp. 87-94, Rollo, at p. 92).

The appellate court also disagreed with Ong’s claim that upon filing of her notice of appeal, the trial court had lost jurisdiction to act on Sarmiento’s motion for execution pending appeal, declaring that the mere filing of appellant’s notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the case, since "an appeal is not perfected on the date the notice of appeal was filed but on the expiration of the last day to appeal," citing the cases of Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 69800, May 5, 1985, 136 SCRA 294 and Yabut v. IAC, G.R. No. 69208, May 28, 1986, 142 SCRA 124.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Thus, the appellate court observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . when petitioner received a copy of the decision on November 29, 1988, an appeal thereof was deemed perfected on December 14, 1988, the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. When the private respondent filed her motion for execution pending appeal on December 12, 1988, it is very clear that the appeal was not yet perfected. Considering then that the motion was filed well before the perfection of the petitioner’s appeal, the respondent Court had jurisdiction to act on the motion." (CA decision, p. 91, Rollo).

We agree with the Court of Appeals.

Section 23 of the Interim Rules (implementing the 1981 Judiciary Act, BP No. 129) promulgated on January 11, 1983, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"23. Perfection of Appeal. — In cases where appeal is taken the perfection of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Interim Rules brought about a change in the procedure for appeal by dispensing with the appeal bond, as well as the record on appeal (except in cases of multiple appeals). As a result, what determines perfection of the appeal is the expiration of the reglementary period for appeal (Universal Far East Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 64931, August 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 642; Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., supra; Yabut v. IAC, supra; Sonida Industries, Inc. v. Wasan, Sr., G.R. No. 76342, December 4, 1989, 179 SCRA 763.

The mere filing of appellant’s notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. The court may still take cognizance of the other party’s motion for new trial under Rule 37, if he should opt to file one, or, as in the instant case, a motion for execution pending appeal, provided of course, such motions are filed within 15 days from said party’s notice of the decision. What is crucial to determine is the timeliness of the filing of the motion for execution pending appeal (Sonida Industries, Inc. v. Wasan, Sr., supra).

On the other hand, We do not agree that the writ of execution pending appeal was premised on, or justified by good reasons, i.e. a) that the appeal was frivolous and dilatory, and b) sufficient bond required by the court had been posted.

In the case of Roxas v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-56960, January 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 370), We stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39 is, of course, the exception. Normally, execution of a judgment should not be had until and unless it has become final and executory — i.e., the right of appeal has been renounced or waived, the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken, or appeal having been taken, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin — in which case, execution ‘shall issue as a matter of right.’ (Sec. 1, Rule 39 in relation to Sec. 11, Rule 51).

"On the other hand, when the period of appeal has not expired, execution of the judgment should not be allowed, save only if there be good reasons therefor, in the court’s discretion.’As provided in Section 2, Rule 39 of the . . Rules . ., the existence of good reasons is what confers discretionary power on a Court . . to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. The reasons allowing execution must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will out weigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.’ (Jaca v. Lumber Co., G.R. No. L-25771, March 29, 1982; 113 SCRA 107, 121).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"It is not intended obviously that execution pending appeal shall issue as a matter of course.’Good reasons, special, important, pressing reasons must exist to justify it; otherwise, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, it may well become a tool of oppression and inequity.’" (Emphasis ours)

Where the reason given is that an appeal is frivolous and dilatory, execution pending appeal cannot be justified. It is not proper for the trial court to find that an appeal is frivolous and consequently to disapprove it since the disallowance of an appeal by said court constitutes a deprivation of the right to appeal. The authority to disapprove an appeal rightfully pertains to the appellate court (Heirs of Gavino Sabenal v. Hon. Benjamin Gorospe, G.R. No. 50168, September 30, 1988, 166 SCRA 145).

Having declared that the trial judge may not rightfully determine that an appeal from its own decision is frivolous or dilatory, it is clear that the writ of execution pending appeal would be premised solely on the bond posted by Sarmiento. The next question to be resolved then is whether or not the filing of a bond, without anything more, can be considered a good reason to justify immediate execution under Section 2 of Rule 39.

In the case of Roxas v. Court of Appeals, supra, We had occasion to address this issue directly. We clarified the doctrine as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . to consider the mere posting of a bond a ‘good reason’ would precisely make immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal routinary, the rule rather than the exception. Judgments would be executed immediately, as a matter of course, once rendered, if all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer for damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither contemplated nor intended by law.

"There are, to be sure, statements in some of this Court’s decisions which do generate the perception that ‘the filing of the bond by the successful party is a good reason for ordering execution. Petitioner Roxas herself cites City of Manila v. C.A. to support her postulation of this effect. From that case — which adverts to Hacienda Navarra, Inc. v. Labrador, Et. Al. (65 Phil. 531) and People’s Bank and Trust Co. etc. v. San Jose, Et. Al. (96 Phil. 895) — she quotes the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘From what has been said, it is thus clear that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the city’s posting to a bond as [heirs of the estate of a deceased person under administra] (sic) good and special reason to justify execution pending appeal.’

"But sight should not be lost of the factual context in which the quoted statement was made. In that case, the City of Manila had succeeded in obtaining judgment for the recovery of a piece of land it had lent to the Metropolitan Theater, and immediate execution became imperative because the theater was insolvent and there was imminent danger of its creditor’s foreclosing a mortgage on the property. This combination of circumstances was the dominant consideration which impelled the grant of immediate execution, the requirement of a bond having been imposed merely as an additional factor, no doubt for the protection of the defendant’s creditor. In Hacienda Navarra, there was a special reason for immediate execution, in addition to the posting of a bond. There, the Court said that ‘Inasmuch as the purpose in depositing the money is to insure its receipts by the party obtaining a favorable judgment in the above cited civil case, the filing of a sufficient bond for the delivery of said proceeds secures said receipt.’ And in People’s Bank, the order involved in the case decreed payment of allowances for the support of one of the heirs of the estate of a deceased person under administration, and the urgent need of the party entitled thereto was the paramount consideration for immediate execution, not the filing of a bond." (Emphasis ours)

Based on the foregoing discussions, We have no alternative but to strike down the writ of execution pending appeal for lack of "good reasons" to justify its issuance.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The other issues raised by Ong on her alleged solidary liability are not proper for discussion in this petition for certiorari, being errors of judgment by the trial court, correctible by appeal and which has been already undertaken by Ong.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated January 26, 1989 granting the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED, having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. Costs against private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

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




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






October-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991 - POE MINING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96141 October 2, 1991 - EVANGELISTA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53837 October 3, 1991 - FELIX PAINAGA v. NOLI MA. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 - IN RE: ROBERTO UMIL, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85464 October 3, 1991 - DAVID P. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87184-85 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991 - LINA B. OCTAVIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89325-26 October 3, 1991 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90739 October 3, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91162 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO F. CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 91271 October 3, 1991 - RESTITUTO P. RIZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91626 October 3, 1991 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91716 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO T. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991 - RAFAEL BAYLOSIS, ET AL. v. APOLONIO R. CHAVEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 - CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79004-08 October 4, 1991 - FRANKLIN BAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83697 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BENITEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991 - FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91109 October 4, 1991 - SARKIES AND MOLAVE TOURS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92646-47 October 4, 1991 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93300 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BALLINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 - SPS. PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95625 October 4, 1991 - HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95680 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO NGO

  • G.R. No. 82350 October 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC LONDOÑO

  • G.R. No. 93464 October 7, 1991 - REYMA BROKERAGE, INC. v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991 - DANGWA TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90745 October 10, 1991 - INTER-CAPITOL MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93690 October 10, 1991 - ERECTORS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 - SPS. JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991 - OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC. v. PEARY G. ALEONAR, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 90-7-1159-MTC October 15, 1991 - IN RE: SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS BY JUDGE BENJAMIN H. VIRREY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS

  • Adm. Case No. 1424 October 15, 1991 - ISMAELA DIMAGIBA v. JOSE MONTALVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73504 October 15, 1991 - BALMAR FARMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78781-82 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAVELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81093 October 15, 1991 - PORAC TRUCKING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85133 October 15, 1991 - FLORITA E. DALUYON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM.

  • G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90319 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91363-73 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO VINAS

  • G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 - CIRILO A. CINCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA ELEPANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94677 October 15, 1991 - ORIGINAL DEV’T. AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95624 October 15, 1992

    DANTE G. BUGAYONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96535 October 15, 1991 - INOCENCIO PARI-AN, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 - MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97105 October 15, 1991 - ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991 - RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 - GENEROSA BUTED, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. Nos. 79926-27 October 17, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80747-48 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92447 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO NEBREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SADIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96016 October 17, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96368-69 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERUBIEN Z. NABAYRA

  • G.R. No. 96713. October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARBOLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98023 October 17, 1991 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45031 October 21, 1991 - NANERICO D. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50264 October 21, 1991 - IGNACIO WONG v. LUCAS D. CARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56487 October 21, 1991 - REYNALDA GATCHALIAN v. ARSENIO DELIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 - NICOMEDES SILVA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

  • G.R. No. 85176 October 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83498 October 22, 1991 - SPS. MIGUEL S. JUANITA KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33438 October 28, 1991 - REPUBLIC RESOURCES AND DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44712 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55393 October 28, 1991 - FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL, CORP. v. EMILIO A. JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71562 October 28, 1991 - JOSE C. LAUREL V v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74070-71 October 28, 1991 - SUNSHINE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74197 October 28, 1991 - JOSEPHINE L. LUCERO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84730 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 88301 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991 - EDWIN DEL CARMEN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94369 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CO

  • G.R. No. 94521 October 28, 1991 - OLIVER O. LOZANO v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. No. 95631 October 28, 1991 - METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991 - CLARITA V. CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991 - BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., ET AL. v. MOREMAN BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.