Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[Adm. Matter No. P-90-408. August 7, 1992.]

JUDGE BERNARDO P. PARDO, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO, Deputy Sheriff, Respondent.

[Adm. Matter No. P-90-453. August 7, 1992.]

RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, and CARMENCITA L. HOUGHTON, Petitioners, v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO, Respondent.

Albon, Serrano & Associates for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; DELIVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTIES, DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY OFFICER; RULE; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR. — The warrant among others, ordered respondent sheriff to keep the property "in your possession for five (5) days and at the expiration of said period to deliver it to . . . plaintiff." This order was not followed by respondent, who upon seizure, turned over the seized properties to the plaintiff’s counsel allegedly for safekeeping. His reasons that the Sheriff’s Office has no place to store the seized items and that there was an undertaking submitted by Atty. Taguines are not acceptable. Respondent as an officer of the Court is charged with certain ministerial duties which must be performed faithfully to the letter. Every provision in the Revised Rules of Court has a specific reason or objective. In this case, the purpose of the five (5) days is to give a chance to the defendant to object to the sufficiency of the bond or the surety or sureties thereon or require the return of the property by filing a counterbond. The fact that the order of the Court to re-deliver the seized properties dated August 3, 1989 was not immediately complied with goes to show that respondent’s actuation was highly improper and in grave abuse of his authority, tantamount to excess of authority.


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


These are consolidated cases filed against Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco, RTC, Branch 47, Manila.

Administrative Matter No. P-90-408 was filed on February 2, 1990. Complainant charged respondent for unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence without leave, grave abuse of authority, extortion or bribery and contempt of court.

Complainant alleged that respondent has been reporting at RTC, Branch 14 without a detail order and inspite of the fact that his appointment thereat cannot be given due course because there is an incumbent deputy sheriff at Branch 14. It was alleged further that in Civil Case No. 89-49342 entitled "Stephen J.E. Bastian v. Richard M. Houghton," a writ of replevin was issued dated June 30, 1989 addressed to the herein respondent ordering him to seize among others, one (1) unit of motor vehicle from the defendants; that on the same day, respondent deputy sheriff seized the motor vehicle involved and other personal properties and immediately turned over its possession to plaintiff Stephen Bastian in violation of Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court; that as a result of this act of the respondent, the subject vehicle could not be returned to the defendants upon order of the court; and that contempt proceedings were instituted against the respondent for failure to return the seized property.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Complainant alleged further that the counsel for the plaintiff reported to him that respondent deputy sheriff demanded and was paid the sum of P10,000.00 as bribe money to carry out the seizure of the motor vehicle and its immediate turn over to the plaintiff.

On July 11, 1990 respondent Deputy Sheriff was required to comment on the letter-complaint.

In his comment, he averred that on June 30, 1989 an order for seizure of the personal properties was issued by the Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 47 and on the same day, he in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff, Atty. Pablo M. Taguines and plaintiff Stephen Bastian enforced the writ and seized one (1) unit of motor vehicle, among others, belonging to the defendants; that at the behest of the plaintiff’s counsel, and considering that the Sheriff’s Office of Manila does not have a storage space for seized properties, he turned over the properties to plaintiff’s counsel after the latter executed an undertaking, Annex "C" of comment, which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"UNDERTAKING

UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL OF THE PLAINTIFF DO HEREBY UNDERTAKES THE CUSTODY AND SAFEKEEPING OF THE PROPERTIES SEIZED BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER FOR THE SEIZURE OF PERSONAL PROPERTIES ISSUED IN CIVIL CASE 89-49342 AND TO DELIVER THE SAME OF THE COURT UPON ITS ORDER.

MANILA, JUNE 30, 1989

(Sgd.) Illegible

ATTY. PABLO M. TAGUINES

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF"

Respondent contended that the turnover of the said property cannot be regarded as a grave abuse of authority because it was by virtue of a writ and that the turnover to Atty. Taguines was covered by an undertaking. Besides, he claimed that his criminal culpability in turning over the seized properties to plaintiff’s counsel was dismissed by the Ombudsman in a resolution dated May 2, 1990 (Annex "N" of comment) while the contempt proceedings against him and Atty. Taguines are on appeal.

Likewise, he denied the charge of bribery or extortion for lack of sufficient basis, and claimed that complainant should have taken down the sworn statement of Atty. Manuel Chico who allegedly reported that he (respondent) demanded the amount of P10,000.00 to carry out the seizure order. He pointed out that the records of Civil Case No. 89-49342 readily show that Atty. Chico entered his first appearance long after the seizure was enforced and therefore, he does not have personal knowledge of said alleged demand of P10,000.00 for the enforcement of the writ.

On the charge of absence without leave, respondent denied the same and claimed that from January, 1989 to June, 1990, he has been reporting for work from Branch 47 to the Office of the Clerk of Court with the approval of the Presiding Judge of Branch 47; then to Branch 14 and back to the Office of the Clerk of Court. He substantiated his claim by submitting copies of his daily time records marked as Annex "M", "M-1" to "M-17" of his comment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In the resolution of September 10, 1990, this case was referred to the First Vice Executive Judge, RTC, Manila for Investigation, Report and Recommendation.

Administrative Matter P-90-453 refers to the joint affidavit — complaint of Richard Houghton and Carmencita L. Houghton with the Ombudsman charging respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio D. Velasco with gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority relative to Civil Case No. 89-49342. Pursuant to the resolution of the Ombudsman dated May 2, 1990 holding that respondent Antonio Velasco could not be prosecuted for violation of R.A. 3019 for lack of evidence and if at all, the acts complained of, may constitute as a valid ground for administrative action, the said complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for administrative action.

In a resolution of the Second Division of this Court dated September 26, 1990, the Office of the Court Administrator was required to file the necessary administrative complaint against respondent Antonio Velasco.

On November 9, 1990 respondent Velasco filed his comment on the complaint of the Court Administrator praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this instant complaint is a reiteration of a case pending with the First Division of this Court involving the same subject and the same parties.

In the resolution of the Second Division dated December 10, 1990, this case was consolidated with Adm. Matter No. P-90-408.

Judge Corona Ibay Somera, who was assigned the task of conducting an investigation on these administrative cases submitted her report dated September 9, 1991.

The Investigating Judge reported that at the scheduled hearing, complainant Judge Bernardo P. Pardo manifested that Stephen J.E. Bastian has been deported to Australia and can no longer appear to testify on the charge of indirect bribery and that he was therefore abandoning said charge. He, however, pursued the cause re: the writ of replevin and unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence.

On the charge of unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence without leave, the investigating judge found that there were documentary evidence showing that from January, 1989 to June, 1990 respondent had been reporting to the Office of the Clerk of Court, then to Branch 14 and later back to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila. Respondent’s detail to the Office of the Clerk of Court was with approval of the Judge Lorenzo Veneracion of Branch 47 and from the Clerk of Court to Branch 14 is with the approval of Presiding Judge Inocencio D. Maliaman (Annexes "I," "J," respondents comment). All these negated the charge of prolonged absences without leave.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On the charge of grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin, the reason given by the respondent in immediately delivering the seized properties to plaintiff’s counsel was that the sheriff’s office has no storage; that Atty. Taguines executed an undertaking that the same will be produced when required by the court was done; and that he was motivated by good intention to keep the seized personal properties from being lost or damaged.

Judge Somera was of the view that good faith and prudent judgment are not legitimate reasons to be slack in complying with Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court. She concluded that respondent abused his authority to the extent of failing to do the duties imposed upon him by the rules and recommended that respondent Antonio Velasco be suspended for one month without pay.

We agree with the foregoing findings and recommendation of Judge Somera both on the charges of prolonged absence without leave and misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin but disagree with the penalty to be imposed.

The warrant among others, ordered respondent sheriff to keep the property "in your possession for five (5) days and at the expiration of said period to deliver it to . . . plaintiff." This order was not followed by respondent, who upon seizure, turned over the seized properties to the plaintiff’s counsel allegedly for safekeeping. His reasons that the Sheriff’s Office has no place to store the seized items and that there was an undertaking submitted by Atty. Taguines are not acceptable. Respondent as an officer of the Court is charged with certain ministerial duties which must be performed faithfully to the letter. Every provision in the Revised Rules of Court has a specific reason or objective. In this case, the purpose of the five (5) days is to give a chance to the defendant to object to the sufficiency of the bond or the surety or sureties thereon or require the return of the property by filing a counterbond. The fact that the order of the Court to re-deliver the seized properties dated August 3, 1989 was not immediately complied with goes to show that respondent’s actuation was highly improper and in grave abuse of his authority, tantamount to excess of authority.

This Court, however, is not unmindful of the fact that respondent, in an effort to retrieve the properties, sent a letter dated August 4, 1989 to notify Atty. Taguines of the order for the re-delivery and directed the return of the seized properties pursuant to the latter’s undertaking. It was also at respondent’s instance, that a motion was filed for the issuance of an order for the re-delivery of the seized properties to the plaintiffs. Further, it appears from the records of this case that the seized motor vehicle and other personal properties were returned to the defendants finally on September 27, 1989 per acknowledgment receipt, signed by Richard and Carmencita Houghton. All of these should render less severe the sanction to be imposed upon him on account of his culpability.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

ACCORDINGLY, the charge of prolonged absence without leave is DISMISSED but this Court finds and holds respondent Antonio Velasco liable for abuse of authority in implementing the Writ of Replevin issued in Civil Case No. 89-49342 and imposes upon him a FINE of P4,000.00 payable to this Court within thirty (30) days from notice with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz,, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, 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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.