Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 66253. August 31, 1992.]

METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. (FORMERLY E. RAZON, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.

De Leon Law Office for Petitioner.

Zapa Law Office for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION THEREOF INVOLVING PUBLIC UTILITY; MUST BE REASONABLY CONSTRUED AS TO PROTECT THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. — The Court must stress that petitioner Metro Port Service, Inc. is a public utility, discharging functions which are heavily invested with a public interest. This provision limiting the liability of said petitioner through the imposition of a requirement that a "formal claim" must be made within thirty (30) days from filing of entry must be carefully scrutinized and reasonably construed so as to protect the legitimate interest of the public which the public utility must serve [New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd. v. Navarro, 178 SCRA 282, 298.] It is the Court’s duty to tone down this harsh and unreasonable provision and give it a reasonable interpretation [Communication Insurance Co., Inc. v. Manila Port Service, 39 SCRA 490, 493.] The filing by the consignee of this "provisional claim" on March 24, 1972 — 4 days after the filing of the entry — is substantial compliance with the demand for a "formal claim" because as of that date the arrastre operator was given the reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claim while the facts were still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and while the pertinent documents were still available [Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., 93 SCRA 305, 309.] It did not matter that the provisional claim was for the whole amount of the invoice as a provisional claim — without the value of the goods stated therein — is sufficient as long as the name of the carrying vessel, its date of arrival and the corresponding bill of lading are attached. Consignee’s "provisional claim" — aside from the entire value of the invoice — had all three other requirements.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the review of the decision dated October 25, 1983 of the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court and which affirmed the decision of the lower court adjudging petitioner liable, to pay private respondent the sum of P16,381.97 with interest at the legal rate, the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and its proportionate share of the costs, as well as said court’s Resolution dated January 12, 1984 which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The facts of the case are simple enough.

As insurer-subrogee, private respondent instituted Civil Case No. 90186 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "The Home Insurance Co. versus Marchessini Lines, Citadel Lines, Inc., and/or E. Razon, Inc. and/or Ajax Customs Brokerage." chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The action was to recover from the defendants the amount that private respondent paid American Wire and Cable Co., Inc. (consignee) under its policy for losses and damages to an insured shipment, the transportation of which was handled by defendants, one after the other.

The shipment, which was transported from New York to Manila on board the S/S "BURYBATES", consisted of synthetic resins, insulating materials, machinery and copper wire, contained in several packages. It arrived in Manila on March 18, 1972 and was discharged dockside unto the care and custody of petitioner, the arrastre operator in the Port of Manila.

At the time of the discharge of the shipment from the carrying vessel, it was noted that said cargo had already sustained shortages and that some packages were in bad order and damaged condition. So when the shipment was turned over to the petitioner, turn-over surveys were jointly prepared and accomplished by checkers of both the vessel and the arrastre operator. 1

From March 29 to June 1, 1972, deliveries of the shipment were made by petitioner to the consignee’s broker, the defendant Ajax Customs Brokerage. At this stage of the cargo handling, the shipment had already sustained a shortage of 11 pallets and 28 of the packages delivered to the broker were already in bad order and damaged condition.

The shortage of 11 pallets was covered by a certificate of delivery 2 issued by petitioner and the 28 bad order packages were covered by bad order certificates 3 also issued by petitioner.

In the meantime, on March 24, 1972, the consignee presented to petitioner a "provisional" claim for the full value of the shipment.

On September 16, 1972, the consignee submitted to petitioner a "formal" claim for the actual value of the loss sustained by the shipment.

In the course of the proceedings before the trial court, defendants Marchessini Lines and Citadel Lines settled the claim for the loss attributed to the vessel. The case, therefore proceeded only against remaining defendants E. Razon, Inc. (now petitioner) and Ajax Brokerage Corp. who were adjudged liable to plaintiff, now private Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the decision appealed from was affirmed.

Petitioner E. Razon, Inc. manifested before the Court a quo on November 8, 1975 that its liability, if any, should be P16,381.97 — per private respondent’s computations — instead of P19,931.15 as per its own computations. 4

This was taken into consideration in the Court a quo’s decision, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With the view thus taken the next in point of inquiry is the extent of E. Razon’s liability in the premises. On this score, it is noteworthy that said defendant does not seriously dispute that the cargo sustained spillages and short-delivery while it was in its custody. In fact, by its own computation — and, on the basis of the invoice value which it correctly claims to be the reckoning point for its liability — it would fix its liability, if found to be so liable, at P19,930.15. This, significantly, is even much more than the mere P16,381.97 that plaintiff is claiming from it. Evidently, therefore, the liability of defendant E. Razon, Inc. for shortages and spillages imputable to it should be pegged at the latter amount." 5

At any rate, petitioner disclaims any liability due to the fact that private respondent did not file a "formal claim" within 30 days from the filing of entry on March 20, 1972 6 as the "formal" claim was filed on September 16, 1972. Petitioner disregarded the filing of a "provisional" claim on March 24, 1972 on the ground that it is not the claim demanded by the Revised Management Contract, 7 which E. Razon, Inc. as Arrastre Contractor, entered into with the Bureau of Customs on the 27th day of January, 1967.

Private respondent, on the other hand, claims that despite the change introduced in the matter of filing claims, i.e., "formal" claims have to be filed, the purpose is still the same — to afford the arrastre operator the opportunity to check the validity of the claims.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We find the petition unmeritorious.

The only legal issue to be resolved by this Court is whether under the Revised Management Contract, the words "formal claim" exclude any "provisional claim."

The Revised Management Contract was the contract applicable as the shipment arrived on March 18, 1967.

Its paragraph XX states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . [B]ut said CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for the condition of the contents of any package received nor for the weight, nor for any loss, injury or damage to the said cargo before or while the goods are being received or remain on the piers or wharves if the loss, injury or damage is caused by force majeure, or other causes beyond the CONTRACTOR’s control, or capacity to prevent or remedy; PROVIDED, that a formal claim together with the necessary copies of the bill of lading, invoice, certified packing list, bank certificate showing the rate of exchange at the time of purchase or opening of letter of credit, and the computation arrived at covering the loss, damage, or non-delivery of such goods shall have been filed with the CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of entry; PROVIDED FURTHER, that if the loss, injury or damage is discovered within the last fifteen (15) days of said period of thirty (30) days, then the formal claim shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of discovery of the loss, injury or damage." 8 (Emphasis supplied for emphasis)

In the case at bar, the shipment in question arrived in Manila on March 18, 1972. 9 The import entry was filed March 20, 1972. 10 The deliveries of this shipment started March 29, 1972 11 and ended on June 1, 1972. 12 Since the delivery of the last package was made on June 1, 1972 — 73 days after the filing of the import entry — then a literal compliance under paragraph XX of the Revised Management Contract would mean that American Wire and Cable Co. (consignee insured by private respondent) had only until April 20, 1972 to file a "formal claim" for damaged goods. But said "formal claim" would cover only goods delivered as of April 20, 1972 — the cost of goods delivered after said date (Exhs. 69-72, pp. 125-128, Folder of Exhibits) in a damaged condition or lost — would be for the consignee’s own account.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The Court must stress that petitioner Metro Port Service, Inc. is a public utility, discharging functions which are heavily invested with a public interest. This provision limiting the liability of said petitioner through the imposition of a requirement that a "formal claim" must be made within thirty (30) days from filing of entry must be carefully scrutinized and reasonably construed so as to protect the legitimate interest of the public which the public utility must serve. 13 It is the Court’s duty to tone down this harsh and unreasonable provision and give it a reasonable interpretation. 14

The filing by the consignee of this "provisional claim" on March 24, 1972 15 — 4 days after the filing of the entry — is substantial compliance with the demand for a "formal claim" because as of that date the arrastre operator was given the reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claim while the facts were still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and while the pertinent documents were still available. 16 It did not matter that the provisional claim was for the whole amount of the invoice as a provisional claim — without the value of the goods stated therein — is sufficient as long as the name of the carrying vessel, its date of arrival and the corresponding bill of lading are attached. 17 Consignee’s "provisional claim" — aside from the entire value of the invoice — had all three other requirements. 18

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned Decision and Resolution of the appellate court are affirmed in toto. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melo, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Exhs. "2, 2-A to 2-F-Razon."

2. Exh. "H."

3. Exhs. "J" to "Q."

4. Page 54, Record on Appeal, p. 46, Rollo.

5. Pp. 67-68, Record on Appeal; p. 46, Rollo.

6. Page 30, Brief for Appellant E. Razon in the Court of Appeals, which Brief is found on p. 45, Rollo.

7. Exhibit "75-Razon", p. 139, Folder of Exhibits.

8. Pages 13 and 14, Exh. "75-Razon", Folder of Exhibits.

9. Exh. "T", p. 24, Folder of Exhibits.

10. Page 30, Brief for Appellant E. Razon, p. 45, Rollo.

11. Exhibit "3-Razon", p. 59, Folder of Exhibits.

12. Exh. "72-Razon", p. 128, Folder of Exhibits.

13. New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd. v. Navarro, 173 SCRA 282, 298.

14. Communication Insurance Co., Inc. v. Manila Port Service, 39 SCRA 490, 493.

15. Exhibit R, pp. 21-22, Folder of Exhibits.

16. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., 93 SCRA 305, 309.

17. Ibid., p. 310.

18. Exh. "R", p. 21, Folder of Exhibits.




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.