Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > June 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 88268 June 2, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88268. June 2, 1992.]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANCISCO DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE; SELECTIVE ACCEPTANCE OF TESTIMONY; CASE AT BAR; NLRC’S CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — What in effect the NLRC is saying is that since both Divinagracia and Bonogon had access to the former’s office and the vault therein, it is not possible to hold only Divinagracia liable for the shortage in his funds, since Bonogon night himself have surreptitiously gone inside Divinagracia’s booth, opened the vault and made off with some of the money lying there. The evidence, however, is that while Banogon indeed had access to Divinagracia’s office and its vault, banogon had not gone into that office at all at any time during the hour that Divinagracia was away. What the NLRC has done is to make a selective acceptance of Banogon’s testimony, according credit to such part thereof as was consistent with obscuration of Divinagracia’s liability for the shortage, and conveniently ignoring so much of it as was inconsistent. It accorded credit to Banogon’s statement that he had a key to Divinagracia’s office and knew the combination to the vault, but it rejected his declaration, forming part of the same testimony, that he had never entered Divinagrancia’s booth on the day in question. That rejection cannot in the circumstances be regarded as otherwise than whimsical, capricious, even irrational. No reason whatsoever has been given by the NLRC for that rejection, or why Banogon is deemed a credible witness in part and branded as undeserving of belief in another, specially when Banogon’s statements are corroborated in their entirety by the other evidence on record, Jocelyn B. Longno’s testimony and the unchallenged sketches of Divinagracia’s Cashier’s Booth in relation to the adjacent or surrounding working areas. Neither does the NLRC cite any cause to disbelieve the evidence given by Longno, basically to the effect that Banogon had never entered the office of Divinagracia while the latter was out on personal business. This lack of justification is attempted to be cured by the NLRC’s counsel by such arguments as — 1)." . . (while it) may be true that she had no ill-motive as to falsely testify against . . . (Divinagracia), (h)owever, she had to protect her employment with petitioner (SMC);" and 2)." . . while Longno was rendering overtime work, her concern and attention were focused on her work. It was unnatural for her to have noticed that Banogon never left his desk while she was concentrating on her work. Longno then was biased and cannot be relied upon this point." The first argument is unintelligible. Its import is that while Longno had "no ill-motive" to testify falsely against Divinagracia, she nevertheless did so "to protect her employment with petitioner." Why her employment would be imperilled by her testifying otherwise that she actually did (e.g., that Divinagracia was faultless, or it was some other employee who had taken the money, etc. (is not explained. The second argument is cut from the same bolt. It insists that Longno could not have noticed what Banogon was doing at all since she was concentrated on her work, despite Longno’s positive declaration that she would surely have noticed if Bagonon had entered the booth of Divinagracia while the latter was out for an hour and fifteen minutes because her desk was right beside Bogonon’s, and she was so situated that Divinagracia’s booth was within her view at any given moment. Why stark speculation or plain guessing should be preferred to affirmative testimony is also not explained. In any event, it is clear that the NLRC’s conclusions regarding the evidence have nothing to support them and hence must be struck down, as already stated, for being whimsical and capricious, arrived at with grave abuse of discretion.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, C.J.:


The basic facts from which the controversy at bar has arisen are not in dispute. They are summarized in the challenged decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of November 25, 1988 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Francisco Divinagracia "started working with . . . (San Miguel Corporation) on November 16, 1977 as accounting clerk. On July 24, 1982 he held the position of Regional Cashier of Bacolod Beer Region with basic monthly salary of P2,200. His job entailed the receiving of cash remittances from route salesmen, preparing vouchers for disbursement and keeping funds inside the vault."cralaw virtua1aw library

2 "On January 31, 1985 at 5:00 in the afternoon, complainant sought and was granted permission by the Regional Accountant (Remus Banogon) to leave the office to attend to a personal matter (to buy some milk for his infant child). When he returned to the office after an hour, he proceeded to work and discovered a shortage of P10,004.56. He relayed the matter to the security guard and to his supervisor, the Regional Accountant, the following morning. Together with the General Accounting Clerk, complainant and the Regional Accountant counted and reviewed the transactions of the previous day but could not account for the shortage. This matter was reported to the Operations Manager."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. "Due to this incident complainant was grounded and an investigation ensued. After the investigation, . . . (the employer, San Miguel Corporation) demanded payment of the shortage from . . . (Divinagracia). On May 31, 1985 . . . (the latter) was dismissed. . . . (He later) instituted . . . an action on December 23, 1985 for illegal dismissal."cralaw virtua1aw library

Divinagracia’s action resulted in a judgment by the Labor Arbiter dated March 29, 1980. The Arbiter concluded that Divinagracia had indeed been illegally dismissed and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The Arbiter believed Divinagracia’s claim that "he formally turned over the funds to the Regional Accountant (Remus Banogon) before he took a temporary leave of absence on January 31, 1985;" that when he returned an hour or so later, "the Accountant had (already) left the office;" and that since "the latter had duplicate keys to the cashier’s (Divinagracia’s) booth and knew the combination of the vault safe," Banogon was as likely a suspect as he (Divinagracia) himself was, yet Banogon was never investigated, much less disciplined.

On appeal by San Miguel Corporation, the NLRC sustained the Arbiter’s conclusion that Divinagracia’s employment had in truth been unlawfully terminated. It however modified the Arbiter’s judgment by directing that the reinstatement of Divinagracia thereby decreed be "without backwages for he is not totally blameless."cralaw virtua1aw library

Nullification of this decision of the NLRC, rendered on November 25, 1988, is what is sought in this special civil action initiated in this Court by San Miguel Corporation (SMC). SMC contends that the following findings in that decision were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion, to wit:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

1) there had been a formal turn-over of funds from Divinagracia to his immediate superior — Regional Accountant Remus Banogon — at the time that, with the latter’s permission, Divinagracia went out of his office on a personal errand;

2) Banogon might have taken some of the money left by Divinagracia in the vault inside his booth, since Banogon had duplicate keys to that booth and knew the combination of the vault; and

3) the testimony of Accounting Clerk Jocelyn B. Longno is undeserving of credit.

At the administrative investigation conducted by SMC respecting Divinagracia’s shortage, as well as in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, evidence was given by the persons who were with Divinagracia at the time of the incident: Remus Banogon and Jocelyn B. Longno.

Banogon pertinently deposed that —

1) although he really did have a key to the Cashier’s office and knew the combination of the vault lock, he never entered the cashier’s booth on January 31, 1985, when the shortage supposedly happened; moreover, he did not have a key to the drawer of the Cashier’s table where some of the remittances were supposedly placed; and

2) it is not true that there was a turn-over of the Cashier’s funds, booth or vault to him; such a turn-over not being "done in absences of short duration like Divinagracia’s absence from 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m."cralaw virtua1aw library

Jocelyn B. Longno testified that —

1) as shown in two (2) sketches of the Accounting Office in which she was at the time working together with Remus Banogon, Francisco Divinagracia and others, Divinagracia’s Cashier’s booth "is situated in such a way that I would be able to see if someone should enter it . . . (and) Remus Banogon’s table was just next to my table . . . (such that) I would surely notice if he left his table;"

2) she did not leave her table inside the Accounting Office from the time that Divinagracia left at about 5:30 P.M. until she went home at about 6:45 P.M.;" (n)either Remus Banogon nor anybody else entered the Cashier’s Booth on that period that Francisco Divinagracia III was out . . . (and in fact) Remus Banogon did not leave his table until 6:30 P.M. when he was already going home;" and

3) she herself left the Accounting Office at about 6:45 P.M. and locked its doors; and as she was going out of the gate, she met Divinagracia coming back.

From the foregoing evidence, the NLRC drew the conclusion that Divinagracia’s "failure to account could not be solely attributable to him since other persons have similar access to the company funds," and his superior, Remus Banogon "to whom the responsibility of taking over complainant’s function is lodged, was likewise remiss in the performance of his duty."cralaw virtua1aw library

What in effect the NLRC is saying is that since both Divinagracia and Banogon had access to the former’s office and the vault therein, it is not possible to hold only Divinagracia liable for the shortage in his funds, since Banogon might himself have surreptitiously gone inside Divinagracia’s booth, opened the vault and made off with some of the money lying there. The evidence, however, is that while Banogon indeed had access to Divinagracia’s office and its vault, Banogon had not gone into that office at all at any time during the hour that Divinagracia was away. What the NLRC has done is to make a selective acceptance of Banogon’s testimony, according credit to such part thereof as was consistent with obscuration of Divinagracia’s liability for the shortage, and conveniently ignoring so much of it as was inconsistent. It accorded credit to Banogon’s statement that he had a key to Divinagracia’s office and knew the combination to the vault, but it rejected his declaration, forming part of the same testimony, that he had never entered Divinagracia’s booth on the day in question. That rejection cannot in the circumstances be regarded as otherwise than whimsical, capricious, even irrational. No reason whatsoever has been given by the NLRC for that rejection, or why Banogon is deemed a credible witness in part and branded as undeserving of belief in another, specially when Banogon’s statements are corroborated in their entirety by the other evidence on record, Jocelyn B. Longno’s testimony and the unchallenged sketches of Divinagracia’s Cashier’s Booth in relation to the adjacent or surrounding working areas.

Neither does the NLRC cite any cause to disbelieve the evidence given by Longno, basically to the effect that Banogon had never entered the office of Divinagracia while the latter was out on personal business. This lack of justification is attempted to be cured by the NLRC’s counsel by such arguments as —

1)." . . (while it) may be true that she had no ill-motive as to falsely testify against . . . (Divinagracia), (h)owever, she had to protect her employment with petitioner (SMC);" and

2)." . . while Longno was rendering overtime work, her concern and attention were focused on her work. It was unnatural for her to have noticed that Banogon never left his desk while she was concentrating on her work. Longno then was biased and cannot be relied upon on this point."cralaw virtua1aw library

The first argument is unintelligible. Its import is that while Longno had "no ill-motive" to testify falsely against Divinagracia, she nevertheless did so "to protect her employment with petitioner." Why her employment would be imperilled by her testifying otherwise than she actually did (e.g., that Divinagracia was faultless, or it was some other employee who had taken the money, etc.) is not explained. The second argument is cut from the same bolt. It insists that Longno could not have noticed what Banogon was doing at all since she was concentrated on her work, despite Longno’s positive declaration that she would surely have noticed if Bagonon had entered the booth of Divinagracia while the latter was out for an hour and fifteen minutes because her desk was right beside Bagonon’s, and she was so situated that Divinagracia’s booth was within her view at any given moment. Why stark speculation or plain guessing should be preferred to affirmative testimony is also not explained.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In any event, it is clear that the NLRC’s conclusions regarding the evidence have nothing to support them and hence must be struck down, as already stated, for being whimsical and capricious, arrived at with grave abuse of discretion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission of November 25, 1988 is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE, and the complaint of illegal dismissal is DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Nocon, 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






June-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45828 June 1, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46370 June 2, 1992 - ANTONIO AVECILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80436 June 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI BOLASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84433 June 2, 1992 - ALEXANDER REYES, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88268 June 2, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 28883 June 3, 1992 - LOURDES G. SUNTAY v. HEROICO M. AGUILUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67279 June 3, 1992 - VICENTE IBAY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992 - MACARIO TAMARGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100257 June 8, 1992 - FELIPE C. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1769 June 8, 1992 - CESAR L. LANTORIA v. IRINEO L. BUNYI

  • G.R. No. 59738 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BASLOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62391 June 8, 1992 - SAFIRO CATALAN, ET AL. v. TITO F. GENILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88938 June 8, 1992 - LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92957 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ENANORIA

  • G.R. Nos. 95903-05 June 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILLE SENDON

  • G.R. No. 97020 June 8, 1992 - CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101666 & 103570 June 9, 1992 - ELISEO L. RUIZ v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69073 June 9, 1992 - ALFREDO BOTULAN, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74193-94 June 9, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88498 June 9, 1992 - GENEROSO R. SEVILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89452 June 9, 1992 - EDUARDO V. BENTAIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90311 June 9, 1992 - HI CEMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90359 June 9, 1992 - JOHANNES RIESENBECK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91378 June 9, 1992 - FIRST MALAYAN LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95229 June 9, 1992 - CORITO OCAMPO TAYAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99336 & 100178 June 9, 1992 - MELANIO S. TORIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41903 June 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51009 June 10, 1992 - LUZON POLYMERS CORP. v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94457 June 10, 1992 - VICTORIA LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83929 June 11, 1992 - ANTONIO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88705 June 11, 1992 - JOY MART CONSOLIDATED CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91757 June 11, 1992 - NUEVA ECIJA III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102370-71 June 15, 1992 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53820 June 15, 1992 - YAO KA SIN TRADING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88402 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNPET C. MACALINO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-383 June 15, 1992 - VENUSTIANO SABURNIDO v. FLORANTE MADRONO

  • G.R. No. 92850 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 93712 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO B. WILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95231 June 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO C. DIMAANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98363 June 15, 1992 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85043 June 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN HATTON

  • G.R. No. 87584 June 16, 1992 - GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. GLORIA E. CHATTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87678 June 16, 1992 - DEL BROS HOTEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96928 June 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 96160 June 17, 1992 - STELCO MARKETING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48162 June 18, 1992 - DOMINADOR L. QUIROZ, ET AL. v. CANDELARIA MANALO

  • G.R. No. 58327 June 18, 1992 - JESUS C. BALMADRID, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 92279 June 18, 1992 - EDMUNDO C. SAMBELI v. PROVINCE OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94309 June 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE PACIENTE

  • G.R. No. 95630 June 18, 1992 - SPS. LEOPOLDO VEROY, ET AL. v. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE

  • G.R. No. 96296 June 18, 1992 - RAFAEL S. DIZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100728 June 18, 1992 - WILHELMINA JOVELLANOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100733 June 18, 1992 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66020 June 22, 1992 - FLAVIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72786-88 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO TELIO

  • G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 93064 June 22, 1992 - AGUSTINA G. GAYATAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94298 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. MADRID

  • G.R. Nos. 94531-32 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO BACALSO

  • G.R. No. 97917 June 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DACQUEL

  • G.R. Nos. 101181-84 June 22, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103372 June 22, 1992 - EPG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96444 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO F. PAJARES

  • G.R. No. 99287 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992 - AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III v. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101900 June 23, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103877 June 23, 1992 - BENJAMIN F. ARAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 53546 June 25, 1992 - HEIRS JESUS FRAN, ET AL. v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62999 June 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO CABILAO

  • G.R. No. 88957 June 25, 1992 - PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56169 June 26, 1992 - TRAVEL-ON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 56465-66 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GALENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62634 June 26, 1992 - ADOLFO CAUBANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 82263 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO T. YABUT

  • G.R. No. 88392 June 26, 1992 - MANUEL ANGELO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92276 June 26, 1992 - REBECCO E. PANLILIO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93941 June 26, 1992 - NICEFORO S. AGATON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94279 June 26, 1992 - RAFAEL G. PALMA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94422 June 26, 1992 - GUILLERMO MARCELINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95542 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESITA DEL MAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992 - ORIEL MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96271 June 26, 1992 - NATIVIDAD VILLOSTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96318 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. ABELITA

  • G.R. No. 96525 June 26, 1992 - MERCURY DRUG CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96674 June 26, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97430 June 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GOMER P. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 97463 June 26, 1992 - JESUS M. IBONILLA, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100123 June 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX J. BUENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100571 June 26, 1992 - TERESITA VILLALUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93045 June 29, 1992 - TENANTS OF THE ESTATE OF DR. JOSE SISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93983 June 29, 1992 - DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT AND STEVEDORING SERVICES CORP. v. ALFREDO C. OLVIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95364 June 29, 1992 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100158 June 29, 1992 - ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE v. RUBEN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100959 June 29, 1992 - BENGUET CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA June 29, 1992 - IN RE: JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO