Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > June 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992 - MACARIO TAMARGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 85044. June 3, 1992.]

MACARIO TAMARGO, CELSO TAMARGO and AURELIA TAMARGO, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS; THE HON. ARISTON L. RUBIO, RTC Judge, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; VICTOR BUNDOC; and CLARA BUNDOC, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; CONSIDERED PRO FORMA WHERE NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING NOT CONTAINED THEREIN. — It will be recalled that petitioners’ motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed before the trial court, not having complied with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 41, and Section 4, Rule 15, of the Revised Rules of Court, were considered pro forma and hence did not interrupt and suspend the reglementary period to appeal: the trial court held that the motions, not having contained a notice of time and place of hearing, had become useless pieces of paper which did not interrupt the reglementary period. As in fact repeatedly held by this Court, what is mandatory is the service of the motion on the opposing counsel indicating the time and place of hearing.

2. ID.; SUPREME COURT; SUSPENSION OF APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL RULES EXERCISED IN CASE AT BAR. — In view, however, of the nature of the issue raised in the instant Petition, and in order that substantial justice may be served, the Court, invoking its right to suspend the application of technical rules to prevent manifest injustice, elects to treat the notice of appeal as having been seasonably filed before the trial court, and the motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the trial court as having interrupted the reglementary period for appeal. (Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120 [1978])

3. CIVIL LAW; TORTS; DOCTRINE OF "IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE" OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY, CONSTRUED. — It is not disputed that Adelberto Bundoc’s voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against him. (Article 2176 of the Civil Code) Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code) This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents — their parental authority — which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; BASIS. — The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 36 Phil. 768 [1918])

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PARENTAL DERELICTION, ONLY A PRESUMPTION. — The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overturned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

6. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; PARTIES; PARENTS WHO HAD ACTUAL CUSTODY OF MINOR, INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO ACTION FOR DAMAGES BASED ON TORT. — In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occurred when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that the natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.

7. CIVIL LAW; TORTS; DOCTRINE OF "IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE" OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ADOPTION THEREON; CASE AT BAR. — We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed.

8. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WHERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ARE ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Under Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or had already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the adopting parents. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent Bundoc spouses, Adelberto’s natural parents, were indispensable parties to the suit for damages brought by petitioners, and that the dismissal by the trial court of petitioners’ complaint, the indispensable parties being already before the court, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 3457-V, by Petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifer’s adopting parent, and petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer’s natural parents, against respondent spouses Victor and Clara Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents with whom he was living at the time of the tragic incident. In addition to this case for damages, a criminal information for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence was filed [Criminal Case No. 1722-V] against Adelberto Bundoc. Adelberto, however, was acquitted and exempted from criminal liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment.

Prior to the incident, or on 10 December 1981, the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition to adopt the minor Adelberto Bundoc in Special Proceedings No. 0373-T before the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. This petition for adoption was granted on 18 November 1982, that is, after Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer.

In their Answer, respondent spouses Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents, reciting the result of the foregoing petition for adoption, claimed that not they, but rather the adopting parents, namely the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura, were indispensable parties to the action since parental authority had shifted to the adopting parents from the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed.

Petitioners in their Reply contended that since Adelberto Bundoc was then actually living with his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased nor been relinquished by the mere filing and granting of a petition for adoption.

The trial court on 3 December 1987 dismissed petitioners’ complaint, ruling that respondent natural parents of Adelberto indeed were not indispensable parties to the action.

Petitioners received a copy of the trial court’s Decision on 7 December 1987. Within the 15-day reglementary period, or on 14 December 1987, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration on 15 January 1988. It appearing, however, that the motions failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court — that notice of the motion shall be given to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing of said motion; and that said notice shall state the time and place of hearing — both motions were denied by the trial court in an Order dated 18 April 1988. On 28 April 1988, petitioners filed a notice of appeal. In its Order dated 6 June 1988, the trial court dismissed the notice of appeal, this time ruling that the notice had been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period ending 22 December 1987.

Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for mandamus and certiorari questioning the trial court’s Decision dated 3 December 1987 and the Orders dated 18 April 1988 and 6 June 1988. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioners had lost their right to appeal.

In the present Petition for Review, petitioners once again contend that respondent spouses Bundoc are the indispensible parties to the action for damages caused by the acts of their minor child, Adelberto Bundoc. Resolution of this Petition hinges on the following issues: (1) whether or not petitioners, notwithstanding loss of their right to appeal, may still file the instant Petition; conversely, whether the Court may still take cognizance of the case even though petitioners’ appeal had been filed out of time; and (2) whether or not the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned, may be given retroactive effect so as to make the adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against their adopted child, for acts committed by the latter when actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents.

1. It will be recalled that petitioners’ motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed before the trial court, not having complied with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 41, and Section 4, Rule 15, of the Revised Rules of Court, were considered pro forma and hence did not interrupt and suspend the reglementary period to appeal: the trial court held that the motions, not having contained a notice of time and place of hearing, had become useless pieces of paper which did not interrupt the reglementary period. 1 As in fact repeatedly held by this Court, what is mandatory is the service of the motion on the opposing counsel indicating the time and place of hearing. 2

In view, however, of the nature of the issue raised in the instant Petition, and in order that substantial justice may be served, the Court, invoking its right to suspend the application of technical rules to prevent manifest injustice, elects to treat the notice of appeal as having been seasonably filed before the trial court, and the motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the trial court as having interrupted the reglementary period for appeal. As the Court held in Gregorio v. Court of Appeals: 3

"Dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeal on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules of procedure are used only to help secure not override, substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated." 4

2. It is not disputed that Adelberto Bundoc’s voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against him. As Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the Civil Code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

x       x       x


The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the person herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage." (Emphasis supplied)

This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents — their parental authority — which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. 5 The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained by the Court in Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. 6 in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect — and our Legislature has so elected — to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by a legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extra-contractual liability — with certain well-defined exceptions — to cases in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one’s own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one’s agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct." 7 (Emphasis supplied)

The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overturned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occurred when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that the natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.

The natural parents of Adelberto, however, stoutly maintain that because a decree of adoption was issued by the adoption court in favor of the Rapisura spouses, parental authority was vested in the latter as adopting parents as of the time of the filing the petition for adoption that is, before Adelberto had shot Jennifer with an air rifle. The Bundoc spouses contend that they were therefore free of any parental responsibility for Adelberto’s allegedly tortious conduct.

Respondent Bundoc spouses rely on Article 36 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code 8 which reads as follows:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 36. Decree of Adoption. — If, after considering the report of the Department of Social Welfare or duly licensed child placement agency and the evidence submitted before it, the court is satisfied that the petitioner is qualified to maintain, care for, and educate the child, that the trial custody period has been completed, and that the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, a decree of adoption shall be entered, which shall be effective as of the date the original petition was filed. The decree shall state the name by which the child is thenceforth to be known." (Emphasis supplied).

The Bundoc spouses further argue that the above Article 36 should be read in relation to Article 39 of the same Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 39. Effect of Adoption. — The adoption shall:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(2) Dissolve the authority vested in the natural parents, except where the adopter is the spouse of the surviving natural parent;"

x       x       x


(Emphasis supplied)

and urge that their parental authority must be deemed to have been dissolved as of the time the petition for adoption was filed.

The Court is not persuaded. As earlier noted, under the Civil Code, the basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law presumes, the parents exercise supervision and control. Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, re-enacted this rule:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 58. Torts — Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code." (Emphasis supplied).

Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines 9 has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law." (Emphasis supplied)

We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed.

Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code fortifies the conclusion reached above. Article 35 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 35. Trial Custody. — No Petition for adoption shall be finally granted unless and until the adopting parents are given by the courts a supervised trial custody period of at least six months to assess their adjustment and emotional readiness for the legal union. During the period of trial custody, parental authority shall be vested in the adopting parents." (Emphasis supplied)

Under the above Article 35, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or had already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the adopting parents.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent Bundoc spouses, Adelberto’s natural parents, were indispensable parties to the suit for damages brought by petitioners, and that the dismissal by the trial court of petitioners’ complaint, the indispensable parties being already before the court, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED DUE COURSE and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 6 September 1988, in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-15016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners’ complaint filed before the trial court is hereby REINSTATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with this Decision. Costs against respondent Bundoc spouses. This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Pojas v. Hon. Gozo-Dalole, 192 SCRA 575 (1990).

2. Fecundo v. Berjamen, 180 SCRA 235 (1989); Filipinas Fabricators and Sales, Inc. v. Magsino, 157 SCRA 469 (1988).

3. 72 SCRA 120 (1976).

4. Id., at 126.

5. See in this connection, Art. 311, 316, 357, Civil Code; Exconde v. Capuno, 101 Phil. 843 (1957). .

6. 38 Phil. 768 (1918).

7. Id., at 775-776.

8. Presidential Decree No. 603, dated 10 December 1974.

9. Executive Order No. 209, dated 6 July 1987.




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