Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > March 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 94803 March 16, 1992 - TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94803. March 16, 1992.]

TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE COOPERATIVE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (Third Division), and NEMESIA OPENA, Respondents.

Lomabao, Soriano & Associates for Petitioner.

Ernesto M. Tomaneng for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACT THEREOF; RULE. - The findings of fact of the NLRC are conclusive on this Court in the absence of a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily. (De Vera v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 632).

2. ID.; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; AS A GENERAL RULE, EMPLOYER HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO ORDER PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES PLUS SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT; EXCEPTION. — As a rule, the Court recognizes the prerogative of the employer to order merely payment of backwages plus separation pay in lieu of reinstatement even when the employee was eventually cleared of the charges, where relations between employer and the employee are so strained or where an employee would no longer be useful because his employer has lost trust and confidence in him. However, this rule is not without exception. In the case of Sibal v. Notre Dame of Greater Manila, 182 SCRA 538, the Court held: ". . . Clearly, therefore, when the assailed NLRC decision was rendered on April 11, 1986, the alleged `strained relations’ of `irritant factors’ which the Labor Arbiter capitalized on had been totally eliminated. Respondent NLRC obviously failed to consider this and thus perpetrated the error committed by the Labor Arbiter in her prior decision. The eventual replacement of Fr. Garcia all the more confirmed the discretionary and oppressive treatment which he gave petitioner. The dissenting NLRC Commissioner aptly observed thus: Moreover, it should be emphasized that no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one’s right, such as in the instant case, for otherwise, an employee who still asserts his/her separation pay on the pretext that his/her relationship with his/her employer and already become strained relations in order that it may justify the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement with backwages should be such that they are so compelling, and so serious. . . .."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; DISMISSAL; FOUND ILLEGAL IN CASE AT BAR. — Private respondent was illegally terminated because (a) the Board of Directors had no authority to terminate her and (b) the charges or offenses imputed against her were not substantiated and that private respondent was not guilty thereof. But she was not reinstated because of animosity giving rise to a strained relationship between Rolando Romero (the Board President) and the former. However, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, Rolando Romero died. Hence, the NLRC realizing that the obstacle to reinstate private respondent to her former position is already removed, modified its decision and ordered her reinstatement. This ruling is conformable to the aforecited case of Sibal v. Notre Dame of Greater Manila (182 SCRA 538). We therefore sustain the same. Besides, we rule that private respondent’s termination can only be made by the General Assembly and not by the Board of Directors. To pay her separation pay instead of reinstatement would in effect validate her termination which was not authorized and illegal. If petitioner believes that private respondent’s continued stay would be most detrimental to the cooperative, let them present the matter to the General Assembly, in accordance with petitioner’s constitution and by-laws.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The instant petition for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside, on ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the following:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

(a) Decision dated September 4, 1989 of respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) holding that the dismissal of private respondent Nemesia D. Opena by the Board of Directors of petitioner Talaga Barangay Water Service Cooperative is not valid and ordering the payment of backwages and separation pay to her in lieu of reinstatement; and

(b) Resolution dated August 10, 1989 of the same respondent modifying the Decision dated September 4, 1989 by ordering the reinstatement of private respondent to her former position with full backwages not exceeding three (3) years.

Petitioner is a business entity engaged in water service and distribution among the different members within the Barangay. Private respondent started working with petitioner way back in October 1979, as bookkeeper and cash collector. She was promoted to the position of System Superintendent in September 1981. She was also a committee member of petitioner’s Education and Training Committee.

On April 30, 1987, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of petitioner issued a memorandum suspending private respondent because she allegedly refused to install a water line gadget for Ramon Magpantay. The same body issued another memorandum on April 17, 1988 terminating private respondent’s services effective May 1, 1988 for the following reasons:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Shortage of collection as per audited financial statement for the year 1984.

"2. Insubordination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(a) refusal to accept collection as per Board Memorandum dated January 8, 1987.

‘(b) Refusal to install the disconnected water service of Ramon Magpantay as per memorandum dated April 30, 1987, wherein you suffered suspension.

‘(c) Recommendation of Mr. Filemon Ramos a PD’s representative to dismiss you from the service based on documented evidences of suspension.

‘(d) Disobeying the orders of the Vice-President in the distribution of water to different sectors of the barangay.

‘(e) Cranky attitude towards members and subordinates.

‘(f) Giving derogatory remarks causing too much insult to Directors.

"3. Lack of competence despite of your long experience in the service in dealing with members and subordinates as evidenced by verbal complaints likewise as indicated in Memorandum dated April 20, 1987." (pp. 28-29, Rollo)

Consequently, on July 6, 1988, private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision on April 19, 1989 declaring legal the suspension and termination of private Respondent. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered dismissing the above-entitled case for lack of merit. Respondent, however, is ordered to pay complainant financial assistance equivalent to three (3) months pay based on her latest salary.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 58, Rollo)

Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 4, 1989, the NLRC rendered its Decision, setting aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter on the grounds that —

"(a) Being both an officer and committee member, private respondent’s committee member, private respondent’s termination can only be effectuated by the National Assembly pursuant to Section 3, subsection (a) of the Constitution and By-Laws of petitioner and not by the Board of Directors. This indubitably renders the dismissal of private respondent by the Board of Directors of petitioner, null, void and illegal from the outset.

"b) The alleged infractions were not sufficiently and clearly established, and more importantly, private respondent was not culpable thereof." (p. 30, Rollo)

However, the respondent Commission merely required petitioner to pay private respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 19, 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered ordering respondent to pay complainant (1) separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s pay for every year of service, in lieu of reinstatement; and (2) backwages from May 1, 1988 up to the date of promulgation of this Decision.

"SO ORDERED." (pp. 38-39, Rollo)

Both parties moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid decision.

On August 10, 1990, the respondent Commission modified its earlier Decision by ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with full backwages, not exceeding three (3) years, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the resolution of this Commission dated September 4, 1989 is hereby modified. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages until her reinstatement, which in no case shall exceed three (3) years." (p. 48, Rollo)

Hence, this petition. The following grounds are relied upon to warrant the grant thereof:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT IT IS NOT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO HAS THE POWER TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT NEMESIA OPENA.

II


PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT NEMESIA OPENA WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED, INSPITE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HER DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE WAS JUSTIFIED FOR LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE AND FOR CONDUCT INIMICAL TO THE EMPLOYER.

(p. 18, Rollo)

We find the petition devoid of merit.

Section 3, subsection (a), Art. III of the Constitution and by-laws of petitioner explicitly provides that the General Assembly has the power to elect and remove directors, officers and committee members for cause. This power to remove was not given to the Board of Directors. Records show that private respondent was at the time of her dismissal both an officer and committee member. This being the case, her removal can only be made by the General Assembly.

On this point, the Court agrees with the following observations of the respondent Commission, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In resolving the first issue, the Commission finds the portions of the constitution and by-laws of appellee’s cooperative which are submitted and marked as exhibits 12, 13, and 13-A for appellant (pp. 150-152, Records), as well as Annex J of appellee’s position paper (p. 20, Records) to be pertinent documents to consider.

"Under Section 3, subsection (a), Article III, thereof, it is explicitly stipulated that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Section 3. Powers and limitations of the General Assembly — The General Assembly has the powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(a) To elect and remove directors, officers and committee members for causes.’

"On the other hand, under Section 15 thereof which enumerated the powers and duties of the Board of Directors, while it has been granted under subsections (d) and (e) the power to ‘elect the officers of the Cooperative’ and ‘to appoint other employees if it deems necessary, who may not be members of the cooperative and fix their compensation’ and also under Section 7, subsection (a) (Annex J, p. 20, Records) where it has been given the power to appoint the System Superintendent, nowhere do We find that it was equally granted the power or authority to remove as in the case of the General Assembly which has been expressly granted the power of removal. Under statutory construction, the rule that ‘what has not been expressly included is deemed excluded’ properly applies.

"There is no doubt that the position of a System Superintendent is that of an officer. It is a position created under Section 7 (Annex J) and also as classified under Section 15, subsection (m) (Exhibit 13-A, p. 152. Records) which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(m) To fix the amounts of bonds and cause the bonding of Treasurer, System Superintendent and any other accountable officers or employees charged with the custody of the Cooperative’s funds and properties.’

"There is also evidence that appellant was also a committee member of the Education and Training Committee (Annex D of Respondent’s position paper, No. 8 of Board of Resolution dated April 3, 1988, p. 27, Records).

"It is, therefore, clear that being both an officer and committee member, appellant’s termination can only be effectuated by the General Assembly pursuant to Section 3, subsection (a) of the Constitution and By-Laws of appellee and not by the Board of Directors as was done in the case at bar. This indubitably renders the dismissal null, void and illegal from the outset." (pp. 29-30, Rollo)

We also sustain the following finding of respondent Commission that alleged infractions were not sufficiently and clearly established and that appellant was not culpable thereof.

"We have, in Our scrutiny of the records, taken note of the offenses and/or violations alleged to have been committed by the complainant. The alleged shortage of P2,140.00 incurred in 1984, (Exhibits F, G, H), which complainant explained to have been given to a deceased member of the cooperative, by the then President Mr. Lorenzo Rodriguez, substantiated by picture of the wake and tender of payment, (Rollo 143). The alleged insubordination case which led to complainant’s suspension, in the matter of the complaint of Ramon Magpantay (Exhibit J), whose water disconnection was made by reason of non-payment of bills as admitted by Mr. Magpantay (Rollo 146), the libelous utterances of Magpantay as reported by Natalio Rodriguez, (Exhibit 8-A, Rollo 146), complainant report (sic) to the Board of the incident, (Rollo, 147, Exhibit 9-A). That by said incident, complainant was suspended for alleged ‘harassment of the members of business’ (Rollo 149). The case of water user Miguel Quilao (Exhibit C), who was accused for having been found to have magnetic piece of iron on his water meter as reported by (sic) inspector. It is surprising (sic) to note that while respondent claim as a basis for termination the alleged loss of trust and confidence by reason of the shortage in 1984 (sic), respondent other (sic) alleged incident, is the alleged refusal of complainant to perform the function as cash collector in January 9, 1987. This appears to be contradictory to (sic) other assertion of loss of trust by reason of the shortage.

"All told, we are of the considered opinion that the alleged ground and incidents cited has been satisfactorily explained by complainant." (pp. 44-45. Rollo).

The findings of fact of the NLRC are conclusive on this Court in the absence of a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily. (De Vera v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 632). The petitioner has failed to show such arbitrariness.

As a rule, the Court recognizes the prerogative of the employer to order merely payment of backwages plus separation pay in lieu of reinstatement even when the employee was eventually cleared of the charges, where relations between employer and the employee are so strained or where an employee would no longer be useful because his employer has lost trust and confidence in him. However, this rule is not without exception. In the case of Sibal v. Notre dame of Greater Manila, 182 SCRA 538, the Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Clearly, therefore, when the assailed NLRC decision was rendered on April 11, 1986, the alleged ‘strained relations’ or ‘irritant factors’ which the Labor Arbiter capitalized on had been totally eliminated. Respondent NLRC obviously failed to consider this and thus perpetrated the error committed by the Labor Arbiter in her prior decision. The eventual replacement of Fr. Garcia all the more confirmed the discretionary and oppressive treatment which he gave petitioner. The dissenting NLRC Commissioner aptly observed thus: Moreover, it should be emphasized that no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one’s right, such as in the instant case, for otherwise, an employee who still asserts his/her separation pay on the pretext that his/her relationship with his/her employer and already become strained relations in order that it may justify the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement with backwages should be such that they are so compelling, and so serious. . . .." (pp. 164-165, Rollo)

As above-stated, private respondents was illegally terminated because (a) the Board of Directors had no authority to terminate her and (b) the charges or offenses imputed against her were not substantiated and that private respondent was not guilty thereof. But she was not reinstated because of animosity giving rise to a strained relationship between Rolando Romero (the Board President) and the former. However, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, Rolando Romero died. Hence, the NLRC realizing that the obstacle to reinstate private respondent to her former position is already removed, modified its decision and ordered her reinstatement. Thus ruling is conformable to the aforecited case of Sibal v. Notre Dame of Greater Manila (supra). We therefore sustain the same. Besides, we rule that private respondent’s termination can only be made by the General Assembly and not by the Board of Directors. To pay her separation pay instead of reinstatement would in effect validate her termination which was not authorized and illegal. If petitioner believes that private respondent’s continued stay would be most detrimental to the cooperative, let them present the matter to the General Assembly, in accordance with petitioner’s constitution and by-laws.cralawnad

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent NLRC are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, 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






March-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86150 March 2, 1992 - GUMAN, BOCALING & CO. v. RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE

  • A.M. No. P-88-255 March 3, 1992 - MANUEL U. DEL ROSARlO v. JOSE T. BASCAR, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 46460-61 March 3, 1992 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 - GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85479 March 3, 1992 - PERFECTO ESPAÑOL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93003 March 3, 1992 - CARMELITA REYES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 95696 March 3, 1992 - ALFONSO S. TAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101753 March 3, 1992 - CIPRIANO PEÑAFLORIDA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42987 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE REBULADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84363 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO B. ALILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 March 4, 1992 - DANIEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91745 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO MANLIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96607 March 4, 1992 - OSCAR QUILOÑA v. GENERAL COURT MARTIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97296 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. CANCILLER

  • G.R. Nos. 102653, 102925, 102983 March 5, 1992 - NATIONAL PRESS CLUB v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 58879 March 6, 1992 - EXPEDITA LIBREA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62088 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SAMILLANO

  • G.R. No. 66641 March 6, 1992 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77744 March 6, 1992 - TEODORA CLAVERIAS v. ADORACION QUINGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89983-84 March 6, 1992 - LORENZO S. MENDIOLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92501 March 6, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92878 March 6, 1992 - EDUARDO PATNA-AN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93851 March 6, 1992 - MARK BAYQUEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94530 March 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DONATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992 - CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR. v. JOB B. MADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95370 & 101227 March 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EFREN O. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2405 March 11, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., v. OLEEGARIO SANTISTEBAN

  • G.R. No. 40243 March 11, 1992 - CELESTINO TATEL v. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47815 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84612 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86744 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91662 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO AGUILUZ

  • G.R. No. 94129 March 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 95594 March 11, 1992 - ITALIAN VILLAGE RESTAURANT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57630 March 13, 1992 - CLARA BADAYOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100926 March 13, 1992 - INDEPENDENT SAGAY-ESCALANTE PLANTERS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 3216 March 16, 1992 - DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO v. JOSEPHINE PALOGAN EDUARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 74306 & 74315 March 16, 1992 - ENRIQUE RAZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91122 March 16, 1992 - DIONY RAPIZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93234 March 16, 1992 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94803 March 16, 1992 - TALAGA BARANGAY WATER SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95692 March 16, 1992 - SUNDAY MACHINE WORKS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98030 March 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO J. CUADRA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85469 March 18, 1992 - JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87148 March 18, 1992 - MARCIANA CONSIGNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94810 March 18, 1992 - EASTERN METROPOLITAN BUS CORP., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992 - PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97357 March 18, 1992 - VIRON GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100727 March 18, 1992 - COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71238 March 19, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75308 March 23, 1992 - LOPE SARREAL, SR. v. JAPAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75907 March 23, 1992 - FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE PHIL., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80658-60 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO TINAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90519 March 23, 1992 - UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90527 March 23, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BAAO, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92442-43 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 92740 March 23, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. JAIME J. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95022 March 23, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992 - ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97346 March 23, 1992 - RODOLFO YOSORES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101367 March 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83583-84 March 25, 1992 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84220 March 25, 1992 - BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 - OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88942 March 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO S. CARPIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-87-98 March 26, 1992 - AMELIA B. JUVIDA v. MANUEL SERAPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93044 March 26, 1992 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL WAGES COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96697 March 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME COMPETENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45425 & 45965 March 27, 1992 - CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ET AL. v. ERNESTO TENGCO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3724 March 31, 1992 - JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO v. RAMON J. QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64220 March 31, 1992 - SEARTH COMMODITIES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76225 March 31, 1992 - ESPIRIDION TANPINGCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87710 March 31, 1992 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS OF TELEVISION STATIONS RPN, BBC AND IBC

  • G.R. No. 94071 March 31, 1992 - NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96319 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO ARCEGA

  • G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992 - FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101556 March 31, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ESTERA

  • G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992 - BLO UMPAR ADIONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS