Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > March 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. L-42987 March 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE REBULADO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-42987. March 4, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE REBULADO, PRIMITIVO REBULADO and ROGELIO SALES, Defendants-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Reynaldo B. Aralar & Associates, for Defendants-Appellants.


D E C I S I O N


BIDIN, J.:


This is an appeal from the June 16, 1975 Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Tenth Judicial District, Branch I, presided by Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing accused-appellant Vicente Rebulado to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Servillon in the sum of P20,000.00, jointly and severally; and to any the costs.

In an Information dated December 16, 1969, Provincial Fiscal Edmundo S. Alberto charged accused-appellants with the crime of Murder, allegedly committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1969, at approximately 6:30 o’clock in the morning, in the barrio of San Ramon, municipality of Nabua, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab with a kitchen knife and strike with pieces of wood one Rodolfo Servillon, thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused the death of the said Rodolfo Servillon."cralaw virtua1aw library

All of the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty at the arraignment.

As summarized in the People’s Brief, the facts of the case are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At about 6:30 in the morning of November 3, 1969, Edmundo Gallarte, Lorenzo Avila and Rodolfo Servillon, all residents of San Ramon, Nabua, Camarines Sur, on their way to harvest palay, dropped at the store of Juana Tretasco Gallarte, a resident of the same place, to light their cigarettes (pp. 25, 26, TSN, April 6, 1970; pp. 59, 60, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970).

"After lighting his cigarette, Rodolfo Servillon sat on a table (p. 26, TSN, Id.). Several minutes later, Vicente Rebulado, Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales arrived at the store (p. 60, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970). While Rodolfo Servillon was seated on the table, Vicente Rebulado went behind Servillon, and without any warning, stabbed the latter hitting him on the right side of the lumbar region (pp. 26, 32, TSN, Apr. 6, 1970).

"While trying to run away after he was stabbed, Servillon was hit on the left forearm by Primitivo Rebulado, and on the back by Rogelio Sales, who were each armed with a piece of wood. Servillon, however, was able to run away from his attackers who pursued him, but gave up after they failed to catch up with him (pp. 30, 31 & 34, TSN, Id.). Edmundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila followed Servillon, and caught up with him when the latter was walking in a zigzag manner, and brought him to the house of Alejo Beranza. Servillon was then taken to the clinic of one Dr. Belmonte (pp. 35,36, TSN, Id.).

Upon advice of Dr. Belmonte who administered emergency treatment on the critically injured Servillon, the latter was brought to the Camarines Provincial Hospital where he was operated on (p. 67, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970).

Medical findings on his (Servillon’s) body reveal that he sustained two wounds: (1) a ‘stab wound on the lumbar region, right penetrating abdomen, perforating ascending colon, lacerating lower pole of right kidney, massive hematoma posterior peritoneum’, and (2) ‘external lesions consisting of abrasions, anterior aspect upper third left forearm.’ The stab wound was the fatal one which caused Servillon’s death, due to Massive Internal Hemorrhage (pp. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10, TSN, Apr. 6, 1970; Exhs. "B" & "C", pp. 2 & 4, Rec.).

At about 8:00 o’clock in the morning of November 3, 1969, a report that a certain Rodolfo Servillon was stabbed by Vicents Rebulado, was received in the Office of the Chief of Police of Nabua, Camarines Sur. Upon the order of the Chief of Police, the suspect Vicente Rebulado was arrested and brought by Police Lt. Teofisto Ayuma to the said Chief of Police who conducted an investigation. Vicente Rebulado gave a written statement (Exit. "D" which was sworn to before Juan Ballecer, Municipal Judge of Nabua, Camarines Sur (p. 55, TSN, Apr. 6, 1970).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In his statement to the police, Vicente Rebulado narrated the circumstances surrounding the stabbing of Rodolfo Servillon. He stated that he was arrested for the stabbing of Rodolfo Servillon; that he was the one who stabbed Servillon; that he stabbed Servillon at about 6:30 in the morning of November 3, 1969, because while he (Rebulado) was on his way home to San Antonio, Ogdon, Nabua, Camarines Sur, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of November 2, 1969, after he came from the house of Rosy Bagasbas, of San Ramon, Nabua, and whom he was courting, Rodolfo Servillon emerged from a dark place and hit him (Rebulado) with a piece of wood; that he was hit on the left ear with a piece of wood, and on the stomach, with a fist blow; that Servillon assaulted him because he (Servillon) was also courting Rosy Bagasbas; that he returned to the house of Rosy Bagasbas and told the latter and her mother what happened to him; that Rosy Bagasbas and her mother escorted him until he reached a safe place before reaching home; that upon waking up the following morning (Nov. 3, 1969), he related the incident to his father; that his father told him that they settle the case amicably; that he did not want any settlement because he wanted to take revenge on Servillon; that he, together with his father, his brother Primitivo Servillon (sic) and his brother-in-law Rogelio Sales went to look for Rodolfo Rebulado; that they found Servillon, together with Raymundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila, in the store of Juana Tretasco Gallarte, in San Ramon, Nabua, Camarines Sur; that when he saw Servillon seated at the store, he (Vicente Rebulado) without saying any word, approached and stabbed Servillon who thereafter ran away but while running was met and struck by Primitivo with a piece of wood; that his brother-in-law Rogelio Sales stood by and watched what was happening; that after the incident (Vicente Rebulado) went home together with his father, his brother Primitivo, and brother-in-law Rogelio Sales (Exits. "D", "D-1", "E-2", pp. 11-13, Rec.)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defense of accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado is alibi, while accused Vicente Rebulado is self-defense.

Accused-appellant Rogelio Sales denied any participation in the crime. He testified that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was working on the riceland of Felix Cuadro; that he does not know the persons of deceased Rodolfo Servillon, Edmundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila; that he denies the statements of Gallarte and Avila pointing him as one of the accused, and does not know any reason why they would incriminate him in the tragic incident; that he is the brother-in-law of his co-accused Primitivo and Vicente Rebulado who have been living with him in his house for the last six years; and that he was arrested while plowing the ricefield of Felix Cuadro at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of November 3, 1969 (TSN, Hearing of Dec. 19, 1972, Ibid., pp. 153-169).

Felix Cuadro corroborated the testimony of Rogelio Sales. He added that he met Rogelio on his way to look for laborers to plow and harrow his field at four (4:00) o’clock in the morning of November 3, 1969 riding on a carabao; that he was taken to the house of Rogelio’s father who was still sleeping, but he was able to engage their services that same morning; that after the father and son took their breakfast, they all left at about 7:00 o’clock the same morning to the ricefield and started to work immediately; that he went home to take his breakfast and to prepare the food for lunch; and that when he returned to the field at about 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning, Rogelio was no longer there and his father informed him that he was arrested by a policeman (TSN, Hearing of Dec. 19, 1972, Ibid., pp. 134-152).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Likewise, Accused-appellant Primitivo Rebulado denied participation in the killing of Rodolfo Servillon. He testified that he went to the cemetery of Nabua, Camarines Sur on November 2, 1969 at 5:00 o’clock p.m., for the All Souls Day celebration; that his purpose was to see friends and "barkadas" and to visit his dead cousins and relatives, but he was able to name only one and forgot the others; that past 12:00 o’clock midnight of November 3, 1969, he went and slept at the hut of Moises Paranal; that past 6:00 o’clock in the morning of November 3,1969, he was awakened by Moises Paranal in order to attend the 6:30 mass in the chapel of the cemetery; and that they both went home past 8:00 o’clock a.m. on the same date (TSN, Hearing of July 17, 1972, Ibid., pp. 123-130); and Hearing of March 5, 1974, Ibid., pp. 203-217). Primitivo Rebulado’s testimony was corroborated by Moises Paranal who was on vigil for his deceased sister and brother-in-law. However, Paranal testified that Primitivo Rebulado had no immediate relative to watch in the cemetery that night; and that it is only now that he disclosed that he and Primitivo were together at the cemetery when the crime was committed, and hence, could not have participated with his co-accused Vicente Rebulado and Rogelio Sales in the commission of the crime (TSN, Hearing of Apr. 11, 1973, pp. 105-123).

Vicente Rebulado, on the other hand, in an obvious attempt to exculpate his co-accused appellants, testified that he and deceased Rodolfo Servillon were alone when the incident that led to the latter’s death occurred; that he killed Servillon because on November 1, 1969, after he visited Rosie Bagasbas, the girl they were both courting, Servillon warned him that if he ever goes back to the girl’s house, Servillon will kill him; that at 6:30 in the morning of November 3,1969, while he was passing the store of Juan Gallarte Tretasco, he was called by Servillon who was at the store and who asked him where he was going; that he told Servillon that he was going to visit Rosie Bagasbas; that Servillon boxed him but he was not hit; Servillon then got a piece of wood to arm himself; that he also got a piece of wood and was able to disarm Servillon with his first strike; that they then fought and the deceased Servillon took his scythe which was on the table; that he was able to get his stainless knife and stabbed Servillon; that Servillon ran away after having been hit, and he decided to go home; and that on the way, he surrendered to a policeman who was looking for him after identifying himself (TSN, Hearing of Aug. 8, 1973, Ibid., pp. 170-199).

The trial court, in a decision dated June 16, 1975, found all the accused guilty as charged with the crime of Murder. The decretal portion of the said judgment reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Vicente Rebulado, Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, hereby sentences the accused, Vicente Rebulado the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (Life); applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby sentences each of the accused Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales to suffer the penalty of, from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Servillon in the sum of P20,000.00, jointly and severally and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accused-appellants Primitivo Rebulado and Rogello Sales appealed the decision of the trial court, while accused Vicente Rebulado chose to serve his sentence.

From the records of this case, it appears that only accused-appellant Rogelio Sales has been apprehended and detained at the Provincial Jail of Camarines Sur, in Naga City. Appellant Primitivo Rebulado could no longer be found (Ibid, p. 51).

The Brief for Appellant Rogelio Sales, submitted by his counsel de oficio appointed by this Court, raised the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ROGELIO SALES AS CO-CONSPIRATOR OF VICENTE REBULADO.

II


THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING ACCUSED ROGELIO SALES TO IMPRISONMENT, INDEMNITY AND COSTS.

The instant appeal is devoid of merit.

Conspiracy in the case at bar is established by the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Raymundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila pointing to acts done in concert by the accused to carry out an unlawful design: that all three accused arrived together at the store where the victim was seated together with the prosecution witnesses. Soon thereafter, Accused Vicente Rebulado went behind Rodolfo Servillon and stabbed the latter. As Servillon was about to run away, he was hit with a piece of wood on his left forearm and on the back by Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales, respectively. Notwithstanding the assault on his person, Rodolfo Servillon was able to run away pursued by his assailants who failed to catch up with him. Rodolfo Servillon was later brought to the Provincial Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him. These facts taken together establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants acted in concert with a common design. Hence, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.

In People v. Serante (152 SCRA 520 [1987]), this Court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For conspiracy to exist it is enough that at the time the offense is committed, the participants had the same purposes and were united in its execution as maybe inferred from the attendant circumstances. This court has repeatedly ruled that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design. (People v. Catao, 107 Phil. 861 [1960]; People v. Estrada, 130 Phil. 108; 22 SCRA 111; People v. Alcantara, L-26867, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 812).

Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all; and it is of no moment that not all the accused participated in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime (People v. Paredes, Et Al., 133 Phil. 633 [1968], 24 SCRA 635)." chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The alibi of Rogelio Sales that he was working in the ricefield of Felix Cuadro in barrio San Antonio, Nabua, Camarines Sur at the time of the commission of the crime does not deserve slightest consideration. Barrio San Antonio is said to be about one (1) or two (2) kilometers from San Ramon of the same municipality where the crime took place. There is no physical impossibility for the accused-appellant Sales to be at the scene of the crime. In any event, the presence of accused-appellant Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado, as well as the prosecution witnesses Edmundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila at the scene of the crime, is confirmed by the statement (Exhibit "D") of accused Vicente Rebulado at the Nabua Police Department on November 3, 1969 at 8:30 a.m., barely two (2) hours after the incident, and subscribed and sworn to before Municipal Judge Juan Ballecer which, among others, states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Did you heed or follow the advice of your father to have this case settled with him (Servillon)?

A No, because I wanted to take a revenge on him so I went to look for Rodolfo Servillon.

Q When you were going to San Ramon, do you know who were with you?

A Yes sir, they were my father Damian Rebulado, my brother, Primitivo Rebulado and my brother-in-law Rogelio Sales (Exhibit "D-4").

x       x       x


"Q Were you able to locate Rodolfo Servillon?

A Yes sir, in the store of Juana Gallarte Tretasco at San Ramon, Nabua, Camarines Sur.

Q What was Rodolfo Servillon doing at the said store?

A He was just inside that store together with Lorenzo Avila and Raymundo Gallarte." (Exhibit "D-9", Record, p. 12).

It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution’s witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime especially when there is no physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime (People v. Pecato, 151 SCRA 14 [1987]; People v. Dava, 149 SCRA 582 [1987]; People v. Inot, 150 SCRA 322 [1987]). In the face of the clear and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, the defense of alibi assumes no probative value and is not credible (People v. Serante, supra). Besides, there is no evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses who personally know all the accused as they come from the same place were actuated by any sinister motive to impute a crime so grave as murder to accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado. As a matter of fact, Accused Vicente Rebulado, in his affidavit (Exh. D) admits that his co-accused appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado were with him that fateful morning of November 3, 1969 when the offense complained of occurred.

Finally, it must be stated that the findings of facts of the trial court that has the privilege of observing the demeanor of witnesses while on the witness stand, and therefore can discern if these witnesses are telling the truth or not, must not be disturbed and should be given weight. There are no exceptions in the record that justify the acquittal of the accused-appellants (Amarante Heirs v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 155 SCRA 46 [1987]).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In view of the foregoing considerations, the trial court did not err in finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is Affirmed with the modification that accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua without qualification as the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable, among others, to persons convicted of an offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment and to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence (Sec. 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law); and accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado are ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Rodolfo Servillon in the amount of P50,000.00. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Davide, Jr. and Romero, 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