Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > June 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 88246 June 4, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88246. June 4, 1993.]

LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASCADE COMMERCIAL CORP., Respondents.

Herenio E. Martinez for Petitioner.

Vicente Chua & Associates for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTION; JURISDICTION; WHERE A PARTY VOLUNTARILY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND LATER LOSES THE CASE ON THE MERITS, HE MAY NOT THEREAFTER DENY THAT SAME JURISDICTION. — It is settled that where a party voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court and thereafter loses on the merits, he may not thereafter be heard to say that the court had no jurisdiction after all. The party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication but because such a practice cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy. In Sibonghanoy, we held that the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was barred by estoppel or laches, which we defined as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence of omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. JUDICIAL ETHICS; THE TASK OF A JUDGE IS TO DECIDE AND NOT TO LITIGATE; THE JUDGE HAS THE DUTY OF DETACHMENT IN CASES WHERE HIS DECISION IS ELEVATED TO A HIGHER COURT FOR ITS REVIEW. — We cannot close this opinion without expressing our disapproval of the action taken by Judge Tomas V. Tadeo in filing his own motion for reconsideration of the decision of the respondent court. He should be admonished for his disregard of a well-known doctrine imposing upon the judge the duty of detachment in cases where his decision is elevated to a higher court for its review. The judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding and must leave it to the parties themselves to argue their respective positions and for the appellate court to rule on the matter without his participation. The more circumspect policy is to recognize one’s role in the scheme of things remembering always that the task of a judge is to decide and not to litigate.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


On February 15, 1982, petitioner La Campana Food Products, Inc. in Quezon City to private respondent Cascade Commercial Corporation for a period of 4 years beginning March 1, 1982. 1

On January 22, 1986, Cascade received a demand letter 2 from the lessor reading in part as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In this connection, demands are hereby repeated again made to you for the full payment of your above rentals in arrears and unpaid water bill in the total sum of P73,902.00 within a period of three (3) days from your receipt hereof, otherwise upon your failure, we may forward this matter to our legal counsel for proper action thereof.

On February 19, 1986, La Campana filed against Cascade a complaint for ejectment with preliminary attachment in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The complaint alleged non-payment of rentals since August 1985 despite repeated demands by the plaintiff on the defendant. It prayed that a writ of preliminary attachment be issued for the amount of P73,820.60 to answer for the unpaid rentals. The defendant was also asked to vacate the premises and to pay the unpaid rentals in the sum of P73,820.60 plus the amount of P15,000 monthly starting from March 1986 as the reasonable value of the use of the premises. 3

On April 4, 1986, Cascade filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Discharge of Attachment. 4 The motions alleged that, in view of the circumstances surrounding the case, the complaint should be considered an action for a sum of money and not ejectment. Since the amount claimed was over P20,000, the Metropolitan Trial Court had no jurisdiction. Cascade also alleged that it vacated the leased premises on March 3, 1986, and that when copies of summons and complaint were tendered upon it on March 26, 1986, the court could no longer acquire jurisdiction over it and the subject of the action.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The trial court denied the defendant’s motions on April 15, 1986, and reconsideration of such denial on June 30, 1986. 5

Cascade then filed a petition for review on certiorari with prohibition in the Court of Appeals, again assailing the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. 6 The petition claimed that there was no allegation in the complaint that Cascade was unlawfully withholding possession of the leased premises. Instead, it was averred that Cascade was removing its properties from the leased premises, a clear admission that it had the intention to voluntarily vacate the premises upon the expiration of the lease contract. The allegation that the petitioner had failed to pay the monthly rental amounting to P73,820.60 as of February 1986, showed that the complaint was for collection of unpaid rentals and not for ejectment.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Meanwhile, on July 25, 1986, Cascade filed its answer with counterclaim in the Metropolitan Trial Court praying for the dismissal of the complaint and the payment to it of actual expenses, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, as well as the costs of the suit. 7

On July 28, 1986, the Court of Appeals denied the petition filed by Cascade, holding that it was actually a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition that should have been filed in the Regional Trial Court. 8

Thereafter, in a decision dated April 6, 1987, Judge Pacifico L. Punzalan of the Metropolitan Trial Court found that the defendant had indeed vacated the leased premises on March 3, 1986. It also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P40,237.70 as unpaid rentals (after deducting the rental deposit and withholding tax), P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of the suit. All the counterclaims were dismissed. 9

Cascade appealed to the Regional Trial Court, where it reiterated the arguments raised in the Court of Appeals questioning the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court.

On August 24, 1987, Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. affirmed the appealed decision and on September 29, 1987, denied reconsideration. 10

In its subsequent petition for review before the Court of Appeals, Cascade again challenged the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, but this time on a different ground. It pointed out that in the complaint for ejectment, La Campana failed to allege that prior demands had been made upon the defendant to vacate the premises. This was an indispensable averment and its omission was fatal. The demands alleged in the complaint were merely for payment of unpaid rentals. 11

On February 8, 1989, the respondent Court of Appeals reversed the challenged decision 12 and dismissed the complaint, holding as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Indeed, to constitute unlawful detainer, it is not enough for the complainant to allege that petitioner did not pay the rentals due, because failure to pay rent does not make unlawful petitioner’s withholding of the leased premises. It is the owner’s demand for the tenant to vacate the premises, when the tenant has failed to pay the rents on time, and tenant’s refusal or failure to vacate, which make unlawful the withholding of possession. The demand to vacate is indispensable and jurisdictional, and if none is made, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

La Campana and, surprisingly, even the trial judge filed separate motions for reconsideration. On May 11, 1989, the respondent Court of Appeals denied both motions.

The petitioner invokes the case of Golden Gate Realty v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 13 where a motion to dismiss was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for failure to allege in the complaint that the plaintiff had made prior demands on the defendant to vacate the premises. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the complaint had alleged therein that the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he would be sued for ejectment if he failed to pay the rentals. This Court, agreeing with the lower court, said that there was no necessity to categorically use the word "vacate" in the lessor’s demand.

The January 20, 1986 letter of La Campana to Cascade, however, is rather ambiguous. It warned that upon failure of Cascade to pay the rentals and unpaid water bill, "we may forward this matter to our legal counsel for proper action thereof." We do not see in this statement an unequivocal or even an implied demand on the defendant to vacate the leased premises. The doctrine covered in the Golden Gate case is therefore not applicable.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Nevertheless, we will not sustain the finding of the respondent court that the Metropolitan Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case.

The reason is that the lack of the averment that there was demand to vacate the premises was never raised by the private respondent in the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court, and not even in the Court of Appeals in G.R. Sp No. 09550. The private respondent had questioned the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court in its Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the action was not for ejectment but for the collection of a sum of money. The answer it later filed did not raise the lack of the said allegation but in fact, recognizing the jurisdiction of the court, actually sought affirmative relief therefrom, thus:chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, after due hearing, defendant prays:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the Complaint be dismissed;

2. That the counterclaim be granted ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. Actual expenses, the amount of which to be presented during trial;

b. Moral and exemplary damages in an amount left to the discretion of the Honorable Court;

c. Attorney’s fees in an amount equivalent to P5,000.00, plus P300.00 per appearance;

d. Cost of suit.

Defendant further prays for such other reliefs and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.

In the case of Jakihaca v. Aquino, 14 this Court held on a similar question:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

As a general rule, jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be objected to at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal, but this is not without exception. In the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 30, cited in Tejones v. Cironella, 159 SCRA 104, We held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty. Upon this same principle is what we said . . . to the effect that we frown upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment only if favorable and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction.

Nowhere in the Answer of respondents contain an allegation attacking the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court based on the issue on demand. Again, in PNB v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 143 SCRA 305, We held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While petitioners could have prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by seasonably taking exception thereto, they instead invoke the very same jurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief from it. What is more, they participated in the trial of the case by cross-examining respondent Planas. Upon that premise, petitioners cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is settled that where a party voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court and thereafter loses on the merits, he may not thereafter be heard to say that the court had no jurisdiction after all. The party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication but because such a practice cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy. 15

In Sibonghanoy, we held that the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was barred by estoppel or laches, which we defined as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it." 16

We cannot close this opinion without expressing our disapproval of the action taken by Judge Tomas V. Tadeo in filing his own motion for reconsideration of the decision of the respondent court. He should be admonished for his disregard of a well-known doctrine imposing upon the judge the duty of detachment in case where his decision is elevated to a higher court for its review. The judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding and must leave it to the parties themselves to argue their respective positions and for the appellate court to rule on the matter without his participation. The more circumspect policy is to recognize one’s role in the scheme of things, remembering always that the task of a judge is to decide and not to litigate.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court is REINSTATED, with costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Records, Vol. 1, p. 5.

2. Ibid., p. 8.

3. Id., p. 1.

4. Id., p. 26.

5. Id., pp. 35, 44.

6. Id., p. 47.

7. Id., p. 79.

8. Id., p. 84; AC-G.R. Sp. No. 09550; penned by Justice Luis A. Javellana with Zosa, Mendoza V., and Tensuan, JJ., concurring.

9. Id., p. 129.

10. Records, Vol. II, pp. 16, 26.

11. Rollo, p. 50.

12. Ibid., p. 77; penned by Justice Luis A. Javellana, with Cui and Elbinias, JJ., concurring.

13. 152 SCRA 684.

14. 181 SCRA 70.

15. Salen v. Dinglasan, 198 SCRA 623; Abalos v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 596; F. David Enterprise Et. Al. v. IBAA, 191 SCRA 516.

16. Supra.




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-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 70310-11 June 1, 1993 - MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71998-99 June 2, 1991

    EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99866 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIDRO D. DORO

  • G.R. No. 105005 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITA A. MARCELO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-460 June 3, 1993 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. OSMUNDO M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93511 June 3, 1993 - CORAZON L. CABAGNOT v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97309-10 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO QUEJADA

  • G.R. No. 97426 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO APOLINARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97931 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105285 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO D. FIDER

  • G.R. No. 105884 June 3, 1993 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74298 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATELLAR SACRISTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88246 June 4, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97457 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO CABALLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993 - NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100606 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMI BALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDENTOR D. DICHOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83902 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84921 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DURAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 June 8, 1993 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96354 June 8, 1993 - LAPERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98177 June 8, 1993 - BARFEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101292 June 8, 1993 - RICARDO ENCARNACION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102773-77 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO SAYAT

  • G.R. No. 103631 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 106621 June 8, 1993 - PSBA MANILA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95357 June 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GELAVER

  • G.R. No. 57828 June 14, 1993 - SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94630 June 14, 1993 - SALOME ROSENDO RIVAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95539 June 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. DATINGGINOO

  • G.R. No. 97835 June 14, 1993 - FIRST GENERAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 100641 June 14, 1993 - FARLE P. ALMODIEL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108957 June 14, 1993 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-709 June 14, 1993 - ROGER A. DOMAGAS v. DELIA MALANA

  • G.R. Nos. 94709-10 June 15, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CABARRUBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106037 June 15, 1993 - RICARDO C. ROA, ET AL. v. PH CREDIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 553 June 17, 1993 - MAURICIO C. ULEP v. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-88-142 June 17, 1993 - ERLINDA A. MENDOZA v. RODOLFO A. MABUTAS

  • A.M. No. P-92-673 June 17, 1993 - LUMEN POLICARPIO, ET AL. v. GALLARDO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3694 June 17, 1993 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 88445 June 17, 1993 - JESUS KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92492 June 17, 1993 - THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101730 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106011 June 17, 1993 - TOWN SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106374 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106973 June 17, 1993 - MARIA L. LOPEZ v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108000 June 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 June 21, 1993 - LOURDES PRESADO v. MANUEL C. GENOVA

  • G.R. No. 104408 June 21, 1993 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105607 June 21, 1993 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99843 June 22, 1993 - Sps. BRAULIO ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104304-05 June 22, 1993 - LUNINGNING LANDRITO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993 - ROBERTO A. FLORES, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-752 June 23, 1993 - JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, SR. v. BALTAZAR DIZON

  • G.R. No. 90643 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN G. FORTES

  • G.R. No. 93109 June 25, 1993 - MILAGROS LLAMANZARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101728 June 25, 1993 - RAMON V. ROXAS v. SPS. ANDRES DY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102206 June 25, 1993 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102958 June 25, 1993 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104175 June 25, 1993 - YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105361 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ENCISO

  • G.R. No. 105883 June 25, 1993 - LETICIA A. ALIMARIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. RTJ-86-50 June 28, 1993 - ADELAIDA P. FELONGCO v. JUDGE LUIS D. DICTADO

  • G.R. No. 79760 June 28, 1993 - PERPETUAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. JOSE ORO B. FAJARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99333 June 28, 1993 - SPS. ANTONIO PAILANO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102980 June 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR OSIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106498 June 28, 1993 - LOLITA DADUBO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-711-P June 29, 1993 - SPS. ALFONSO AQUINO LIM, ET AL. v. OSCAR GUASCH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78631 June 29, 1993 - COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO C. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97564 June 29, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO CAYETANO

  • G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993 - ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. RUBEN O. TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-554 June 30, 1993 - WARLITO ALISANGCO v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 58057 June 30, 1993 - HEIRS OF MARIANO LAGUTAN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA ICAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72319 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALVERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72608 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO U. ARNAN

  • G.R. No. 86390 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 86994 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LOOT v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 94310 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 97212 June 30, 1993 - BENJAMIN YU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98000-02 June 30, 1993 - INOCENCIO PEÑANUEVA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98321-24 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100720-23 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CODILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102748 June 30, 1993 - GOULDS PUMPS (PHILS.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102984 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN TAKBOBO

  • G.R. No. 104609 June 30, 1993 - PHILIP LEE GO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105671 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL M. MAGTULOY

  • G.R. No. 105751 June 30, 1993 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. RUFINO CO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106646 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108284 June 30, 1993 - PERSONNEL SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.