Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > September 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 105752 September 2, 1993 - INOCENCIO GONZALES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 105752. September 2, 1993.]

INOCENCIO GONZALES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

German A. Gineta for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DUE PROCESS CLAUSE; SHOULD BE INVOKED IN CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner’s third argument where he invokes the protection of the due process clause of the Constitution should be sustained. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1985 is the governing rule on notice before an employee can be dropped from the rolls due to absence without leave, viz: "4. The agency should notify in writing the employee, who is absent without leave (AWOL) for thirty (30) days, to report within five (5) days from receipt of notice, otherwise, he shall be dropped from the rolls." The Circular does not specifically state where the notice shall be sent. In the case at bar, petitioner’s residence is at 30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City. Nonetheless, in 1990, petitioner left for the United States to attend personally to the problems of his children. When petitioner filed his leave of absence without pay, ATI knew that petitioner was staying at 149 Declaration Way, San Jose, California in 1992. The letter of June 25, 1990 of the petitioner requesting this leave clearly carried his address in the United States. The records do not show that the officials of ATI denied knowledge of petitioner’s correct address. Despite this knowledge, however, the letter of September 5, 1990 written by Atty. Ildefonso del Rosario, ATI’s Asst. Director and OIC, directing petitioner to return to work within five (5) days, otherwise, he would be dropped from the rolls was inexplicably mailed to his house at 30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City.

2. ID.; ID.; NOTICE REQUIREMENT, NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH BY RESPONDENT COMMISSION. — It is the ruling of the respondent Civil Service Commission that the sending of the said notice to the residence of petitioner constitutes "substantial" compliance with the demands of due process. The ruling would have some allure if the address of petitioner in the United States was not known to the officials of ATI and if his Philippine address was his last known address. But as stressed above, they knew of petitioner’s exact address in the United States and there appears no impediment for them to send the notice in this correct address. Petitioner, be it noted, was not moving from one residence to another, to avoid service of legal notices. They were aware that petitioner was not momentarily staying in his address in Quezon City where he could receive said notice. Under the circumstances, it is grave abuse of discretion for the respondent Commission to hold that there was "substantial" compliance with the notice requirement of due process. The disputed ruling cuts too deeply on petitioner’s right to continue his employment in the government and unduly dilutes the protection of due process.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION DID NOT CURE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. — We cannot give our concurrence to the further ruling of the respondent Commission that the denial of due process to the petitioner was cured by the publication of said notice in three (3) issues of the Philippine Journal. Notice by publication might have been proper if the address of petitioner were unknown. Since the officials of ATI knew the whereabouts of petitioner, they have no legal warrant to notify him thru the newspapers.

4. ID.; ID.; DROPPING OF PETITIONS FROM THE ROLLS, PETITIONER DONE ARBITRARILY. — For reasons not divulged in the records, they sat on the request. Only on September 5, 1990, did they declare that petitioner had been absent without official leave. In the said letter too, Atty. del Rosario ordered petitioner to return to work within five (5) days allegedly due to the "exigencies of the service." Nonetheless, Atty. del Rosario did not explain why all of a sudden the "exigencies of the service" required the immediate return of the petitioner. If the "exigencies of the service" were real, the Court wonders why he did not deny forthwith the request of petitioner for leave without pay made as far back as June 1992. Worse still, the order dropping petitioner from the rolls’ was never sent to him. Petitioner did not also know he had been replaced till he returned to the Philippines on November 16, 1990. In a setting of scarcities, it is bad enough to lose a job; it is worse, if it is taken away by government itself without due process of law. Our Constitution abhors such arbitrariness.


D E C I S I O N


PUNO, J.:


At stake is the 36 year career service of the petitioner in government. For losing his job without proper notice, petitioner seeks the protection of due process, the guaranty against acts of arbitrariness of government 1 His plea is not without merit.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

It took petitioner Inocencio Gonzales thirty six (36) years to ascend to his position of Administrative Officer III of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), an agency of the Department of Agriculture. On his 25th year of service, he received a merit award recognizing his continuous, dedicated, and faithful service in the government. On his 30th year, he repeated the feat. His record of service is without any wart of malfeasance or misfeasance in office.

Early in 1990, certain problems beset his two (2) children in the United States. He had to fly to the United States to attend to his children. He applied for and was granted leaves with pay from February 2, to July 16, 1990. After six (6) months, however, the family problem had not gone away and he decided to spend more time with his children.

On June 25, 1990, petitioner wrote to the Director of ATI requesting approval of a leave without pay starting from the second week of July to December 31, 1991. He cited as additional reason his desire to take advantage of." . . a physical check-up free of charge due to my childrens’ medical plan benefits." The letter was personally delivered by petitioner’s wife. It carried his address in the United States at 149 Declaration Way, San Jose, California, 95116.

For unknown reason, the Director of ATI did not act on the letter-request. It was neither approved nor disapproved. Three (3) months later, ATI started acting adversely on petitioner’s request. On September 5, 1990, Atty. Ildefonso del Rosario, ATI’s Assistant Director and OIC, wrote to petitioner declaring him absent without official leave for more than thirty (30) days and warning him that should he not report within five (5) days from receipt of the letter, he would be dropped from the rolls. The letter was addressed at 30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City, petitioner’s house. The letter, however, was returned to sender (ATI) on September 27, 1990. 2

What ATI did was to publish a notice of similar import in the October 4, 11 and 18, 1990 issues of the Philippine Journal, a newspaper of general circulation. On October 24, 1990, ATI dropped petitioner from its rolls. He was not furnished a copy of the order. When he came back from the United States and reported for work on November 19, 1990, he found out that Mercedes Puruganan had been appointed to his position. By himself, he protested to the Civil Service Commission on December 14, 1990. His letter-protest was endorsed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB) for appropriate action. On April 30, 1991, the Board ruled that petitioner was duly notified before he was dropped from the rolls. His appeal was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was rejected.

Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Again, petitioner lost. In its Resolution No. 92-640, dated May 7, 1992, the Commission held: (1) that the requirement of notice was "substantially" complied with by the ATI, and (2) that the failure of ATI to act on his request for leave without pay was of "no moment" .

Undaunted by his legal setbacks, petitioner filed this petition for certiorari. He raises the following arguments:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. GRAVE INJUSTICE WAS COMMITTED BY SUPPOSEDLY BEING ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE (AWOL), WHEN HE HAD ACCRUED VACATION AND SICK LEAVES AND WAS, THEREFORE, STILL SERVING ON OFFICIAL TIME.

II. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED WHEN PETITIONER, AN OFFICER WITH THE RIGHT OF SECURITY OF TENURE, WAS DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO REMOVING HIM WITHOUT CAUSE.

III. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS LIKEWISE COMMITTED WHEN PETITIONER WAS SUMMARILY, HASTILY AND INORDINATELY DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS AND HIS REPLACEMENT HURRIEDLY APPOINTED WITHOUT THE OBSERVANCE OF THE REQUISITE DUE PROCESS."cralaw virtua1aw library

We ordered the Solicitor General to file the Comment in defense of the respondent Civil Service Commission. In his Comment dated September 14, 1992, Solicitor General Raul Goco 3 conceded that petitioner was denied due process and, hence, illegally dismissed. The Civil Service Commission, thru its Legal Department, then defended itself. In its own Comment dated December 14, 1992 it contended that petitioner had "constructive notice" of the letter ordering him to return to work and which he failed to heed.

We find for the petitioner.

We need not be unduly detained by the first two contentions of petitioner which are manifestly devoid of merit. Anent the first argument, WE note that in all the proceedings below, petitioner never took the position that he still had vacation and sick leaves, hence he could not be declared AWOL. His new posture is also diametrically opposed to his letter of June 25, 1990 where he requested leave without pay precisely because he had no more vacation and sick leaves. In any event, it is too late and forbidden for petitioner to alter his theory especially when the new theory rests on allegations not borne by the records of the case. Just as untenable is petitioner’s defense of security of tenure espoused in his second argument. It ought to be self-evident that security of tenure can not be a shield against absences without proper approval by the authorities. Leaves are matters of private convenience and cannot prejudice public service. Their approval is discretionary as it depends on the higher needs of public service.

Be that as it may, petitioner’s third argument where he invokes the protection of the due process clause of the Constitution should be sustained. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1985 is the governing rule on notice before an employee can be dropped from the rolls due to absence without leave, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. The agency should notify in writing the employee, who is absent without leave (AWOL) for thirty (30) days, to report within five (5) days from receipt of notice, otherwise, he shall be dropped from the rolls."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Circular does not specifically state where the notice shall be sent. In the case at bar, petitioner’s residence is at 30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City. Nonetheless, in 1990, petitioner left for the United States to attend personally to the problems of his children. When petitioner filed his leave of absence without pay, ATI knew that petitioner was staying at 149 Declaration Way, San Jose, California in 1992. The letter of June 25, 1990 of the petitioner requesting this leave clearly carried his address in the United States. The records do not show that the officials of ATI denied knowledge of petitioner’s correct address. Despite this knowledge, however, the letter of September 5, 1990 written by Atty. Ildefonso del Rosario, ATI’s Asst. Director and OIC, directing petitioner to return to work within five (5) days, otherwise, he would be dropped from the rolls was inexplicably mailed to his house at 30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City. The letter was not received by petitioner. Per certification of Mr. Jesse Santos, Postmaster of the Bureau of Post of Quezon City, this letter." . . was returned to sender, the Agricultural Training Institute on September 27, 1990 and received by one Victoria Lim, authorized representative."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is the ruling of the respondent Civil Service Commission that the sending of the said notice to the residence of petitioner constitutes "substantial" compliance with the demands of due process. The ruling would have some allure if the address of petitioner in the United States was not known to the officials of ATI and if his Philippine address was his last known address. But as stressed above, they knew of petitioner’s exact address in the United States and there appears no impediment for them to send the notice in this correct address. Petitioner, be it noted, was not moving from one residence to another, to avoid service of legal notices. They were aware that petitioner was not momentarily staying in his address in Quezon City where he could receive said notice. Under the circumstances, it is grave abuse of discretion for the respondent Commission to hold that there was "substantial" compliance with the notice requirement of due process. The disputed ruling cuts too deeply on petitioner’s right to continue his employment in the government and unduly dilutes the protection of due process. To be sure, the cavalier attitude of respondent Commission is deplorable considering that on line is the thirty six (36) long years of faithful and dedicated service to the government of the petitioner. Nothing less than strict compliance with the demands of due process should have been demanded by the respondent Commission from the officials of ATI in light of the equities of the case. Nor can we give our concurrence to the further ruling of the respondent Commission that the denial of due process to the petitioner was cured by the publication of said notice in three (3) issues of the Philippine Journal. Notice by publication might have been proper if the address of petitioner were unknown. Since the officials of ATI knew the whereabouts of petitioner, they have no legal warrant to notify him thru the newspapers.

There are other acts, both covert and overt, which show that ATI officials did not accord fair treatment to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his request for leave without pay on June 25, 1990 while still in the United States. Though petitioner has no right to presume that his request would be granted, nonetheless, it was no less a duty on the part of officials of ATI to act immediately on the request, if only because petitioner was abroad and needed reasonable time and resources to return to the Philippines on a five (5) day call. For reasons not divulged in the records, they sat on the request. Only on September 5, 1990, did they declare that petitioner had been absent without official leave. In the said letter too, Atty. del Rosario ordered petitioner to return to work within five (5) days allegedly due to the "exigencies of the service." Nonetheless, Atty. del Rosario did not explain why all of a sudden the "exigencies of the service" required the immediate return of the petitioner. If the "exigencies of the service" were real, the Court wonders why he did not deny forthwith the request of petitioner for leave without pay made as far back as June 1992. Worse still, the order dropping petitioner from the rolls’ was never sent to him. Petitioner did not also know he had been replaced till he returned to the Philippines on November 16, 1990. In a setting of scarcities, it is bad enough to lose a job; it is worse, if it is taken away by government itself without due process of law. Our Constitution abhors such arbitrariness.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition for certiorari is granted and Resolution No. 92-640 dated May 7, 1992 of the respondent Civil Service Commission is reversed and set aside. The Director of the Agricultural Training Institute is ordered to reinstate petitioner to his position as Administrative Officer III or its equivalent without loss of any right or privilege.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petitioner seeks to set aside Resolution No. 92-640 dated May 7, 1991 of the CSC.

2. See Annex "G", Petition, Certification dated June 26, 1991 of Postmaster Jesse Santos of Quezon City.

3. He was assisted by Asst. Sol. General Deusdedit B. Quijano and Solicitor Renan E. Ramos.




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






September-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 80262 September 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. OCAMPO

  • G.R. Nos. 92961-64 September 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN C. MAGPAYO

  • G.R. No. 103632 September 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. MORTOS

  • G.R. No. 107243 September 1, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. NOAH’S ARK SUGAR REFINERY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97468-70 September 2, 1993 - SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ET AL. v. DANILO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 101370 September 2, 1993 - NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105752 September 2, 1993 - INOCENCIO GONZALES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.C. No. RTJ-92-845 September 3, 1993 - JOEY CUARESMA, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 98108 September 3, 1993 - ROMAN P. AQUINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101006 September 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAMID K. AMBIH

  • G.R. No. 105010 September 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE D. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82769 September 6, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO P. JAVAR

  • G.R. No. 98282 September 6, 1993 - EMILIANO G. LIZARES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102909 September 6, 1993 - SPS. VICENTE and LOURDES PINGOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104578 September 6, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. 95681 September 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINO PASCUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96451 September 8, 1993 - PEOPLE’S SECURITY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97921 September 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO M. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106493 September 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO B. DIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-714 September 10, 1993 - BERNABE MORTEL v. VICENTE LEIDO, JR.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-92-691 September 10, 1993 - SULU ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION OF MASJID LAMBAYONG v. NABDAR J. MALIK

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-936 September 10, 1993 - ALBINA BORINAGA v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 51686 September 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO T. PASTORAL

  • G.R. No. 93699 September 10, 1993 - RAMON PRIETO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100456-59 September 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO AMADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100474 September 10, 1993 - ARTILE GARBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100644 September 10, 1993 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102636 September 10, 1993 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103121 September 10, 1993 - REMEDIOS T. BLAQUERA, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103974 September 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARIEL S. CATANYAG

  • G.R. No. 104494 September 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAUL N. BANDIN

  • G.R. No. 106895 September 10, 1993 - ELVIRA F. VALENZONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108292 September 10, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110216 September 10, 1993 - IGNACIO R. BUNYE, ET AL. v. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97343 September 13, 1993 - PASCUAL GODINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993 - IN RE: BRIGIDO ALVARADO v. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75025 September 14, 1993 - VICENTE GARCIA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93417 September 14, 1993 - CONSTANCIO T. BAGUIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94311 September 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98703 September 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CABISADA

  • G.R. Nos. 100222-23 September 14, 1993 - RAJAH HUMABON HOTEL, INC., ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104960 September 14, 1993 - PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ v. RTC, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109114 September 14, 1993 - HOLIDAY INN MANILA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82619 September 15, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93173 September 15, 1993 - HONORIO SAAVEDRA, JR. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94336 September 15, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE M. SALUNA

  • G.R. No. 96009 September 15, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUND M. EMPLEO

  • G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-93-813 September 15, 1993 - FERNANDO CAYAO v. JUSTINIANO A. DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 105090 September 16, 1993 - BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA SA CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC., v. NAT’L. LABOR RELATIONS COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107370-71 September 16, 1993 - MARIO A. NAVARRO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86162 September 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89597-98 September 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR BALDERAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100455 September 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO V. EROLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100985 September 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESITA D. ARANDA

  • G.R. No. 104818 September 17, 1993 - ROBERTO DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105818 September 17, 1993 - ELOISA, CARLOS, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96766 September 20, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO JARALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50173 September 21, 1993 - HANIEL R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 93365 September 21, 1993 - HILARIONA FORTALEZA DABLO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101818 September 21, 1993 - MARIETTA P. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103090 September 21, 1993 - KIMBERLY CLARK PHILIPPINES v. DANILO LORREDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106719 September 21, 1993 - BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA, ET AL. v. JUAN FLAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106929 September 21, 1993 - ANITA CAOILE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51025 September 22, 1993 - ANTONIO A. ENRIQUEZ v. FELICIDAD ANGCO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101257 September 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO BRIONES, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103464 September 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY S. ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103604-05 September 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO T. VALERIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85472 September 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIBERTO P. YABUT

  • G.R. No. 96488 September 27, 1993 - INDOPHIL ACRYLIC MFG. CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105223 September 27, 1993 - PHILIPPINE APPLIANCE CORPORATION v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 105419 September 27, 1993 - PIONEER SAVINGS & LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105562 September 27, 1993 - LUZ PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-672 September 28, 1993 - SPS. JOSE SY BANG AND ILUMINADA TAN v. ANTONIO MENDEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. 49475 September 28, 1993 - JORGE C. PADERANGA v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN

  • G.R. No. 94592 September 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN M. CALIJAN

  • G.R. No. 105375 September 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO "JIMMER" BOLADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106274 September 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY PADERO

  • G.R. No. 100736 September 30, 1993 - DYNE-SEM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101564-65 September 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID POSADAS, SR., ET AL.