Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 110910. July 17, 1995.]

NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION and SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN SUGAR CORPORATION, Respondents.

The Government Corporate Counsel, for Petitioners.

Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEALS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, NOT A PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE FILING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. — The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a pre-requisite for the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court (Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 [1990]; Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326 [1987]; Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208 [1986]). Section 1 of Rule 45 expressly grants a party the right to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice of judgment or of denial of his motion for reconsideration.

2. COMMERCIAL LAW; CORPORATIONS; FOREIGN CORPORATIONS NOT LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES; RIGHT TO MAINTAIN ACTION BEFORE PHILIPPINE COURTS, SUSTAINED IN CASE AT BAR. — There is no dispute that private respondent is a foreign corporation unlicensed to do business in the Philippines. Petitioners, however, maintain that despite the lack of such license, private respondent is actually doing business here and therefore cannot, under Section 133 of the Corporation Code, maintain any action or proceeding before Philippine courts. Whether a foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of each case. This is essentially a question of fact (R.A. No. 5455, Sec. 1; R.A. No. 7042, Sec. 3(d); Top-Weld Mfg., Inc. v. ECED, S.A., 138 SCRA 118 [1985]; Mentholatum Co. v. Mangaliman, 72 Phil. 54 [1941]). Petitioners do not dispute private respondent’s claim that NASUTRA entered into the Contract of Purchase and Sale of Sugar with the latter in 1980. In fact, in its Motion to Dismiss filed below, petitioner SRA admits the partial delivery of the sugar and the issuance of SRA Resolution No. 68-87-A recognizing payment and receipt by NASUTRA of the purchase price for the said sugar, and NASUTRA’s existing obligation over the undelivered portion. Given these preliminary facts assuming that petitioner NASUTRA was aware from the outset that private respondent had no license to do business in this country, it would appear quite inequitable for NASUTRA, a state-owned corporation, to evade payment of an otherwise legitimate indebtedness due and owing to private respondent upon the plea that the latter should have obtained a license first before perfecting a contract with the Philippine government (Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 824 [1992]). Furthermore, private respondents did not, under the subject transaction, sell sugar and derive income from the Philippines. Private respondent specifically purchased sugar from the Philippine government and allegedly paid for it in full.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE OF ANTAM CONSOLIDATED, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS, APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — Case at bar is similar to the case of Antam Consolidated Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 288 (1986) where the Capital City Product Co. (Capital City), a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America agreed to purchase crude coconut oil from the Coconut Oil Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. (Comphil), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Comphil failed to deliver the coconut oil such that two contracts were drawn successively to enable Comphil to sell the crude oil to Capital City at a discounted price. Again, Comphil failed to deliver. Capital City and its mother company, Stokely Van Camp, Inc., also a foreign corporation, sued Comphil before the Philippine courts. We ruled therein that: "The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to acquire a local license is based on consideration of sound public policy. The license requirement was imposed to subject the foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of its courts. It was never intended to favor domestic corporations who enter into solitary transactions with unwary foreign firms and then repudiate their obligations simply because the latter are not licensed to do business in this country . . .


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Decision dated June 30, 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 29781.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We deny the petition.

I


Petitioner National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA) was a domestic corporation created for the purpose of engaging in the trading of sugar, and was a subsidiary of the Philippine Sugar Commission (PSC), an entity owned and controlled by the Philippine government. The NASUTRA and PSC were phased out respectively by P.D. No. 1971 in 1985 and E.O. No. 18 in 1986, which at same time created petitioner Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) to administer over the sugar industry. Respondent Eastern Sugar Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Hongkong.

On August 7, 1991, private respondent filed a complaint against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 91, Quezon City for "Specific Performance and Partial Rescission of Contract and Damages," docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-9975. The complaint alleged that: (1) Private respondent is a foreign corporation with principal office at Flat 1609 Connaught Place, Hongkong and is not doing business in the Philippines; (2) On October 14, 1980, private respondent and NASUTRA entered into a "Contract for the Purchase and Sale of Sugar" where private respondent purchased from the latter a total of 40,000 long tons of raw sugar at 10,000 long tons per year from the sugar cane crops of 1981 to 1984 at a price of U.S. $0.25 per pound; (3) As stipulated, payment for the sugar was made by letters of credit issued by the Banque Paribas (Suisse) S.A. in the aggregate amount of U.S. $23, 049,600.00, which amount NASUTRA drew and received in full; (4) NASUTRA, however, was able to deliver only 20, 569.89 long tons due and demandable; (5) In 1986, NASUTRA was dissolved and SRA was created to liquidate and succeed it; (6) The Board of Directors of SRA passed Resolution No. 68-87-A assuming NASUTRA’s obligation to deliver to private respondent the remaining sugar; (7) The SRA made a partial delivery and reduced the balance to 15, 843.66 long tons; (8) The SRA, however, failed to make further deliveries despite repeated demands therefor, to the prejudice of private Respondent. The latter thus prayed for specific performance of the remaining obligation in the contract, and in the event of non-compliance, for partial rescission thereof with damages.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On September 26, 1991, NASUTRA and SRA moved for extension of time to file responsive pleading, which was granted. On September 27, NASUTRA filed a motion for production and inspection of documents. Private respondent submitted a Comment dated October 9, 1991 and later filed its Submission dated October 16, 1991, attaching thereto a copy of the purported letter of credit and its amendments.

On October 31, 1991, NASUTRA filed a second motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading. On even date, SRA filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging (1) lack of capacity to sue by private respondent on the ground that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license; (2) lack of a cause of action against SRA, it not being a party to the contract; and (3) non-availment of arbitration provided under the contract.

On November 18, 1991, the trial court denied NASUTRA’s , motion for production and inspection of documents. NASUTRA, however, filed on the same day a Motion to Dismiss basically on the same grounds alleged by SRA in its own motion.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Private respondent then filed a consolidated Opposition to the two motions, NASUTRA and SRA replied separately, to which private respondent filed separate rejoinders. Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective memoranda.

On June 8, 1992, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of capacity to sue by private Respondent. Upon motion for reconsideration of private respondent the trial court reversed and set aside the previous order and directed petitioners to file their answer to the complaint.

Petitioners questioned this order before the Court of Appeals in a petition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. On June 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, dismissing the petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners filed the petition before this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

II


A preliminary issue to resolve is private respondent’s submission that this action could not prosper due to petitioners’ failure to file the requisite motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision. Contrary to this claim, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a pre-requisite for the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court (Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 [1990]; Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326 [1987]; Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208 [1986]).Section 1 of Rule 45 expressly grants a party the right to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice of judgment or of denial of his motion for reconsideration.

There is no dispute that private respondent is a foreign corporation unlicensed to do business in the Philippines. Petitioners, however, maintain that despite the lack of such license, private respondent is actually doing business here and therefor cannot, under Section 133 of the Corporation Code, maintain any action or proceeding before Philippine courts.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

Whether a foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines must be determined in the light of peculiar circumstances of each case. This is essentially a question of fact (R.A. No. 5455, Sec. 1; R.A. No. 7042, Sec. 3[d]; Top-Weld Mfg., Inc v. ECED, S.A. 138 SCRA 118 [1985]; Mentholatum Co. v. Mangaliman, 72 Phil. 524 [1941]).

Petitioners do not dispute private respondent’s claim that NASUTRA entered into the Contract of Purchase and Sale of Sugar with the latter in 1980 (Rollo, pp. 58, 69). In fact, in its Motion to Dismiss filed below, petitioner SRA admits the partial delivery of the sugar and the issuance of SRA Resolution No. 68-87-A recognizing payment and receipt by NASUTRA of the purchase price for the said sugar, and NASUTRA’s existing obligation over the undelivered portion (Rollo, p. 63).

Given these preliminary facts and assuming that petitioner NASUTRA was aware from the outset that private respondent had no license to do business in this country, it would appear quite inequitable for NASUTRA, a state-owned corporation, to evade payment of an otherwise legitimate indebtedness due and owing to private respondent upon the plea that the latter should have obtained a licensed before perfecting a contract with the Philippine government (Merril Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 824 [1992]).chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Furthermore, private respondents did not, under the subject transaction, sell sugar and derive income from the Philippines. Private respondent specifically purchased sugar from the Philippine government and allegedly paid for it in full. The circumstance is similar to the case of Antam Consolidated, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 288 (1986) where the Capital City Product Co. (Capital City), a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America agreed to purchase crude coconut oil from the Coconut Oil Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. (Comphil), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Comphil failed to deliver the coconut oil such that two contracts were drawn successively to enable Comphil to sell the crude oil to Capital City at a discounted price. Again, Comphil failed to deliver. Capital City and its mother company, Stokely Van Camp, Inc., also a foreign corporation, a sued Comphil before the Philippine courts. We ruled therein that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to acquire a local license is based on considerations of sound public policy. The license requirement was imposed to subject the foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of its courts. It was never intended to favor domestic corporations who enter into solitary transactions with unwary foreign firms and then repudiate their obligations simply because the latter are not licensed to do business in this country. The petitioners in this case are engaged in the exportation of coconut oil, an export item so vital in our country’s economy. They filed this petition on the ground that Stokely is an unlicensed foreign corporation without a bare allegation or showing that their defenses in the collection case are valid and meritorious. We cannot fault the two courts below for acting as they did" (at p. 297; Emphasis supplied).

Private respondent has already filed its answer to the complaint after twice moving for extension of time to file the same (Rollo, pp. 264, 283). With all the more reason should the trial court continue with the proceedings below.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 1993 in CA-G.R. No. SP 29781 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, 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






July-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.