Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > February 1997 Decisions > Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217 February 17, 1997 - MANUEL F. CONCEPCION v. JESUS V. AGANA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217. February 17, 1997.]

ATTY. MANUEL F. CONCEPCION, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JESUS V. AGANA and HON. JUDGE ERASTO SALCEDO RTC Branch 31, Tagum, Davao del Norte (Atty. Salcedo), Respondents.


SYLLABUS


REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS; PRINCIPLE OF "BAR BY FORMER JUDGMENT" ; APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — There is no question that the instant complaint presents the same subject matter regarding the alleged misconduct of the respondent judge when he was a practicing lawyer which We already dismissed in 1995. The fact that the present complaints is filed by Atty. Concepcion, not Helen Balani, does not remove it from the ambit of the legal concept "bar by former judgment" inasmuch as the requirement of identity of parties is satisfied even if the parties are not physically identical as long as they are substantially the same, i.e., there is privity between the parties (see Sunflower Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. De Leon, 237 SCRA 153, 165 [1994]). Neither does the fact that the mode of the complaint now seeks a dismissal rather than disbarment of the respondent judge preclude the application of the said rule inasmuch as "the test of identity of causes of action is not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action." (see Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 437, 446 [1991] citing Sangalang v. Caparas, 151 SCRA 53 [1987]). Considering that in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 and in this complaint. There is identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it is clear that our dismissal of the former case for utter lack of merit in 1995 bars another adjudication as regards the instant complaint.


D E C I S I O N


HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:


The complaint, filed on August 5, 1996, seeks the dismissal from the service of respondent judge on account of his dishonest and deceitful conduct when he was a practicing lawyer.

The complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent judge, then Atty. Salcedo, connived with his co-respondent, Atty. Agana, to cause the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens to the prejudice of his clients who had discharged him by then and replaced him with the complainant.

In its report dated September 6, 1996, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), made the observation that the instant complaint is a mere rehash of the complaint for disbarment docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 entitled, "Landless Farmers Tribal Development, Inc. represented by Helen Balani v. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Erasto Salcedo, now a Judge (of) RTC, Branch 31, Tagum Davao del Norte," which We resolved to dismiss for utter lack of merit on May 15, 1995. A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312, when endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant by OCA, was recommended for dismissal on the ground of res judicata, with respect to Atty. Agana, considering that it involved the same subject matter, issues, and parties in Administrative Case No. 4040 which We already dismissed in our resolution dated October 13, 1993. As regards Atty. Salcedo, he had ceased to be under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Bar Confidant upon his appointment as Presiding Judge of RTC, Tagum, Davao del Norte, Branch 31. After OCA submitted its Memorandum relative to the complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Agana and Judge Salcedo, We dismissed A.M. RTJ-95-1312 as aforementioned.

For a clearer picture, We restate the pertinent antecedents.

Administrative Case No. 4040 captioned "Helen C. Balani, Et. Al. v. Atty. Jesus V. Agana" was dismissed after respondent lawyer filed his comment since this Court found no prima facie case against him. Administrative Matter No. RTJ-95-1312, filed against Atty. Agana anew, with the respondent judge included as co-respondent, was dismissed in 1995 for utter lack of merit. Before us now is a complaint basically echoing the allegations in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 and filed against the same parties. However, unlike in the previous cases, Atty. Manuel Concepcion, who is Helen Balani’s counsel, appears to be the complainant in this case, not Helen Balani herself.

Applying the principle: "bar by former judgment", We rule, once again, to dismiss the instant complaint. Quoted hereunder is the comparative study presented by the Office of the Court Administrator anent the complaint in A.M. G.R. No. RTJ-95-1312 and the complaint under consideration:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Complaint in A.M. No. "Instant complaint.

RTJ-95-1312.

. . . . . .

‘2. That Respondents Atty.’2. Respondent, Atty. Jesus Agana

JESUS AGANA has his law office at R & T has his law office at R & T Building,

Building, Taal-Capistrano Sts., Cagayan Taal-Capistrano Sts., Cagayan de Oro

de Oro City; Atty. Erasto Salcedo, now a City; Atty. Erasto Salcedo Hon. Judge

Judge, has his office in the Regional has his office in the Regional Trial

Trial Court, Br. 31, Tagum, Davao del Court, Br. 31, Tagum, Davao del Norte,

Norte, where summons and processes where summons and processes of the

of the Court may be served; Commission may be served;

’3. That complainant is the ‘3. Complainant is counsel for Helen

President of the Landless Farmers Tribal Balani, President of the Landless

Development, Inc., a duly organized Farmers Tribal Development, Inc., a

and registered non-stock corporation duly organized and registered non-stock

under the laws of the Republic of the corporation under the laws of the

Philippines, whose members are Republic of the Philippines, whose

farmers of the national cultural members and farmers of the national

minorities, who have occupied and cultural minorities, who have occupied,

cultivated a public land, Lot 3047 cultivated and planted a public land, Lot

covering an area of two hundred (200) 3047, covering an area of 200 hundred

hectares, more or less, since early hectares, more or less, since early

1950s, pursuant to Section 44 of the 1950s, pursuant to Section 44 of the

Public Land Act; Public Land Act;

’4. That on July 22, 1981, a ‘4. On July 22, 1981, a certain

certain TIMOTEO QUIMPO without the TIMOTEO QUIMPO, without the

knowledge of the occupants in Lot knowledge of the occupants on said

3047, secured the decree of registration public land, Lot 3047, secured the

on same, for which OCT No. 0-792 was decree of registration on same, for

issued and registered with the Register which the Register of Deeds, Cagayan

of Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City, copy of de Oro City, issued OCT No. 0-792,

which is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘A;’ copy of which is attached, hereto as

ANNEX ‘A’ on its application for

Registration of Title is attached hereto

as ANNEX ‘B:’

’5. That on May 11, 1982, ‘5. On May 11, 1982, Helen Balani,

respondent Atty. Erasto Salcedo, as counsel head and leader of the cultural minority

for occupants in Lot 3047, seasonably farmers, hired Atty. Erasto Salcedo to

caused the annotation of the notice of cause the annotation of the notice of lis

lis pendens, Petition for Review on the pendens, Entry No. 98909, Petition for

decree of registration of OCT No. Review on the decree of registration of

0-792, pursuant to Section 332, PD OCT No. 0-792, pursuant to Sec. 32,

1529, which appear encircled on PD 1529, which appear encircled as

ANNEX ‘A’ as ANNEX ‘A-1;’ ANNEX ‘A-1;’

’6. That pursuant to an alleged ‘6. Despite the ‘notice of lis pendens’

Barter-Agreement Xavier University, Xavier University, Inc. acquired the

Inc. and TIMOTEO QUIMPO, TCT property, Lot 3047, from Timoteo

No. T-51944 was issued by the Register Quimpo, for which on March 25, 1988

of Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City on TCT No. T-51944 and TCT No.

March 25, 1988, copy of which is ‘B,’ T-51945 was issued by the Register of

and the lis pendens carried over, appear Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City, copy of

on ANNEX ‘B’ as ANNEX ‘b-1;’ TCT No. T-51944 is attached hereto as

ANNEX ‘C;’

’7. That respondent Atty. Erasto ‘7. On February 27, 1992, Helen

Salcedo was discharged as counsel for Balani, Et Al., discontented and

occupants in Lot 3047, by HELEN suspicious of Atty. Erasto Salcedo, filed

BALANI (Complainant) on February with the Court of Appeals a Motion to

27, 1992; Discharge him, which the Court of

Appeals granted pursuant to Resolution

dated 18 March 1992, copy of which is

attached hereto as ANNEX ‘D;’

’8. That on April 27, 1992, Xavier ‘8. On April 27, 1992, Atty. Jesus

University, Agana filed in Regional Agana, as counsel for Xavier

Trial Court, Br. 23, Cagayan de Oro University, Inc., filed in Regional Trial

City, a Petition for Cancellation of Court, Br. 23, Cagayan Oro City, a

Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on PETITION for cancellation of the

TCT No. T-51944, supported by a notice of lis pendens annotated on

‘PETITION’ executed by praying that Xavier University, Inc. TCT No.

said annotation on OCT No. 0-792 and T-51944 and TCT No. 51945,

subsequent TCT No. 51944 and TCT supported by a PETITION, executed by

No. 51945 be canceled, copy of which Atty. Erasto Salcedo without the

is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘C,’ knowledge of Helen Balani, Abundio

Caballero, Et. Al. and not verified by

them who cause(d) the annotation of the

notice of lis pendens on May 11, 1982.

Copy of PETITION for cancellation is

attached hereto as ANNEX ‘E,’

unverified PETITION executed by

Atty. Salcedo, as ANNEX ‘F’

’9. That as a result, on the strength ‘9. On the strength of the unverified

said ‘PETITION,’ Regional Trial Court, ‘PETITION,’ it is strange that the

Br. 23 issued Order dated June 11, Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, granted

1992, copy of which is attached hereto the cancellation of the notice of lis

as ANNEX ‘D,’ quoted hereunder: pendens, EX-PARTE, manifest in the

Order dated June 11, 1992, copy of

which is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘G;’

‘. . . Hence, the entry of notice of lis

pendens on OCT No. 0-792, under

Entry No. 98909, which was carried

over to Transfer Certificate of Title No.

T-51944 and T-51945, with latter

titles being the products from the

old title, Original Certificate of Title

No. 0-792, the same are hereby

ordered cancelled . . .’

’10. That on August 28, 1992, [Note: This could not be re-alleged as

Complainants through counsel filed a said Petition for Certiorari was

Petition for Certiorari, docketed (as) dismissed on August 14, 1994. A

CA-G.R. SP No. 28776, which motion for reconsideration of said

presently is still pending resolution with decision dismissing the petition was

the COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth denied on February 24, 1995 as it was

Division; filed 33 days late. (Footnote No. 3, page

2, OCA Memorandum, Rollo, A.M. No.

RTJ-95-13120]

’11. That under the foregoing ‘10. Based on the foregoing

paragraphs 5 and 8, Complainant paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9,

charges Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Complainant charges: —

Erasto Salcedo of wanton falsehood,

(and that they) connived, schemed and ‘ Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Erasto

confederated to secure by deceitful Salcedo connived, schemed and

means the cancellation of the notice of collaborated to engage in dishonest and

lis pendens on OCT 0-792, TCT No. deceitful conduct, did not observe the

T-51944 and TCT No. T-51945, in rules of procedure and misuse them to

absolute violation of the Code of defeat the ends of justice, for corrupt

Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01, motive or interest encourage the suit or

Rule 1.03, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03, Rule proceeding, in violation of Rule 1.01,

10.01, Rule 10.03, and, their Oath of Rule 1.03, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03 of

Office as attorney and member of the the Code of Professional Responsibility

Bar, under the following facts and and their oath of office as attorney and

circumstances: member of the BAR, committed under

the following facts and circumstances:

’11a. That Atty. Agana filed the ‘10a. That Atty. Jesus Agana filed the

Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Petition for cancellation of Notice of lis

Lis Pendens, fully aware that Xavier pendens, fully aware the Xavier

University, Inc. has absolutely no legal University, Inc. has no legal capacity to

capacity to sue, knowing fully well the sue, knowing the well-known Sec. 24 of

applicable Sec. 24 of Rule 14 and Sec. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, and Sec.

77 of PD 1529, on the matter of 77 of PD 1529, on the matter of

cancellation of lis pendens, to wit: cancellation of notice of lis pendens:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

[sections copied verbatim] [sections copied verbatim]

‘11l. (first part) That Atty. Erasto

Salcedo deceived and mislead the Court

that the Petition was in conformity with

Sec. 24, Rule 14 and Sec. 77, PD 1529;

knowingly did not observed and (did)

misuse the rules . . .

‘11b. That Atty. Jesus Agana knew ‘10b. Atty. Agana knew that the

that the adverse party contemplated in adverse party contemplated in Sec. 24

said Sec. 24 and Sec. 77 is TIMOTEO and Sec. 77 is TIMOTEO QUIMPO,

QUIMPO, who has the legal capacity to who has the legal capacity to use (sic)

sue and file the Petition for Cancellation and file the Petition for Cancellation of

of Lis Pendens; the notice of lis pendens annotated on

its OCT 0-792;

‘11c. That Atty. Jesus Agana knew 10c. Atty. Jesus Agana knew the

that Xavier University, Inc. who well-known jurisprudence, that Xavier

acquired the property aware of the University, Inc., who acquired the

notice of lis pendens annotated on OCT property aware of the notice of lis

No. 0-792, subjects its acquisition to the pendens annotated on OCT No. 0-792,

outcome of the lis pendens; a mere purchaser pendente lite, subjects

its acquisition to the eventuality of the

Petition for Review (lis pendens),

Xavier University, Inc. is not only

estopped to file the petition but also has

no legal capacity to file the PETITION;

‘11d. That Atty. Jesus Agana served ‘10d. Atty. Jesus Agana

copy of the Petition for Cancellation on served copy of the petition for cancellation on

Atty. Erasto Salcedo, who, he very well Atty. Erasto Salcedo, who he very well knew

knew was no longer counsel for Abundio was no longer counsel for Helen Balani,

Caballero, Et Al., occupants of Lot 3047, Abundio Caballero, et al, based on the

having been discharged by Complainant, Motion to Discharge filed with the

the leader and president of the Court of Appeals and granted pursuant

Association; to Resolution, copy of which is attached

hereto as ANNEX ‘D;

‘11e. That Atty. Jesus Agana Jesus ‘10e. Atty. Jesus Agana knew

Agana knew that the undersigned that Complainant substituted Atty. Erasto

substituted Atty. Erasto Salcedo; Salcedo as counsel for Helen Balani,

Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. (Pls. see

ANNEX ‘E’) Regional Trial Court, Br.

23;

‘11f. That Atty. Jesus Agana, knowing ‘10f. Atty. Agana knew

fully well that the lis pendens was on fully well that the petition for review (lis pendens)

trial in Regional Trial court, Br. 18, was on trial in Regional Trial Court, Br. 18,

filed surreptitiously the Petition for yet surreptitiously filed the Petition in

Cancellation in Regional Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, which he

Br. 23, which he knew has no knew has no jurisdiction over the case,

jurisdiction over the case; in violation of Sec. 108 PD 1529, i e.,

the petition should be filed in the

original case in which the decree of

registration was entered;

‘11g. That Atty. Jesus Agana, with ‘10g. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty.

corrupt motive, deceitfully saw to it that Erasto Salcedo with corrupt motive

the undersigned was not furnished with connived, schemed and collaborated to

copy of the Petition for Cancellation; see to it that the herein Complainant

would not be served copy of this

PETITION (ANNEX ‘E’);

‘11h. That Atty. Jesus Agana and ‘10h. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty.

Atty. Erasto Salcedo deceived and Erasto Salcedo deceived and mislead

mislead the Regional Trial Court, Br. the Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, to

23, to issue Order, ANNEX ‘D,’ on the issue Order (ANNEX ‘G’), on the

strength of the unverified PETITION; strength of the null and void unverified

PETITION (ANNEX ‘F’);

‘11i. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo’s ‘10i. Atty. Erasto Salcedo, by

knowing fully well that he was already executing the PETITION (ANNEX ‘G’)

discharged by Complainant on February misrepresented that he was the counsel

27, 1992 and no longer counsel for for Helen Balani, Et Al., knowing fully

Abundio Caballero Et. Al., executed the well that he was already discharged as

PETITION, ANNEX ‘D’ on June 1, 1992 counsel;

‘11j. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo’s ‘10j. The allegations in the

allegation in the said PETITION is PETITION is (sic) wanton falsehood, knowing

wanton falsehood, without factual and for a fact that the Petition of Review Helen

legal basis, knowing for a fact, that, the Balani, Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. caused

lis pendens, he caused to be registered to be registered in May 11, 1982 was on

on May 11, 1982 was on trial in trial in Regional Trial Court, Br. 18,

Regional Trial Court, Br. 18. which copy of pleadings and order are

attached hereto as ANNEXES ‘H,’ ‘H-1,’

‘H-2,’ (and) ‘G-3’ (sic);

‘11k. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo in ‘10l. Atty. Erasto Salcedo,

executing the PETITION misrepresented discharged by Helen Balani, Abundio Caballero,

that he was still the counsel for Abundio Et. Al. in retaliation, connived, schemed and

Caballero, Et. Al.; confederated with Atty. Jesus Agana

that he execute the PETITION

(ANNEX ‘F’) unverified by Helen

Balani, Et. Al. and submit the same to

him (Atty. Agana) as supporting

document to his PETITION (ANNEX

‘E’) — when in good fidelity and loyalty

to his former clients he should have

refrained;

‘11l. (second part) That Atty. Erasto ‘10k. (first part) . . . Atty.

Salcedo . . . submitt(ed) the Petition ErastoSalcedo, as counsel for Helen Balani,

unverified by Abundio Caballero, Et Al., Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. (who)

the party who caused the lis pendens to seasonably cause(d) the annotation of

be registered; the notice of lis pendens . . .

‘11m. That Atty. Salcedo’s Petition, in ‘10m. It is underscored,

its entirety, is a wanton falsehood, the Order (ANNEX ‘G’) granting the cancel-

deceitful and mislead the Court to admit lation was anchored on Atty. E. Salcedo’s null

it as its key evidence in issuing the and void petition, ANNEX ‘F;’

Order, ANNEX ‘E,’ to cancel the notice

of lis pendens;

‘11n. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo, for ‘10k. (second part) On

corrupt motive forestalled and delayed May 11, 1992 Atty. Erasto Salcedo . . . for

the enforcement of the lis pendens corrupt motive delayed and forestalled its

(Petition for Review) for the duration of prosecution for the duration of ten (10)

almost ten (10) years;" years, and, instead on June 1, 1992

executed the PETITION for its

cancellation."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Nabus v. Court of Appeals (193 SCRA 732, 739 [1991]) we have succinctly defined "bar by former judgment", to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . (T)here is ‘bar by former judgment’ when, between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case where such judgment is invoked, there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. When the three identities are present, the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no question that the instant complaint presents the same subject matter regarding the alleged misconduct of the respondent judge when he was a practicing lawyer which We already dismissed in 1995. The fact that the present complaint is filed by Atty. Concepcion, not Helen Balani, does not remove it from the ambit of the legal concept "bar by former judgment" inasmuch as the requirement of identity of parties is satisfied even if the parties are not physically identical as long as they are substantially the same, i.e., there is privity between the parties (see Sunflower Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. De Leon, 237 SCRA 153, 165 [1994]). Neither does the fact that the mode of the complaint now seeks a dismissal rather than disbarment of the respondent judge preclude the application of the said rule inasmuch as "the test of identity of causes of action is not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action." (see Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 437, 446 [1991] citing Sangalang v. Caparas, 151 SCRA 53 [1987]). Considering that in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 and in this complaint, there is identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it is clear that our dismissal of the former case for utter lack of merit in 1995 bars another adjudication as regards the instant complaint. The complainant, being a lawyer, ought to remember that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

The general rule precluding the relitigation of material facts or questions which were in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to questions ‘necessarily involved in an issue, and necessarily adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself . Reasons for the rule are that a judgment is an adjudication on all the matters which are essential to support it, and that every proposition assumed or decide by the court leading up to the final conclusion and upon which such conclusion is based is as effectually passed upon as the ultimate question which is finally solved.’ (Lopez v. Reyes, 76 SCRA 179, 186-187 [1977]) (Citations omitted) (Emphasis supplied)." (Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 201, 210 [1991]).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT and Atty. Manuel F. Concepcion is advised to be more solicitous in filing complaints of this nature to avoid a waste of this Court’s time and effort.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99039 February 3, 1997 - FORD PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100748 February 3, 1997 - JOSE BARITUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108547 February 3, 1997 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE CABRERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112761-65 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO M. PEPITO

  • G.R. No. 114183 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS BORJA

  • G.R. No. 119310 February 3, 1997 - JULIETA V. ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119935 February 3, 1997 - UNITED SOUTH DOCKHANDLERS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123332 February 3, 1997 - AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118915 February 4, 1997 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER-ACE-UFSW v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1110 February 6, 1997 - MELENCIO S. SY v. CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1203 February 6, 1997 - ERNESTO A. REYES v. NORBERTO R. ANOSA

  • G.R. No. 110668 February 6, 1997 ccc zz

    SMITH, BELL & CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111682 February 6, 1997 - ZENAIDA REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117982 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118843 February 6, 1997 - ERIKS PTE. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118950-54 February 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRECIA GABRES

  • G.R. No. 119322 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98252 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE JANUARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110391 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 112191 February 7, 1997 - FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112714-15 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAGARAL

  • G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ECHEGARAY

  • G.R. No. 119657 February 7, 1997 - UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119772-73 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIGEL RICHARD GATWARD

  • G.R. No. 125249 February 7, 1997 - JIMMY S. DE CASTRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161 February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R. CHING

  • G.R. No. 108894 February 10, 1997 - TECNOGAS PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109887 February 10, 1997 - CECILIA CARLOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117702 February 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN YPARRAGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. 124553 February 10, 1997 - ROSARIO R. TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997 - MARIA APIAG, ET AL. v. ESMERALDO G. CANTERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-87-100 February 12, 1997 - FELISA ELIC VDA. DE ABELLERA v. NEMESIO N. DALISAY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1231 February 12, 1997 - ISAIAS P. DICDICAN v. RUSSO FERNAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68166 February 12, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104666 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO OMBROG

  • G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997 - IGNACIO BARZAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COLOMA TABAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118025 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REBECCO SATOR

  • G.R. No. 120769 February 12, 1997 - STANLEY J. FORTICH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125531 February 12, 1997 - JOVAN LAND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107554 February 13, 1997 - CEBU INT’L. FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112968 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO LETIGIO

  • G.R. No. 114144 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ABAD

  • G.R. Nos. 114711 & 115889 February 13, 1997 - GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT BOARD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 February 13, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217 February 17, 1997 - MANUEL F. CONCEPCION v. JESUS V. AGANA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ 97-1369 February 17, 1997 - OCTAVIO DEL CALLAR v. IGNACIO L. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507 February 17, 1997 - LUIS A. TABUENA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119247 February 17, 1997 - CESAR SULIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119536 February 17, 1997 - GLORIA S. DELA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997 - OLIVIA B. CAMANAG v. JESUS F. GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122165 February 17, 1997 - ALA MODE GARMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123823 February 17, 1997 - MODESTO G. ESPAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96249 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO QUIAMCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114396 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ROBERT BURTON

  • G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE PIANDIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997 - PERCIVAL MODAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112288 February 20, 1997 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1034 February 21, 1997 - LEWELYN S. ESTRELLER v. SOFRONIO MANATAD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73399 February 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABEDES

  • G.R. No. 117394 February 21, 1997 - HINATUAN MINING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997 - SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M. ALAUYA

  • G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997 - CARMEN CAÑIZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1195 February 26, 1997 - ROMEO NAZARENO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

  • G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997 - BUILDING CARE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997 - PACITA DAVID-CHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107671 February 26, 1997 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109849 February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110098 February 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAFE AZUGUE

  • G.R. No. 111538 February 26, 1997 - PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 - ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123404 February 26, 1997 - AURELIO SUMALPONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1368 February 27, 1997 - ERNESTO RIEGO, ET AL. v. EMILIO LEACHON, JR.