ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017   July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017. July 7, 1997.]

    MAYOR OSCAR B. LAMBINO, Complainant, v. JUDGE AMADO A. DE VERA, Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    Two administrative complaints were filed against Judge Amado de Vera upon the initiative of Mayor Oscar Lambino. After an investigation was conducted, Judge Llamas recommended the dismissal from the service of Judge de Vera. The report embodying the recommendation of Judge Llamas was referred to the Court Administrator for evaluation. Consequently, Deputy Court Administrator Suarez adopted the findings and recommendations of the investigating Judge. The Supreme Court was called upon to rule on whether the penalty of dismissal was proper.

    Finding that Judge de Vera has been remiss in the performance of his duties for failure to decide cases assigned to him within the required period and the fraudulent practice of submitting fake certifications of service, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Judge de Vera from the service. For the gravity of his acts and omissions which have impeded the administration of Justice as well as his failure to honor the dignity of his position, the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal is not undeserved.


    SYLLABUS


    1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; FAILURE OF A JUDGE TO DECIDE A CASE WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD IS NOT EXCUSABLE AND CONSTITUTES GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND NON-OBSERVANCE OF SAID RULE IS A GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION AGAINST DEFAULTING JUDGE; CASE AT BAR. — A lower court judge is mandated to render a decision within three months from date of submission. Additionally, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified. With the foregoing pronouncements as guidelines and after evaluating the records of this administrative case, no other conclusion can be drawn other than the fact that respondent Judge has been remiss in the performance of his duties. Within the period 1993-1994, there were twenty-six criminal cases filed before Judge de Vera’s sala, but none of them was resolved, not even to determine whether there was indeed probable cause to try the cases on the merits. In those instances where respondent Judge did find probable cause, the decision was not for forthcoming until approximately five years later. Such glaringly unjustifiable delay cannot be overlooked. To aggravate matters, there were four civil cases submitted for decision in 1989, 1991, 1992 and 1993, all of which remained unresolved. Again, we cannot countenance such undue delay. This Court has consistently held that failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the ninety-day period. No such application, however, was made by Judge de Vera in the case at bar.

    2. ID.; ID.; RESPONDENT JUDGE’S LACK OF CANDOR, GROSS INEFFICIENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AND REPEATED SUBMISSION OF FAKE CERTIFICATIONS OF SERVICE ARE SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT WHICH CALL FOR HIS DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE; CASE AT BAR. — We cannot disregard respondent Judge’s fraudulent practice of submitting fake certifications of service, which certifications are essential to the fulfillment by the court of its duty to speedily dispose of cases, as mandated by the Constitution.


    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    In these two (2) administrative complaints, respondent Judge Amado de Vera of the Municipal Trial Court, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, is charged with various corrupt practices prejudicial to the administration of justice.

    The antecedent facts, as gathered from the records, are as follows.

    In an anonymous letter complaint dated June 6, 1994, 1 sent to the Office of the Chief Justice, respondent Judge was accused of gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties, delay in the resolution of pending cases in his sala and allowing lawyers to prepare his decisions or resolutions. Judge de Vera denied all of these charges in his comment dated October 21, 1994, 2 filed in compliance with the October 3, 1994, indorsement of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad. 3 He asserted that the charges levelled against him were concocted by losing litigants who could not accept his decisions.

    Meanwhile, a second letter-complaint was sent on October 17, 1994, by Mayor Oscar Lambino 4 to Court Administrator Paño, requesting the immediate transfer or retirement of Judge de Vera from the service due to conduct prejudicial to the judicial system, reiterating the allegations in the complaint of June 6, 1994, in addition to the fact that Judge de Vera fraternizes with known criminals within the Municipality.

    Under this Court’s resolution dated January 11, 1995, the complaint of Mayor Lambino was referred to Judge Victor Llamas, Jr., Executive Judge, RTC, San Carlos City, for investigation, report and recommendation. On April 1, 1995, Judge Llamas submitted his report recommending, inter alia, Judge de Vera’s dismissal from the service. 5

    In a resolution dated May 24, 1995, the report embodying the recommendation of the investigating Judge was referred to the Court Administrator for evaluation. Consequently, on July 26, 1995, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo Suarez submitted his report, 6 adopting the findings and recommendations of the investigating Judge, which were reiterated in his report dated September 10, 1996, 7 to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Office respectfully submits for the consideration of the Honorable Court recommending that respondent Judge Amado A. de Vera, MTC, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, be DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, if any, and with disqualification for re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We now consider whether the penalty of dismissal is proper under these premises.

    A lower court judge is mandated to render a decision within three months from date of submission. 8 Additionally, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified.

    With the foregoing pronouncements as guidelines and after evaluating the records of this administrative case, no other conclusion can be drawn other than the fact that respondent Judge has been remiss in the performance of his duties.

    Within the period 1993-1994, there were twenty-six criminal cases filed before Judge de Vera’s sala, but none of them was resolved, not even to determine whether there was indeed probable cause to try the cases on the merits. In those instances where respondent Judge did find probable cause, the decision was not forthcoming until approximately five years later. Such glaringly unjustifiable delay cannot be overlooked.

    To aggravate matters, there were four civil cases submitted for decision in 1989, 1991, 1992 and 1993, 9 all of which remained unresolved. Again, we cannot countenance such undue delay.

    This Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, 10 and non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. 11

    It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the ninety-day period. 12 No such application, however, was made by Judge de Vera in the case at bar.

    As to the charges that Judge de Vera did not personally prepare his decisions and fraternized with known criminals, it appears that these are based on mere suspicion and speculation; thus, we shall not give credence to them.

    Furthermore, we cannot disregard respondent Judge’s fraudulent practice of submitting fake certifications of service, which certifications are essential to the fulfillment by the court of its duty to speedily dispose of cases, as mandated by the Constitution. 13 In Magdamo v. Pahimulin, 14 we held that a judge who fails to decide cases within the required period and continues to collect his salaries upon his certification that he has no pending matters to resolve, transgresses the constitutional right of litigants to a speedy disposition of their cases.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Considering the gravity of Judge de Vera’s acts and omissions which have impeded the administration of justice, as well as his failure to honor the dignity of his position, the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal is not undeserved. Judge de Vera’s transgressions when considered altogether, are grave and betrays his failure to measure up to stringent judicial standards. His lack of candor, gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties and repeated submission of fake certifications of service are serious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct which call for his dismissal from the service. 15

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge Amado A. de Vera is DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned and controlled corporations and upon receipt of this decision, he shall cease and desist from performing his judicial functions immediately.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Bellosillo, Puno, Hermosisima, Jr. and Torres, Jr., JJ., are on leave.

    Kapunan, J., is on leave and did not take part in the deliberations.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 6.

    2. Ibid., p. 4.

    3. Id., p. 5.

    4. Id., p. 1.

    5. Id., p. 24.

    6. Id., pp. 67-73.

    7. Id., pp. 76-80.

    8. Section 15, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

    9. Rollo, p. 14.

    10. In re Judge F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245 (1981); Longboan v. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990); Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993).

    11. Alfonso-Cortes v. Magalang, 227 SCRA 482 (1993).

    12. Marcelino v. Cruz, Jr., 121 SCRA 51 (1983).

    13. Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 435 (1991).

    14. 73 SCRA 110 (1976).

    15. Guinto v. Judge Aunario Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-794, August 23, 1996; Re Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Record cases in RTC, Br. 43, Roxas, Mindoro Oriental, 236 SCRA 631 (1994); Sulu Islamic Association of Masyod Lambayong v. Malik, 226 SCRA 193 (1993).

    Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017   July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED