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
 

   
June-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 92462 June 2, 1997 - SANTIAGO GOKING v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97896 June 2, 1997 - TEKNIKA SKILLS & TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116748 June 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARJORIE CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 121434 June 2, 1997 - ELENA F. UICHICO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76969 June 9, 1997 - INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89369 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BERGONIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107259 June 9, 1997 - RAYMUNDO M. DAPITON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108475 June 9, 1997 - GAMALIEL DINIO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115944 June 9, 1997 - ELVIRA C. GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118536 June 9, 1997 - LAWIN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO O. RABOSA

  • G.R. No. 123905 June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124280 June 9, 1997 - FLORA S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 730 June 10, 1997 - NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE SUPERVISED

  • G.R. No. 96999 June 10, 1997 - CARLOS O. YSMAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106812 June 10, 1997 - TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107302, 107306 & 108559-60 June 10, 1997 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120074 June 10, 1997 - LEAH P. ADORIO v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 120594 June 10, 1997 - ALFONSO TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123639 June 10, 1997 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113713 June 11, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116940 June 11, 1997 - PHIL-AM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117561 June 11, 1997 - JULIO MARCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118041 June 11, 1997 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118921-22 June 11, 1997 - ERNESTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120956 June 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MORENO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1248 June 13, 1997 - MARIEL ECUBE-BADEL v. DAVID DE LA PEÑA BADEL

  • G.R. Nos. 100513 & 111559 June 13, 1997 - SEVERINO ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102467 June 13, 1997 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110817-22 June 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN

  • G.R. No. 111088 June 13, 1997 - C & M TIMBER CORP. v. ANGEL C. ALCALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113103 & 116000 June 13, 1997 - NAPOCOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114764 June 13, 1997 - WILFREDO T. PADILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4244 June 17, 1997 - BUHANGIN RESIDENTS & EMPLOYEES ASSN., ETC. v. CORAZON NUÑEZ-MALANYAON

  • G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLI SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109311 June 17, 1997 - ZENAIDA ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110974-81 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 111357 June 17, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113799 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BAYDO

  • G.R. No. 119337 June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120030 June 17, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120553 June 17, 1997 - PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120802 June 17, 1997 - JOSE T. CAPILI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121787 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO GREFALDIA

  • G.R. No. 121964 June 17, 1997 - ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122932 June 17, 1997 - JOY BROTHERS, INC. v. NWPC

  • Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997 - PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1221 June 19, 1997 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. PABLO C. GERNALE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1240 June 19, 1997 - WILFREDO C. BANOGON v. FELIPE T. ARIAS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1242 June 19, 1997 - ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. ARISTON G. TAYAG

  • G.R. Nos. 93100 & 97855 June 19, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. v. SECRETARY OF DAR

  • G.R. No. 102612 June 19, 1997 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102723-24 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CABALLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 - PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106583 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 108107 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSAN PANTALEON

  • G.R. No. 108616 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO PATAWARAN

  • G.R. No. 109224 June 19, 1997 - MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110226 June 19, 1997 - ALBERTO S. SILVA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112687 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER B. EUBRA

  • G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114812 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL Z. SAHAGUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115968 June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116394 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BONOLA

  • G.R. No. 116918 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONFILO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 117005 June 19, 1997 - CARLITO D. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997 - RODOLFO MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118335-36 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELLER ALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119071 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ANTIPONA

  • G.R. No. 121429 June 19, 1997 - MARCIA TUMBIGA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122368 June 19, 1997 - BERNARDO NAZAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122389 June 19, 1997 - MIGUEL SINGSON v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122806 June 19, 1997 - TIMES BROADCASTING NETWORK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122866 June 19, 1997 - MELVA NATH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123073 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB

  • G.R. No. 123673 June 19, 1997 - PEDRO C. CALUCAG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123708 June 19, 1997 - CSC, ET AL. v. RAFAEL M. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 ccc zz

    MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125008 June 19, 1997 - COMMODITIES STORAGE & ICE PLANT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125221 June 19, 1997 - REYNALDO M. LOZANO v. ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125347 June 19, 1997 - EMILIANO RILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125798 June 19, 1997 - HADJI HAMID LUMNA PATORAY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125955 June 19, 1997 - WILMER GREGO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126361 June 19, 1997 - VICTOR R. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127311 June 19, 1997 - CONRADO LINDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127623 June 19, 1997 - DOMINADOR VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116216 June 20, 1997 - NATALIA S. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116695 June 20, 1997 - VICTORIA G. GACHON, ET AL. v. NORBERTO C. DEVERA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118435 June 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO SERZO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 119178 June 20, 1997 - LINA LIM LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119745 June 20, 1997 - POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122079 June 27, 1997 - ANTONIO CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100935 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ZABALLERO

  • G.R. No. 102316 June 30, 1997 - VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112260 June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115689 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO ARTIAGA

  • G.R. No. 121793 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADONIS BALAD

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 119337   June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 119337. June 17, 1997.]

    BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND CLUB FILIPINO, INC. DE CEBU, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Bayview Hotel, Inc. to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 34800 entitled Bayview Hotel, Inc. v. Hon. Teodoro Lim and Club Filipino, Inc. de Cebu. 1

    The facts are well established. On May 27, 1959, petitioner Bayview Hotel, Inc. entered into a contract of lease over a parcel of land located in Cebu City with its registered owner, private respondent Club Filipino, Inc. De Cebu. The lease agreement gave petitioner the right to construct and operate a hotel complex known as the Magellan International Hotel for a period of thirty (30) years. It also stipulated that ownership of the building and other permanent improvements on the land built by petitioner will transfer to private respondent upon the expiration of the lease. Under the agreement, petitioner was given the option to renew the lease for ten (10) more years, the amount of rent to be computed at five percent (5%) of the approved value of the land and improvements. Before the expiration of the lease contract on December 31, 1992, petitioner notified private respondent of its intention to extend the lease contract for a longer period and at a rate of rent different from the terms as originally agreed upon. There was no meeting of the minds between the parties as private respondent’s Board of Directors insisted on adhering to the provisions of the original lease contract. Private respondent then sent to petitioner a notice to vacate the premises and to pay accrued rentals. Private respondent claimed ownership of the building and the improvements pursuant to the provisions of the original contract. 2

    When petitioner failed to vacate the premises, private respondent, on May 18, 1993, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cebu a complaint for ejectment and recovery of accrued rentals amounting to P2,850,000.00 as of April 30, 1993 and P712,500.00 for every month thereafter. 3 Before petitioner could be served with a copy of the complaint and summons, the building was destroyed by a fire of undetermined origin.

    On June 1, 1993, petitioner filed its answer to the complaint for ejectment interposing the following affirmative defenses:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Summons having been improperly and defectively served, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

    "(b) Plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.

    "(c) Plaintiff’s claim has been extinguished by the loss of the premises, from which defendant has been sought to be ejected, in a fire on 21 May, 1993.

    "(d) The fire has effectively ejected the defendant from the premises rendering the action for ejectment moot and academic.

    "(e) Since the defendant has been effectively ejected from the premises by the fire, defendant cannot be said to have deprived plaintiff of its possession of the same, therefore, the complaint for ejectment should be dismissed and the case be considered as an ordinary claim for a sum of money.

    "(f) Consequently, since the amount being claimed is beyond the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    "(g) Plaintiff’s claim for a sum of money has been extinguished by compensation since under the lease contract with the defendant, plaintiff was bound to pay the latter the value of all its furnishings and equipment in the leased premises upon the termination of the lease."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner then moved for a preliminary hearing on its affirmative defenses which was denied by the trial judge on the ground that the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure prohibits the motion. Aggrieved by this Order, Petitioner, on June 24, 1993, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction against private respondent and Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Teodoro Lim. 4 Allegedly, Judge Lim abused his discretion when he refused to dismiss the complaint for ejectment. In its answer to the petition for certiorari, private respondent admitted the destruction of the building but alleged that petitioner has not completely vacated the premises since its guards continue to remain in the premises and its cars are still parked thereat. As to the jurisdiction of the court, private respondent argued that jurisdiction once acquired by the court remains with it until the termination of the case. Private respondent also sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it is a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. On November 26, 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu granted the petition for certiorari and ordered the Metropolitan Trial Court to dismiss the ejectment case.

    Private respondent appealed to the public respondent Court of Appeals. On February 16, 1995, the appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC of Cebu. It ruled: (1) that petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Court when it sought affirmative relief from the same court; (2) that despite the burning of the building, the trial court retained its jurisdiction to try the case for the nature of the action remained to be an ejectment case; (3) whether petitioner has vacated the premises and transferred its possession to Club Filipino is a question or fact that should be threshed out in the trial court; and (4) that the petition for certiorari should not have been given due course by the Regional Trial Court for its filing is proscribed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.

    Hence, this appeal by petitioner where it contends: 5

    "THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE FOR EJECTMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING FROM WHICH PETITIONER WAS SOUGHT TO BE EJECTED HAD BEEN TOTALLY DESTROYED BEFORE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED.

    THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER’S ANSWER WHICH EMBODIED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IS TANTAMOUNT TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AND THEREFORE PROSCRIBED BY THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE.

    RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AS IT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We reject petitioner’s submissions.

    Petitioner’s contention of lack of jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court is premised on its allegation that the building it leased from the private respondent was completely burned down before it could be served with summons in Civil Case No. R-32189. It maintains that it does not have anymore a lessor-lessee relationship with private respondent citing Article 1655 of the Civil Code which provides that "if the thing is totally destroyed by a fortuitous event, the lease is extinguished . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner has overlooked that the case at bar involves land lease. Private respondent insists that petitioner is still occupying the subject land although the building on it has been burned down. If the allegation is true, then the jurisdiction of the MTC cannot be assailed. We have held in Commander Realty Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 6 that "an unlawful detainer is the act of unlawfully withholding the possession of the land or building against or from the landlord, vendor or vendee or other person after the expiration or the termination of the detainer’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied." We also ruled in the same case that "the right of a lessee to occupy the land leased as against the demand of the lessor to regain possession should be decided in a case of Ejectment or Detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court." 7 To be sure, petitioner makes the contrary claim that private respondent is already in full and complete possession of the premises. This is, however, a factual question that should be decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court.

    We likewise find no reason to fault respondent court when it rejected petitioner’s contention that the Metropolitan Trial Court should have granted its motion for a preliminary hearing on its affirmative defenses which raised the issue of jurisdiction. Under the law, parties are not prohibited from filing an answer with affirmative defenses in cases falling under summary procedure. However, the trial courts are enjoined from conducting a preliminary hearing on such affirmative defenses to prevent unnecessary delay in disposing the case on its merits. Thus, time and again, we have ruled that under summary procedure." . . adjudication of cases can be done on the basis of affidavits or other evidence. The proceeding must be as summary as possible in order not to defeat the need to dispose ejectment cases in as fast a time as possible. The reason is because cases involving possession of properties usually pose a threat to the peace of society." 8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Finally, we agree with the respondent court that the claim of the petitioner that the petition for certiorari it filed with the Regional Trial Court is permissible is not in accord with Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section;

    "(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

    "(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;

    "(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

    "(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;

    "(f) Memoranda;

    "(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;

    "(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

    "(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

    "(j) Reply;

    "(k) Third party complaints;

    "(l) Interventions." (Emphasis supplied.)

    The prohibition is plain enough. Its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., J., took no part.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. (Chairman) and Associate Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, Fifteenth Division.

    2. On April 6, 1993, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 93-65439 for consignation and damages with a prayer for temporary restraining order at the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1, to compel private respondent to extend the lease.

    3. Civil Case No. R-32189, Branch IV, Metropolitan Trial Court in City, Cebu City, presided by Judge Teodoro Lim.

    4. Civil Case No. CEB-14189.

    5. Petition for Review, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 9-10.

    6. 161 SCRA 269 (1988) citing Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, L-53788, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 339.

    7. Ibid, citing Ching Pue v. Gonzales, 87 Phil. 81 (1950); Lim Si v. Lim, 98 Phil. 868; Teodoro v. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150 (1956); Pardo de Tavera v. Encarnacion, Et Al., 22 SCRA 632 (1968).

    8. Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 519, 526 (1995).

    G.R. No. 119337   June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    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