Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > August 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 112330 August 17, 1998 - HENRY CO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112330. August 17, 1999.]

SPS. HENRY CO AND ELIZABETH CO AND MELODY CO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND MRS. ADORACION CUSTODIO, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, TRINIDAD KALAGAYAN, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 32972 entitled MRS. ADORACION CUSTODIO, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, TRINIDAD KALAGAYAN v. SPS. HENRY CO AND ELIZABETH CO AND MELODY CO.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The following facts as found by the lower court and adopted by the Court of Appeals are undisputed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . sometime on October 9, 1984, plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with defendant for her purchase of the latter’s house and lot located at 316 Beata St., New Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, for and in consideration of the sum of $100,000.00. One week thereafter, and shortly before she left for the United States, plaintiff paid to the defendants the amounts of $1,000.00 and P40,000.00 as earnest money, in order that the same may be reserved for her purchase, said earnest money to be deducted from the total purchase price. The purchase price of $100,000.00 is payable in two payments $40,000.00 on December 4, 1984 and the balance of $60,000.00 on January 5, 1985. On January 25, 1985, although the period of payment had already expired, plaintiff paid to the defendant Melody Co in the United States, the sum of $30,000.00, as partial payment of the purchase price. Defendant’s counsel, Atty. Leopoldo Cotaco, wrote a letter to the plaintiff dated March 15, 1985, demanding that she pay the balance of $70,000.00 and not receiving any response thereto, said lawyer wrote another letter to plaintiff dated August 8, 1986, informing her that she has lost her ‘option to purchase’ the property subject of this case and offered to sell her another property.

Under date of September 5 (1986), Atty. Estrella O. Laysa, counsel for plaintiff, wrote a letter to Atty. Leopoldo Cotaco informing him that plaintiff ‘is now ready to pay the remaining balance to complete the sum of $100,000.00, the agreed amount as selling price’ and on October 24, 1986, plaintiff filed the instant complaint." 2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of private respondent Adoracion Custodio (CUSTODIO) and ordered the petitioner spouses Henry and Elizabeth Co (COS) to refund the amount of $30,000.00 in CUSTODIO’s favor. The dispositive portion of the RTC’s decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. that the earnest money of $1,000.00 and P40,000.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the defendants, and

2. the defendants are ordered to remit to plaintiff the peso equivalent of THIRTY THOUSAND ($30,000.00) U.S. DOLLARS, at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment.

Costs against plaintiff.

SO ORDERED." 3

Not satisfied with the decision, the COS appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this appeal where the COS assign as sole error the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. 4chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

The COS argue that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that CUSTODIO could still exercise her option to pay the balance of the purchase price of the property. The COS claim that CUSTODIO was in default since she failed to pay after a demand was made by the petitioners in their March 15, 1985 letter. 5 The COS claim that they never granted CUSTODIO an extension of time to exercise the "option" contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals that a thirty (30) day period of time was granted to her in their August 8, 1986 letter. 6 Said period refers to another option which the COS gave CUSTODIO to buy another piece of property and not the Beata property as they could no longer hold the Beata property for CUSTODIO. In fact, said letter specifically states that CUSTODIO lost her option to purchase the subject property; that the COS were willing to apply the payments already made to the payment of the second property; and that if CUSTODIO failed to purchase the second property within thirty (30) days, she would forfeit her previous payments. Since CUSTODIO manifested her readiness to exercise her option to pay the balance of the purchase price of the Beata property and not the second property, her manifestation was no longer of any legal effect as this option was no longer available to her. This being the case, the Court of Appeals should have ruled that the COS properly rescinded their contract with CUSTODIO over the Beata property pursuant to Article 1191 7 of the Civil Code and should have further ordered her to pay them damages consequent to the rescission. Moreover, even assuming that they waived the deadline by accepting the payment of $30,000.00 on January 26, 1986, CUSTODIO still failed to pay the remaining balance of $70,000.00. Her offer to pay the remaining balance came too late as the option given to her had already been lost. In addition, the Court of Appeals also erred in ordering the COS to return the $30,000.00 dollars since the August 8, 1986 letter warned CUSTODIO that if the she did not exercise her option within thirty days, she would lose her option and other rights and any payments made shall be forfeited. Finally, the COS claim that the Court of Appeals erred in not granting them attorney’s fees when the law allows recovery therefor considering that by the defendant’s act or omission, the plaintiff is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights. 8chanrobles law library

The core issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the COS to return the $30,000.00 paid by CUSTODIO pursuant to the "option" granted to her over the Beata property?

We rule in the negative.

The COS’ main argument is that CUSTODIO lost her "option" over the Beata property and her failure to exercise said option resulted in the forfeiture of any amounts paid by her pursuant to the August letter.

An option is a contract granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. It is a separate and distinct contract from which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option. It must be supported by consideration. 9 An option contract conforms with the second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code 10 which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 1479. . . .

An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price."cralaw virtua1aw library

However, the March 15, 1985 letter 11 sent by the COS through their lawyer to the CUSTODIO reveals that the parties entered into a perfected contract of sale and not an option contract.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

A contract of sale is a consensual contract and is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment the parties may reciprocally demand performance subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. 12 The elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code are (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price certain in money or its equivalent. 13 As evidenced by the March 15, 1985 letter, all three elements of a contract of sale are present in the transaction between the petitioners and Respondent. CUSTODIO’s offer to purchase the Beata property, subject of the sale at a price of $100,000.00 was accepted by the COS. Even the manner of payment of the price was set forth in the letter. Earnest money in the amounts of US$1,000.00 and P40,000.00 was already received by the COS. Under Article 1482 14 of the Civil Code, earnest money given in a sale transaction is considered part of the purchase price and proof of the perfection of the sale. 15

Despite the fact that CUSTODIO’s failure to pay the amounts of US$ 40,000.00 and US$ 60,000.00 on or before December 4, 1984 and January 5, 1985 respectively was a breach of her obligation under Article 1191 16 of the Civil Code, the COS did not sue for either specific performance or rescission of the contract. The COS were of the mistaken belief that CUSTODIO had lost her "option" over the Beata property when she failed to pay the remaining balance of $70,000.00 pursuant to their August 8, 1986 letter. In the absence of an express stipulation authorizing the sellers to extrajudicially rescind the contract of sale, the COS cannot unilaterally and extrajudicially rescind the contract of sale. 17 Accordingly, CUSTODIO acted well within her rights when she attempted to pay the remaining balance of $70,000.00 to complete the sum owed of $100,000.00 as the contract was still subsisting at that time. When the COS refused to accept said payment and to deliver the Beata property, CUSTODIO immediately sued for the rescission of the contract of sale and prayed for the return of the $30,000.00 she had initially paid.chanrobles law library : red

Under Article 1385 18 of the Civil Code, rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract but such rescission can only be carried out when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. This principle has been applied to rescission of reciprocal obligations under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. 19 The Court of Appeals therefore did not err in ordering the COS to return the amount of $30,000.00 to CUSTODIO after ordering the rescission of the contract of sale over the Beata property. We quote with approval the Court of Appeals’ decision to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Since it has been shown that the appellee who was not in default, was willing to perform part of the contract while the appellants were not, rescission of the contract is in order. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him, (Article 1191, same Code). Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest . . . . (Article 1385, same Code).

In the case at bar, the property involved has not been delivered to the appellee. She has therefore nothing to return to the appellants. The price received by the appellants has to be returned to the appellee as aptly ruled by the lower court, for such is a consequence of rescission, which is to restore the parties in their former situations.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

No error was committed by the lower court when it did not award attorney’s fees to the appellants for as has been shown, the appellee’s complaint is not unfounded." 20

We cannot uphold the forfeiture clause contained in the petitioners’ August 8, 1986 letter. It appears that such condition was unilaterally imposed by the COS and was not agreed to by CUSTODIO. It cannot therefore be considered as part of the contract of sale as it lacks the consent of CUSTODIO. 21

Finally, the Court of Appeals did not err in not awarding the COS attorney’s fees. Although attorney’s fees may be awarded if the claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought, 22 we find that CUSTODIO’s act clearly was not unjustified.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED, and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Ninth Division composed of the ponente, J . Gloria C. Paras (Chairman); and the members, J . Cezar D. Francisco and J . Buenaventura J. Guerrero, concurring.

2. Decision, pp. 3-4.

3. Decision, p. 4.

4. Petition, p. 7; Rollo, p. 14.

5.

"March 15, 1985

Ms. Adoracion Custodio

3919 Crofton Way

So. San Francisco,

California 94080

Dear Ms. Custodio:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Subject: House and Lot at 316 Beata St.,?

New Alabang Village, Philippines

This has reference to your offer to buy subject property for US$100,000.00 last 9 October 1984 and was accepted by its owners, Mr. And Mrs. Henry L. Co, with the amount of US$1,000.00 and P40,000.00 as "earnest monies" to be deducted at the close of the escrow.

Per your agreement, you should pay purchase price as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

US$ 40,000.00 – on or before December 4, 1984

US$ 60,000.00 – on or before January 5, 1985

The only payment received was on the latter part of January 26, 1985 for US$ 30,000.00.

We wish to inform your goodself that your delay and non-payment of the balances have caused some financial expenses, opportunities lost and exchange losses.

We would appreciate your kind attention and early settlement of this matter.

Very truly yours,

LEOPOLDO D. COTACO"

6.

"8 August 1986

Mrs. Adoracion R. Custodio

3919 Crofton Way

So. San Francisco

California 94080

Re: House and Lot at Alabang

Dear Mrs. Custodio:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We wish to advise in behalf of our clients, Mr. And Mrs. HENRY L. CO, that although you have lost your option to purchase their property at Beata St., Alabang, due to your failure to comply with your commitment. Another property, also at Alabang was recently shown to your Attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Trinidad Kalagayan, for her consideration.

As the other property cannot be reversed for you for an indefinite period, our clients are giving you thirty (30) days from receipt hereof whether or not to purchase it.

Should we not hear from you after that period, said property shall be offered for sale to other buyers.

In which case, your option and other rights including any payment made shall be forfeited.

Very truly yours,

APOLINARIO DALMACION & ASSOCIATES

By:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

LEOPOLDO D. COTACO"

7. "Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between he fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.

The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing f a period.

This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. (1124)"

8. Petition, pages 7-14.; Rollo, pp. 14-21.

9. Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 264 SCRA 483 at p. 505 (1996).

10. Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 602 at 612 (1994).

11. See note 5, Supra.

12. Article 1475, Civil Code.

13. City of Cebu v. Heirs of Candido Rubi, G.R. No. 128579, April 29, 1999 at p. 7.

14. "Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract. (1454a)"

15. Lim v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 569 at p. 577 (1996).

16. See note 6, Supra.

17. Coronel v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 15 at p. 35 (1996).

18. "Art. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

19. Arturo M. Tolentino. Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, at p. 588.

20. Decision, p. 8.

21. Article 1318, Civil Code — "There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1 Consent of the contracting parties;

2 Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

3 Cause of the obligation which is established."cralaw virtua1aw library

In relation to Article 1319, Civil Code — "Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

22. Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 44 at pp. 50-51 (1996).




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






August-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96453 August 4, 1998 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122339 August 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOVEN DAGANTA

  • G.R. No. 131429 August 4, 1998 - OSCAR BERMUDEZ v. RUBEN TORRES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1467 August 5, 1998 - SAMUEL D. PAGDILAO v. ADORACION G. ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 119385 August 5, 1998 - NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 119956 August 5, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENTE NAPIOT

  • G.R. No. 128632 August 5, 1998 - MSF TIRE AND RUBBER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133366 August 5, 1998 - UNIONBANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1416 August 6, 1998 - REYNALDO V. ABUNDO v. GREGORIO E. MANIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 86963 August 6, 1998 - BATONG BUHAY GOLD MINES v. DIONISIO DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129049 August 6, 1998 - BALTAZAR G. CAMPOREDONDO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134602 August 6, 1998 - RAMONA T. LOGRONIO v. ROBERTO TALESEO

  • G.R. No. 136426 August 6, 1998 - E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO. v. HERMINIO I. BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 August 9, 1998 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130214 August 9, 1998 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 96663 & 103300 August 10, 1998 - PEPSI - COLA PRODUCTS PHIL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125132 August 10, 1998 - PHILEX MINING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125397 August 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MOLINA

  • G.R. Nos. 131261-62 August 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. AUGUSTO CESAR RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 132690 August 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME IBAY

  • G.R. No. 133140 August 10, 1998 - JOSE MA. T. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162 August 11, 1998 - ANA MAY M. SIMBAJON v. ROGELIO M. ESTEBAN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1181 August 11, 1998 - IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. MTJ-99-1181

  • G.R. Nos. 96618-19 August 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PINKER JOSEPH BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 107369 August 11, 1998 - JESULITO A. MANALO v. PEDRO G. SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122550-51 August 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WINEFRED ACCION

  • G.R. No. 130617 August 11, 1998 - MA. LIZA DE GUZMAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 5105 August 12, 1998 - FERNANDO SALONGA v. ISIDRO T. HILDAWA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1330 August 12, 1998 - CLARITA I. DIONISIO v. PACIFICO S. GILERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115981-82 August 12, 1998 - RUBEN LAGROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 123265-66 August 12, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMAR C. QUILANG

  • G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1998 - EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, ET AL. v. EVANGELINE CALUGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134792 August 12, 1998 - PERLA GARCIA, ET AL. v. HARRY ANGPING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131209 August 13, 1998 - ARCANGEL GUTIB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132893 August 13, 1998 - PETER C. CHUA LAO v. ALFREDO N. MACAPUGAY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1470 August 16, 1998 - VILLA MACASASA, ET AL. v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • G.R. No. 103065 August 16, 1998 - JUAN DE CARLOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124382 August 16, 1998 - PASTOR DIONISIO V. AUSTRIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127754 August 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO DESOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135886 August 16, 1998 - VICTORINO SALCEDO II v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136121 August 16, 1998 - MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. FRANCISCA CUIZON MANGUBAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1161 August 17, 1998 - HONESTO RICOLCOL v. RUBY BITHAO CAMARISTA

  • G.R. No. 96092 August 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 104955 August 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109941 August 17, 1998 - PACIONARIA C. BAYLON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112330 August 17, 1998 - HENRY CO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127348 August 17, 1998 - LYDIA R. LAPAT v. JOSEFINO ROSARIO

  • G.R. Nos. 131861-63 August 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN B. LIM

  • G.R. No. 132577 August 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB

  • G.R. No. 133047 August 17, 1998 - LORENZO YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135046 August 17, 1998 - LAARNI BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. PILAR DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 128827 August 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO R. CAYAGO

  • G.R. No. 128966 August 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 129694 August 18, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MANTE

  • G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 123123 August 19, 1998 - EDWIN CADUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124348 August 19, 1998 - DOMINADOR SANCHEZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130637 August 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 131457 August 19, 1998 - CARLOS O. FORTICH, ET AL. v. RENATO C. CORONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132426 August 19, 1998 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. JOSE F. CAOIBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135216 August 19, 1998 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119307 August 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE SISON

  • G.R. No. 126413 August 20, 1998 - ANTONIO C. MARTINEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128889 August 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO DIZON

  • G.R. No. 113363 August 24, 1998 - ASIA WORLD RECRUITMENT INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134142 August 24, 1998 - SANTANINA TILLAH RASUL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-3-34-MeTC August 25, 1998 - REPORT ON THE SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC August 25, 1998 - RE: PETITION FOR UPGRADING OF COURT OF APPEALS POSITIONS

  • A.M. No. 99-8-108-MCTC August 25, 1998 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE EUSEBIO M. BAROT

  • G.R. No. L-77468 August 25, 1998 - EDUARDO LUCENA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108169 August 25, 1998 - VENANCIO DAVID, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125524 August 25, 1998 - BENITO MACAM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127195 August 25, 1998 - MARSAMAN MANNING AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127318 August 25, 1998 - FRANCIS KING L. MARQUEZ v. COMELEC, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. 131151 August 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 135084 August 25, 1998 - MANUEL V. OLONDRIZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 9777-Ret August 26, 1998 - TESSIE L. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 105854 August 26, 1998 - ANIANO E. IJARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121087 August 26, 1998 - FELIPE NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125735 August 26, 1998 - LORLENE A. GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126875 August 26, 1998 - MARIANO BRUSAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130608 August 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTHUR DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 132294 August 26, 1998 - DELFIN R. VOLUNTAD, ET AL. v. MAGTANGGOL DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134298 August 26, 1998 - RAMON C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 135128 August 26, 1998 - BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA v. DBP, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-20-SC August 27, 1998 - RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BRANCH 10 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY AS A SPECIAL COURT

  • G.R. No. 108765 August 27, 1998 - SSSEA (PSLINK-TUCP) v. PERLITA BATHAN-VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131116 August 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132413 August 27, 1998 - RAMON ALQUIZOLA, ET AL. v. GALLARDO OCOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 130091 August 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ELINO NAGUITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136587 August 30, 1998 - ERNESTO A. DOMINGO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137113 August 30, 1998 - NOEL F. CIACICO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94285 & 100313 August 31, 1998 - JESUS SY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123825 August 31, 1998 - MARK ROCHE INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127064 August 31, 1998 - FIVE STAR BUS COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132425 August 31, 1998 - THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132803 August 31, 1998 - JESSIE V. PISUEÑA v. PETRA UNATING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134625 August 31, 1998 - U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.