Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > January 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 128421 January 26, 1998 - TRANS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128421. January 26, 1998.]

TRANS INTERNATIONAL, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION; PERLA A. SEGOVIA and GILBERTO PASTORAL, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


MARTINEZ, J.:


Challenged in this petition for review by way of certiorari is the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals which set aside the order of the trial court and directed the latter to give due course to the notice of appeal of respondents. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was likewise denied on January 31, 1997. 2

The facts which gave rise to the instant petition are as follows;

Petitioner Trans International filed a complaint for damages against respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR for brevity) and two of its principal officers arising from the rescission of a contract for the supply and delivery of woodpoles before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20960.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On May 22, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision sustaining the claim of petitioner corporation. 3 It awarded to petitioner the following amounts: $1,325,703.65 representing the amount of profit which it could have enjoyed had the contract been observed; $10,000.00 for expenses incurred by petitioner’s local agent in the preparation and execution of the contract; P932,102.53 representing the combined premium paid by petitioner for the bidder’s bond, performance bond and surety bond; and P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

A copy of the aforesaid decision was received by respondents on June 6, 1996. On June 19, 1996, respondents filed their motion for reconsideration alleging in the main that certain facts were overlooked, ignored or wrongly appreciated by the trial court. 4 An opposition to said motion was filed by petitioner on July 11, 1996. 5 On August 2, 1996, the trial court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. 6 A copy of the aforesaid order was personally delivered to respondent NAPOCOR’S office on August 23, 1996 (Friday) and was received by Ronald T. Lapuz, a clerk assigned at the office of the VP-General Counsel.

Considering that it was almost 5:00 p.m., Lapuz placed the said order inside the drawer of his table. However, on August 26 and 27, 1996 (Monday and Tuesday, respectively) said clerk was unable to report for work due to an illness he suffered as a result of the extraction of his three front teeth. Said order was retrieved from his drawer only in the afternoon of the 27th and was immediately forwarded to the secretary of Atty. Wilfredo J. Collado, counsel for the respondents. At 3:10 p.m. that same day, respondents thru counsel filed their notice of appeal. 7

On August 29, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for execution before the trial court contending that its decision dated May 22, 1996 had become final and executory since respondents failed to make a timely appeal and praying for the issuance of an order granting the writ of execution. 8 On the other hand, respondents filed an opposition thereto alleging therein that the cause of their failure to make a timely appeal was due to unforeseeable oversight and accident on the part of their employee who was unable to report for work because of illness. 9 On September 9, 1996 petitioner filed a reply to said opposition. 10 On September 11, 1996 respondents’ counsel filed a supplemental opposition to the motion for execution attaching thereto the affidavit of Lapuz. 11 Finally, on September 18, 1996, respondents filed their rejoinder to said reply. 12

On September 13, 1996, the trial court issued an order denying respondents notice of appeal and granting the motion for execution filed by petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the foregoing circumstances having been considered, this Court is constrained to DENY defendants’ NOTICE OF APPEAL for having been filed out of time.

"Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for execution of the Court’s decision dated May 22, 1996 is hereby GRANTED, let a Writ of Execution be issued the same to be enforced by deputy sheriff Efren V. Cachero.

SO ORDERED." 13

On September 20, 1996, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals questioning the validity of the issuance of the aforesaid order on the ground that the denial of their notice of appeal was on the basis of a mere technicality and that the writ of execution should not have been issued since there are strong considerations which militate the strict application of the rules on procedure. 14 Petitioner corporation filed its comment to the petition dated September 25, 1996 claiming that the event which happened in respondents’ office does not amount to an honest mistake nor an unavoidable accident that would legally excuse their neglect. 15

On October 21, 1996, the respondent Court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED DUE COURSE. The assailed order dated September 13, 1996 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent court is ordered to give due course to petitioners’ appeal.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner corporation was denied for lack of merit, hence, a recourse to this court on a petition for review by way of a petition for certiorari. 16

Petitioner avers that the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction when it gave due course to the petition of respondents considering their admission that the notice of appeal was belatedly filed before the trial court. Since the ground submitted by respondents for their late filing does not constitute excusable neglect then the respondent court allegedly grievously erred in admitting the same. Furthermore, petitioner argues that appeal is not a natural right and is merely a statutory privilege which must be exercised within and in the manner provided by law. Failure to do so is fatal and the right of appeal would be lost.

Respondents, while admitting that the appeal was filed out of time, maintain that the rules on appeal should not be construed in such a manner as to give way to its rigid application without even considering the circumstances which led to the belated filing of the notice of appeal. In fact, it is argued, this Court has on several occasions, recognized the need to relax the stringent rules on appeal on reasons of equity and substantial justice.chanrobles law library : red

We find for the Respondent. The general rule holds that the appellate jurisdiction of the courts is conferred by law, and must be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions thereof and such jurisdiction is acquired by the appellate court over the subject matter and parties by the perfection of the appeal. 17 The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. 18 In fact, it has been long recognized that strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. 19

Nonetheless, this court has on several occasions relaxed this strict requirement. In the case of Toledo, Et. Al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al., 20 we allowed the filing of an appeal where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction. Thus, for a party to seek exception for its failure to comply strictly with the statutory requirements for perfecting its appeal, strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof must be shown, in order to warrant the Court’s suspension of the rules. 21 Indeed, the court is confronted with the need to balance stringent application of technical rules vis-a-vis strong policy considerations of substantial significance to relax said rules based on equity and justice.

The case at bench squarely meets the requisites postulated by the aforequoted rule. If respondents’ right to appeal would be curtailed by the mere expediency of holding that they had belatedly filed their notice of appeal, then this Court as the final arbiter of justice would be deserting its avowed objective, that is to dispense justice based on the merits of the case and not on a mere technicality. Needless to say, the peculiar circumstances attendant in this case strongly demands a review of the decision of the trial court. As aptly observed by the respondent court, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In this case, the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal was due to an unforeseen illness of the receiving clerk Ronald Lapuz in the office of the General Counsel of petitioner NAPOCOR. As stated in the affidavit of said clerk, which was presented to the trial court, he received a copy of the Order of respondent judge dated August 2, 1996 at 4:54 p.m., Friday, August 23, 1996; since it was already almost 5:00 p.m., he placed the said order inside the drawer of his table together with some other documents, intending to deliver it to the handling lawyer, Atty. Collado, who had given him instructions to deliver immediately to his secretary any order on the case; he was unable to report for work the following Monday because of severe pain in the front jaw as a result of the extraction of three front teeth, and was absent for two days, August 26 and 27, when the Order was retrieved on August 27th, the notice of appeal was promptly filed in the afternoon, at 3:10 p.m., of the same day.

"The delay was properly explained and sufficiently justified; considerations of substantial justice and equity strongly argue against a rigid enforcement of the technical rules of procedure, considering not only that the delay was only for one day, and the petitioners have pleaded an unforeseeable oversight and illness on the part of the receiving clerk, as an excuse. More important, the decision sought to be appealed from awarded an enormous sum in the amount of P37,554,414.99, by way of damages arising from the rescission of the contract with private respondents, and legal and factual bases for the awards, and the 12% interest thereon, are being questioned, on the ground among others, that the amount awarded for unrealized profits ($1,325,703.68) was bigger than the amount prayed for in the complaint ($788,700.00) [See Motion for Reconsideration, Annex "C" of Petition], to insist that the one-day delay in filing the appeal despite the plausible reason adduced therefor is a "fatal mistake" due alone to the negligence of counsel is to insist on a rigid application of the rules, which as repeatedly enunciated by the Supreme court, should help secure, not override substantial justice. 22

Verily, the respondent court’s pronouncement cannot be more emphatic in view of the instances wherein we allowed the filing of an appeal in certain cases where a narrow and stringent application of the rules would have denied it. Indeed, the allowance thereof would fully serve the demands of substantial justice in the exercise of the Court’s equity jurisdiction. Thus, in Castro v. Court of Appeals, 23 and reiterated in the case of Velasco v. Gayapa, Jr. 24 , the Court stressed the importance and objective of appeal, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. We have advised the courts to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal (National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. Municipality of Libmanan, 97 SCRA 138) and instructed that every party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities (A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 590).

"The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. (Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120) Therefore, we ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals (83 SCRA 453) that a six-day delay in the perfection of appeal does not warrant a dismissal. And again in Ramos v. Bagasao, (96 SCRA 395), this Court held that the delay of four (4) days in filing the notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal can be excused on the basis of equity." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.25cralaw:red

Time and again, we have consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice. 26 In Segunda Santiago and Valerio Flores v. Pablo Valenzuela and Moises Pardo 27 , the court ruled that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court may extend the time or allow the perfection of the appeal beyond the prescribed period if it be satisfactorily shown that there is justifiable reason, such as fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, or similar supervening casualty, without fault of the appellant, which the court may deem sufficient reason for relieving him from the consequences of his failure to comply strictly with the law. In such case the appeal is deemed taken and perfected on time, and the appellate court acquires appellate jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

In essence, the court is convinced that the test for substantial justice and equity considerations have been adequately met by respondents to overcome the one day delay in the perfection of their appeal. Considering the factual and legal milieu obtaining in the case at bench, the petition must be denied.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by the Honorable Associate Justice Minerva Santiago-Reyes, Chairman, Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals and concurred by Honorable Justices Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr., and Santiago J. Valdez, Jr.

2. Order, pp. 40-42, Rollo.

3. Decision, pp. 43-71, ibid.

4. Annex "D", pp. 72-82, ibid.

5. Annex "E", pp. 83-86, ibid.

6. Order, pp. 87-88, ibid.

7. p. 126, Rollo.

8. pp. 89-90, ibid.

9. pp. 90-94, ibid.,

10. pp. 100-103, ibid.

11. pp. 95-99, ibid.

12. pp. 104-107, ibid.

13. Order, pp. 108-110, ibid.

14. Petition, pp. 111-127, ibid.

15. Comment, pp. 126-132, ibid.

16. Petition, pp. 3-27, rollo.

17. Santiago and Flores v. Valenzuela and Pardo, L-670, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil 397, University of the Philippines v. CSC, G.R. No. 108740 December 1, 1993, 228 SCRA 537.

18. Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99357, January 27, 1992, 205 SCRA 537.

19. Alvero v. De la Rosa, etc., Et Al., 76 Phil. 428 (1946).

20. L-65211, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 579.

21. Ronquillo v. Marasigan, L-11621, May 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 304; Workmen’s Insurance Co., Inc. v. Augusto, Et Al., L-31060, July 29, 1971, 40 SCRA 123.

22. Decision of the Court of Appeals, supra.

23. No. L-474101, July 29, 1983, 123 SCRA 782.

24. No. L-58651, July 30, 1987, 152 SCRA 440.

25. Rodrigues v. Court of Appeals, No. 37522, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 262.

26. A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-35560, October 30, 1980, 100 SCRA 590; Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, No. L-43511, July 28, 1976, 72 SCRA 120.

27. Supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-01-MTCC January 5, 1998 - REPORT OF COA ON THE SHORTAGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITIES OF LILIA S. BUENA

  • G.R. Nos. 118342 & 118367 January 5, 1998 - DBP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122704 January 5, 1998 - PEDRO CHICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108369 January 7, 1998 - CINDY AND LYNSY GARMENT, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111710 January 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ABUAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1385 January 8, 1998 - RAMON T. ARDOSA v. LOLITA O. GAL-LANG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-98-1260 January 14, 1998 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. CESAR TORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108772 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY OBELLO

  • G.R. Nos. 113250-52 January 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. 117043 January 14, 1998 - FELIX VILLA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120616 January 14, 1998 - LONGINO BUHISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113592 January 15, 1998 - INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128399 January 15, 1998 - CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING CO. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84857 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110315 January 16, 1998 - RENATO CUDIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 111313-14 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIE VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 112035 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO CABILES

  • G.R. No. 113296 January 16, 1998 - ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113804 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116629 January 16, 1998 - NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117683 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TANEO

  • G.R. No. 118883 January 16, 1998 - SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120366 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BACCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122046 January 16, 1998 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122770 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AGBAYANI

  • G.R. No. 123455 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 124290 January 16, 1998 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125906 January 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO AQUINO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1065 January 20, 1998 - JOSEPHINE R. TULIAO v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 120107 January 20, 1998 - DANILO P. AGUAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120180 January 20, 1998 - LINELL VILLARUEL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120334 & 120337 January 20, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122098 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE TENORIO

  • G.R. No. 122100 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TUMALA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 124185-87 January 20, 1998 - RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124705 January 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SUMALPONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107725 January 22, 1998 - ESPERO SALAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115555-59 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116775 January 22, 1998 - HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119074-75 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PACISTOL

  • G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998 - ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121193 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBITONIO PALMA GIL

  • G.R. No. 124326 January 22, 1998 - BOYET SEMPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124736 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 127296 January 22, 1998 - EDUBIGIS GORDULA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128379 January 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRANDO RAVANES

  • G.R. No. 105188 January 23, 1998 - MYRON C. PAPA v. A.U. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113911 January 23, 1998 - VINTA MARITIME, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115625 January 23, 1998 - ESMUNDO B. RIVERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115809 January 23, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELVIN MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 125218 & 128077 January 23, 1998 - FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-98-1397 January 26, 1998 - DEOGRACIAS VILLALUZ JR., ET AL. v. WENIFREDO A. ARMENTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120556 January 26, 1998 - HDA. DAPDAP I, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121908 January 26, 1998 - ESTER SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123989 January 26, 1998 - DAVID B. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127850 January 26, 1998 - MARIA ARCAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128421 January 26, 1998 - TRANS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 810 January 27, 1998 - PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. 118939 January 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON TIMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 121468 January 27, 1998 - ARSENIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • Adm. Case CBD No. 190 January 28, 1998 - CORAZON T. REONTOY v. LIBERATO R. IBADLIT

  • Adm. Case No. 2884 January 28, 1998 - IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC v. ORLANDO A. RAYOS

  • Adm. Case No. 3919 January 28, 1998 - SOCORRO T. CO v. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-94-986, MTJ-95-1052, MTJ-95-1069 January 28, 1998 - MIGUEL ABARQUEZ v. BIENVENIDO M. REBOSURA

  • G.R. No. 91262 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO LLAGUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105892 January 28, 1998 - LEIDEN FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110921 January 28, 1998 - BALTAZAR L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116765 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB QUITORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119835 January 28, 1998 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH BARRIENTOS

  • G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998 - ROMEO LAGATIC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121534 January 28, 1998 - JUAN M. CASIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121901 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARITA BAHATAN

  • G.R. No. 122075 January 28, 1998 - HAGONOY RURAL BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125334 January 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO TABUGOCA

  • G.R. No. 126196 January 28, 1998 - GREGORIO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127549 January 28, 1998 - CESAR STA. MARIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1135 January 29, 1998 - SALAM NAGA PANGADAPUN v. AMER R. IBRAHIM

  • G.R. No. 106233 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBINSON ESTRERA

  • G.R. No. 110495 January 29, 1998 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114385 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 116382 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MA. LOURDES BAUTISTA DE GUIANG

  • G.R. No. 117572 January 29, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120921 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121824 January 29, 1998 - BRITISH AIRWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121898 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE H. ARANJUEZ

  • G.R. No. 123151 January 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABINO GEMENTIZA

  • G.R. No. 124521 January 29, 1998 - MICHAEL O. MASTURA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127073 & 126995 January 29, 1998 - JOSE P. DANS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 127823 January 29, 1998 - "J" MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. FELICIDAD SIA, JR., ET AL.

  • CBD Adm. Case No. 313 January 30, 1998 - AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO MENESES III

  • G.R. Nos. 106210-11 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO LISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115253-74 January 30, 1998 - ANTONIO P. CALLANTA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118744 January 30, 1998 - IRENEO V. GUERRERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119246 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CORREA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123872 January 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN MONTILLA