Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > January 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 126196 January 28, 1998 - GREGORIO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126196. January 28, 1998.]

SPOUSES GREGORIO C. MORALES and MA. TERESA L. MORALES, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and POLICARPIO C. ESTRELLA, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


In an ejectment case, when a Municipal Trial Court receives evidence on the merits, but thereafter renders a decision erroneously dismissing the action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a Regional Trial Court on appeal may review the entire case on the merits and render judgment thereon as the proven facts and the law may warrant. This is in accord with the general principle that the Rules of Court must be construed to attain just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of an action or proceeding.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Statement of the Case

This postulate is used by this Court in granting the instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 30, 1996 Decision 1 of Respondent Court of Appeals, 2 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated December 13, 1994, and all other orders subsequent thereto are hereby set aside. Let this case be remanded to the Municipal Trial Court for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED." 3

The said decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 8, in turn, set aside the appealed decision 5 of the Municipal Trial Court of Hagonoy in an action for forcible entry with damages. It disposed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Setting aside the decision appealed from, and finding for the plaintiffs;

2. Finding that defendant has illegally deprived plaintiffs of their lawful possession of the property to which they are entitled to immediate restitution;

3. Ordering the defendant to forthwith vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiffs; and

4. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 as reasonable compensation for his illegal occupation and use of the property including the value of the crops he had unlawfully planted and harvested; and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees for expenses he was compelled to incur to protect his interests in the instant proceedings and in the lower court.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Antecedent Facts

The facts as narrated by Respondent Court of Appeals are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The lots in question were originally part of one whole parcel devoted to agriculture owned by one Enrique Bautista. Sometime in 1972, Bautista caused the subdivision of the land. His subdivision survey plan was duly approved by the Land Registration Commission. He then obtained individual transfer certificates of title of the subdivided lots. He likewise obtained a corresponding declaration of property for each lot from the Municipal Assessor. These were approved by the Provincial Assessor reclassifying the lots as residential.

In 1979, Bautista sold two (2) lots to plaintiff Gregorio Morales. He also sold four (4) lots to plaintiff Maria Teresa Morales. Teresa in turn, sold three (3) of her purchased lots to three different persons who are likewise plaintiffs in the case.

Plaintiffs assert that the defendant surreptitiously took possession of their lots and prepared them for planting, thereby altering its residential outline and appearance.

Defendant countered with the allegation that reclassification of the land was not approved by the proper authorities and that he was duly constituted as tenant thereof by the previous owner, Enrique Bautista.

The municipal court received evidence on the issue of right of possession and the land’s proper classification.

Finding the land to be agricultural and the fact that tenancy was in issue, the said court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs appealed. The (Regional Trial Court) Judge who heard the case found that the (municipal) court had jurisdiction because the land was duly reclassified from agricultural to residential and that tenancy was not involved. He then proceeded to decide the issues on the merits resulting in a judgment favoring plaintiffs’ recovery of possession of the lots in litigation.

Defendant-petitioner (on appeal by way of certiorari to the Court of Appeals) alleges that the (Regional Trial Court) Judge gravely erred its discretion and lacked jurisdiction to decide the case." 6

As already stated, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings. Hence, this petition. 7

Public Respondent’s Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in its three-page Decision, ratiocinated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The petition has merit.

On the principle that government agencies are duty-bound to adhere to the tenets of the law in the performance of their official functions, there is a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

The respondent court based its finding on this presumption in the absence of evidence disputing it. This court sees no reason to amplify the findings on this matter which the trial court amply discussed in its decision (pp. 5-8). Suffice it to state that the respondent court persuades us to sustain its stand that the case is within the courts’ jurisdiction and not referable to the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Nonetheless, we do not agree that the respondent court can take cognizance of the case on the merits.

The record discloses that the Municipal Trial Court which had original jurisdiction over the case for ejectment did not resolve the case on the merits. In fact, this was admitted by the private respondents in their comment to the petition.

The applicable rule is provided in Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court, which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Sec. 10. Appellate powers of Courts of First Instance where action not tried on its merits by inferior court. — Where the action has been disposed of by an inferior court upon a question of law and not after a valid trial upon the merits, the Court of First Instance shall on appeal review the ruling of the inferior court and may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In the case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.’" 8

The Issues


Petitioners raise the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


Respondent court erred in finding that the Municipal Trial Court did not resolve the ejectment case on the merits, in applying Section 10 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court and in remanding the case to said court for further proceedings, in spite of its finding that said court did have and has jurisdiction over the case.

II


Respondent court erred in not finding, as urged by petitioners in their ‘Comment (Motion to Dismiss)’, that appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court was available to private respondent, that he failed to avail of it, that said decision became final and executory on January 6, 1995, and that the special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for appeal or a lost one, and in not forthwith dismissing the petition.

III


Respondent court erred in not finding that the petition, assuming it to be procedurally proper, does not make out a case for the special civil action of certiorari since the trial court had jurisdiction over the case and its decision is fully supported by the law and the evidence." 9

Synthesizing the foregoing, the issues can simply be restated, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Was the RTC correct in resolving the ejectment suit on its merits?

2. Was the Court of Appeals correct in giving due course to the petition for certiorari assailing the RTC decision, even after the period for appeal has lapsed?

The Court’s Ruling


The petition is meritorious.

First Issue : Was RTC’s Decision on the Merits Proper?

Reiterating the ruling of the Court of Appeals, private respondent contends that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided the case on its merits. He argues that the mandate of the RTC was limited to remanding the case to the MTC for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals and the private respondent rely on Section 10, Rule 40 of the (old) Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 10. Appellate powers of Court of First Instance where action not tried on its merits by inferior court. — Where the action has been disposed of by an inferior court upon a question of law and not after a valid trial upon the merits, the Court of First Instance shall on appeal review the ruling of the inferior court and may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings. (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the present Rules which include the 1997 amendments, the last two lines above (underscored) are reproduced as the last sentence of Sec. 8, Rule 40:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing the case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. — If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

We cannot sustain the Court of Appeals. Under the aforequoted provisions, a Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, should remand a case in the event it reverses a decision of the MTC which ruled on a question of law, provided that there was no trial on the merits. The significance of this second requirement cannot be overemphasized, for it reveals the rationale for remanding the case. A remand is a due process requirement, because it affords the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the merits of the case. Where the parties have presented their respective evidence before the MTC, a remand becomes a useless superfluity, an undue imposition on the time and the dockets of courts.

In the case at bar, it is clear that the MTC afforded due process to the parties; it received relevant evidence sufficient to decide the ejectment case on its merits. As borne by its decision, the MTC received the following pieces of evidence for the petitioners:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Exhibit ‘A’, subdivision plan dated November 8, 1992, Exhibit ‘A-1’ tax declarations Nos. 2768, 2765, 2764, 2763, (formerly agricultural now converted to residential lots); Exhibit ‘B’ — Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Gregorio C. Morales, Exhibit ‘B-1’ — Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ma. Teresa Morales; Exhibit ‘C’ — Transfer Certificate of Title over Lot 59-N-1-D with an area of 389 square meters; Exhibit ‘D’ — Transfer Certificate of Title over Lot 59-N-1-I with an area of 417 square meters; Exhibit ‘D-1’ — Tax Declaration No. 0576 in the name of Lucila C. Gatela; Exhibit ‘E’ — Transfer Certificate of Title over Lot 59-N-1-H with an area of 394 square meters; Exhibit ‘E-1’ — Tax Declaration No. 0577 in the name of Jayson Gatela; Exhibit ‘F’ — Transfer Certificate of Title over Lot 59-N-1-G with an area of 370 square meters; Exhibit ‘F-1’ — Tax Declaration No. 0578 in the name of Micky G. Yagio; Exhibit ‘G’ — Relocation Plan dated March 24, 1988; Exhibit ‘H’, ‘H-1’ and ‘H-2’ — Pictorial view of land; Exhibit ‘I’ — Barangay Certification; Exhibit ‘J’ — Special Power of Attorney; and Exhibit ‘K’ — Joint Affidavit executed by plaintiffs Gregorio C. Morales and Ma. Teresa L. Morales." 10

The MTC also received the following from private respondent:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Exhibit ‘1’ — Certification dated May 6, 1993 of Punong Barangay and B.A.R.C. Chairman of Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan; Exhibit ‘2’ — Magkasanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay of Alfredo Manalo and Lucio de Jesus dated March 3, 1993; Exhibit ‘3’ — Certification by the Punong Barangay and B.A.R.C. Chairman of Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan; Exhibit ‘4’ to ‘4-B’ Three (3) pictures of the landholding in question; Exhibit ‘5’ — Certification by the Pangulo ng Samahang Nayon dated May 4, 1993, and Exhibit ‘6’ and ‘6-A’ — Demand Letter of Atty. Ezequiel S. Consulta addressed to the defendant. "11

Furthermore, during the preliminary conference conducted by the MTC, the parties made the following admissions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) existence of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Enrique Bautista in favor of Gregorio Morales and Ma. Teresa Morales in 1972, but not as to the authenticity; (2) the land in question was formerly in the possession of a certain Emeterio de Jesus before the year 1978; (3) the defendant was a former employee of Enrique Bautista in 1972 until 1977; and (4) defendant admits that the land in question has been divided into subdivision lots but still being cultivated by defendant." 12

On the basis of the evidence presented by both parties, the MTC drew a categorical conclusion which strikes at the heart of the instant ejectment case — the non-existence of forcible entry, viz.:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

"As to the manner of entry into possession by the defendant, this Court finds it difficult to believe that he did so through stealth and strategy. Being relatives and not estranged at least up to the time when the issue in this case cropped up, possession of the defendant was open and known to the plaintiff. Likewise, the use of the land is also known to remain as agricultural, particularly devoted to rice production.

It is more in accord with reason to believe that defendant took over from the former tenant Emeterio de Jesus, of the previous owner, Enrique Bautista. The controversy lies in the fact that he is not at present recognized as such by the new owners, the plaintiff(s). Republic Act 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) vests exclusive jurisdiction of agrarian dispute to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)." 13

The Court, therefore, finds no compelling reason to remand the case to the MTC, as the underlying purpose and objective for such remand is already fait accompli. As previously noted, the MTC observed due process; it received necessary evidence to decide the ejectment case under the Rules on Summary Procedure; and it discussed the issue of forcible entry. On appeal, the decision of the RTC was based on the facts adduced by the parties before the MTC. Consequently, remanding the case to the MTC serves no useful purpose, for the parties have already presented their evidence. Besides, there was no allegation that the parties intended to present additional evidence which might warrant a change in the resolution of the case. A remand would unnecessarily impose on the parties the concomitant difficulties and expenses of another proceeding where they would have to present the same evidence again. This clearly runs counter to Section 2 (now Section 6), Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, which mandates liberal construction of the Rules to attain just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of any action or proceeding. 14

As eruditely stated by Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado in his Remedial Law Compendium: 15

"Sec. 10 [of Rule 40] provides for the procedure when the case was not tried on the merits but was merely disposed of on a question of law as where the case was dismissed for improper venue or lack of jurisdiction. No trial having been held, the Court of First Instance on appeal merely affirms or reverses the order of dismissal, and in case of reversal, remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

However, where the question of law involves lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but the case was tried on the merits by the inferior court, the parties may submit to the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the appealed case need not be dismissed (Sec. 11; Cf. Zulueta v. Mariano, Et Al., L-29360, Jan. 30, 1982)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Second Issue : Is Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals Appropriate?

Petitioners assail the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ grant of the writ of certiorari, arguing that the questioned RTC decision has already become final and executory. 16 Petitioners contend that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. 17

The petitioners’ contention is again correct. The records clearly show that private respondent failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period; private respondent himself does not dispute this. He received a copy of the December 13, 1994 decision of the RTC on December 22, 1994. On January 5, 1995, or fourteen days later, he filed a motion for reconsideration. On April 17, 1995, he received a copy of the order dated February 10, 1995, denying his motion for reconsideration. Instead of appealing, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on April 27, 1995. By then, the period for appeal had lapsed and the judgment had become final and executory.

As a rule, certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. As an exception, certiorari — not appeal — is the proper remedy when a lower court has acted patently beyond or outside the limits of its jurisdiction. 18 In view of the earlier discussion, however, the exception finds no application in this case, for it is clear that the RTC did not overstep its authority. Hence, the Court of Appeals seriously erred when it granted a writ of certiorari to private Respondent.

Parenthetically, the Court deems it significant to note that the RTC correctly appreciated the evidence on record in favor of petitioner. The private respondent manifestly failed to make a specific denial of petitioners’ allegation in the amended complaint that, upon discovery of his intrusion into their property, they immediately demanded that he vacate the premises. He did not deny either that he promised to do so in one month. Neither did private respondent specifically deny petitioners’ unequivocal declaration that they never authorized private respondent’s possession of the property. Moreover, the private respondent never answered the April 21, 1995 letter of petitioners’ counsel informing him that he was trespassing and should therefore return the produce he had harvested as planter in bad faith. These material averments were proven by the evidence presented by petitioner.

In stark contrast, we find no sufficient basis in fact or in reason for the MTC’s conclusion that the private respondent did not effect entry and possession through stealth and strategy, just because the parties were not estranged relatives. Such relationship is not equivalent to petitioners’ knowledge, much less consent, to private respondent’s illicit usurpation of their property in Bulacan, considering that petitioners resided in Manila. 19 That the private respondent resorted to strategy and stealth to wrongfully enter and possess petitioners’ property is even more condemnable, considering that he, as a witness, signed the deed of absolute sale of the property in favor of the petitioners. 20

To recapitulate, remanding the case to the MTC for further proceedings will result only in needless delay in the resolution of this action for forcible entry which was filed on September 10, 1993. A remand is necessary only when there has been no trial on the merits. In the instant case, the MTC received evidence on the factual issues of this case. On the basis of the evidence presented, the MTC opined that there was no forcible entry, but that it had no jurisdiction over the case. On the strength of the said evidence received by the MTC, the RTC ruled that the lower court did have jurisdiction and that there was forcible entry. Under the circumstances, the RTC correctly decided the case on the merits based on the evidence already on record. The private respondent failed to appeal within the reglementary period, and thus the RTC decision became final and executory. This simple ejectment case has dragged on for several years. It is time to put it to a decisive halt and grant justice to the parties.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of Respondent Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The December 13, 1994 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 8, is REINSTATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 25-28.

2. Seventh Division, composed of J. Emeterio C. Cui, ponente and Division Chairman; and JJ . Eduardo G. Montenegro and Jose C. de la Rama, concurring.

3. Ibid., pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 26-27.

4. In Civil Case No. 493-M-94, penned by acting Presiding Judge Amado M. Calderon.

5. Penned by Judge Fe Torres-Arcilla.

6. Decision of the Court of Appeals, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 25-26.

7. The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon receipt by this Court of private respondent’s memorandum on September 29, 1997.

8. Ibid., pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 26-27.

9. Petition, p. 6; rollo, p. 8.

10. Decision of the MTC, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 73-74. See also Decision of the RTC, p. 2; rollo, p. 79.

11. Ibid., p. 4; rollo, p. 75. See also Decision of the RTC, p. 3; rollo, p. 80.

12. Ibid., pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 75-76. See also Decision of the RTC, p. 3; rollo, p. 80.

13. Ibid., p. 6; rollo, p. 77. See also Decision of the RTC, p. 14; rollo, p. 91.

14. See Manuel Lao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115307, p. 12, July 8, 1997.

15. pp. 248-249, third revised edition (1984).

16. Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 16; rollo, p. 140.

17. Ibid.

18. Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947, pp. 19-20, September 29, 1997; citing Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume One, p. 708, (1997), and Philippine National Bank v. Florendo, 206 SCRA 582,589, February 26, 1992.

19. See Decision of the RTC, pp. 14-17; rollo, pp. 91-94.

20. Ibid., p. 17; rollo, p. 94.




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