Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > July 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 134090 July 2, 1998 - ERNESTO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134090. July 2, 1999.]

ERNESTO R. CRUZ, LUCIA NICIO and GUILLERMO COQUILLA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses JOSE and MIGUELA LOMOTAN, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


At bar is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Court of Appeals when, despite a finding of forum-shopping, it did not order the dismissal of the two cases filed by the respondent spouses, Jose Lomotan and Miguela Lomotan, against the herein petitioners, one for injunction and the other for unlawful detainer, and instead, allowed the said cases to prosper.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sometime in 1975, the spouses Jose Lomotan and Miguela Lomotan purchased from Jose San Pedro a parcel of land located at No. 16 Tawiran Street, Interior Evangelista, Santolan, Pasig City, with an area of 4,689 square meters. The corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title No. 477687 was issued to them by the Register of Deeds of Pasig City. Jose San Pedro, the vendor, executed the necessary affidavit attesting that subject property deeded out was not tenanted. Thereafter, the respondent spouses went to the United States.

In 1996, upon their return from the United States, they had the said land subdivided into smaller lots and enclosed the same with a concrete fence. At that time, however, the area was already occupied by the petitioners, Ernesto Cruz, Guillermo Coquilla and Lucita Nicio, who constructed their houses thereon. Respondent spouses sent written demands to the petitioners asking them to leave the place but the latter not only refused to vacate; they even prevented the workers hired by the respondent spouses from constructing the perimeter fence.

On December 6, 1996, respondent spouses brought before the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, in the interim, to enjoin the petitioners from preventing and obstructing the construction of the fence around the property in question. Respondent spouses allege that: (1) they own subject property and had the same subdivided into smaller lots; (2) they hired construction workers to build a concrete fence around the area; and (3) the workers were in the process of constructing the fence when the petitioners, armed with bolos, stopped and barred the workers from finishing their job.

Petitioners, on the other hand, theorize that they started residing within subject lot in 1964 and their father, Braulio Cruz, occupied the same since 1948; that respondent Miguela Lomotan offered to pay them P20,000.00 as consideration for their vacating the place but they would be effectively blocked off from the property with the construction of the fence.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On December 18, 1996, before the Regional Trial Court could resolve the petition and prayer for a temporary restraining order, the respondent spouses instituted a case for unlawful detainer against the same parties, the petitioners here, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. In their complaint, respondent spouses claimed that sometime in 1975, Braulio Cruz, the father of petitioners, requested permission from them (Lomotans) to plant on subject lot, to which request they agreed under the condition that once they (Lomotans) would need the property, Braulio Cruz will vacate the same. However, unknown to them, Braulio Cruz and his family constructed shanties on the subject area and resided therein.

On January 6, 1997, the Regional Trial Court which was hearing the injunction case issued an Order denying the prayer for a temporary restraining order. On the same day, they (petitioners herein) sent in their Answer to the complaint for injunction, alleging that subject property titled under the names of the spouses, Jose Lomotan and Miguela Lomotan, had been part of an agricultural land, a portion of which had been in the possession of petitioners for more than thirty (30) years. By way of counterclaim, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to prevent the respondent spouses from ejecting them. The answer petitioners submitted to the Metropolitan Trial Court before which court the unlawful detainer case was brought contained substantially the same arguments.

On January 27, 1997, petitioners moved to dismiss the injunction case before the Regional Trial Court on the ground of forum shopping, action auter pendant and/or lack of jurisdiction, contending that the issue in the case before the Regional Trial Court — which is possession of subject property — is interlinked with or inextricably involved in the issue before the Metropolitan Trial Court such that any decision to be rendered by the former court would constitute a bar to the action pending before the latter court. On the same day, a motion for contempt based on forum-shopping was presented by the petitioners in the ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

But both the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Contempt were denied by the two courts. The motions for reconsideration of the orders of denial met the same fate. They were likewise denied.

On August 11, 1997, the Metropolitan Trial Court handed down a decision in the ejectment case, disposing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered judgment is hereby rendered

1. Ordering defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the subject premises and surrender peacefully possession thereof to possession thereof (sic) to plaintiffs;

2. Defendants to pay plaintiffs as reasonable compensation for use and occupation of the land, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. Defendant Ernesto Cruz — Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and defendants Guillermo Coquilla and Lucita Nicio, One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) each, beginning January, 1997 and every month thereafter until they completely vacate the subject property;

3. To pay plaintiffs P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and

4. Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the aforesaid decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court, the appeal was raffled off to the same Regional Trial Court which was then hearing the injunction case.

On October 24, 1998, in view of the refusal of the Regional Trial Court to dismiss both Civil Case No. 6625 and the appealed Metropolitan Trial Court Civil Case No. 5771 on the ground of forum shopping, action auter pendant and/or lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. Sp. No. 45723.

On February 19,1998, the Court of Appeals came out with a decision finding the respondent spouses guilty of forum shopping for the reason that the issue raised before it and the reliefs therein sought were no different from the reliefs they sought before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Civil Case No. 5771. The Court of Appeals then ordered the dismissal of RTC Civil Case No. 6625, but affirmed the orders of the Metropolitan Trial Court and refused to dismiss Civil Case No. 5771 for unlawful detainer.

The next step taken by petitioners was to move for a partial reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it denied the prayer for the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case. But on June 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion.

Hence, the present petition ascribing to the Court of Appeals grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. Refusing to dismiss MTC Civil Case No. 5771 based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction because the issue of possession is interwoven into the issue of ownership; and

II. Refusing to dismiss MTC Civil Case No. 5771 based on forum shopping and/or res judicata or by action auter pendant doctrine.

Petitioners contend that the issue of de facto possession enjoyed by the petitioners could not be resolved by the Metropolitan Trial Court because the same is inseparably linked with the question of ownership then pending resolution before the Regional Trial Court, on the evidence so far presented before that more superior court, which divested the Metropolitan Trial Court of its jurisdiction over the issue of possession and ownership between the parties.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

This contention is untenable. In ejectment cases, it is not unusual that the issue of possession may be resolved without deciding the question of ownership. When resolution of the question of ownership is indispensable to the disposition of the issue of possession, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are empowered to determine the matter of ownership for the sole purpose of resolving the issue of possession. It is now a well-settled rule that inferior courts are not divested of jurisdiction over ejectment cases just because the defendants assert ownership over the litigated property. 1

". . . As the law now stands, inferior courts retain jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership but this is subject to the same caveat that the issue posed as to ownership could be resolved by the court for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession.

. . . An adjudication made therein regarding the issue of ownership should be regarded as merely provisional and therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. . . ." 2

The aforecited ruling has been incorporated in the 1997 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure under Section 16, Rule 70, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 16. Resolving defense of ownership. — When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

Conformably, although the unlawful detainer case instituted before the MTC to resolve the sole issue of de facto possession and the injunction case before the Regional Trial Court involved the issue of ownership, the fact that possession is inextricably linked with the issue of ownership did not divest the Metropolitan Trial Court of jurisdiction to decide the ejectment case as it is competent to determine ownership for the sole purpose of passing upon the matter of de facto possession.

With regard to the second assigned error, petitioners maintain that in view of its dismissal of the injunction case then pending before the Regional Trial Court on the ground of forum shopping, the Court of Appeals should have also dismissed the unlawful detainer case before the Metropolitan Trial Court as there was no factual nor legal basis to retain one and dismiss the other, or to be "selective" as to which of the two actions involving the same parties, the same causes of action or issues and the same reliefs, it should dismiss. In other words, it is petitioners’ submission that on the basis of its finding of forum-shopping, the Court of Appeals should have dismissed both the injunction case and the ejectment case.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

The issue of who between the petitioners and respondents spouses could exercise the right of possession and/or ownership over subject property stems from an actual controversy brought for resolution by the court. The court is called upon to decide an issue which proceeds from a justiciable controversy. The dismissal of both cases, as petitioners would want the Court of Appeals to do, would result in the court’s abdication of its judicial function of resolving controversies which are ripe for adjudication.

Litis pendentia, res judicata and forum shopping are all based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. Forum shopping is sanctioned under Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 (now Section 5, Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure per amendments of July 1997) Moreover, forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. 3

To determine which action should be dismissed given the pendency of two actions, relevant considerations such as the following are taken into account: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the latter action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties. 4

Although in general, the rule is that it should be the later case which should be dismissed, this rule is not absolute such as when the latter action filed would be the more appropriate forum for the ventilation of the issues between the parties. 5 Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err when it ordered the dismissal of the injunction case but not that of the suit for unlawful detainer pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court, although the case for injunction was filed earlier. This is because the issue of whether or not respondents can lawfully enjoin the petitioners from obstructing the fencing of the lot in question (or whether or not respondents may prevent petitioners from constructing the concrete fence), may ultimately be resolved in the unlawful detainer case which was then hearing the issue of deprivation of possession. In the first place, the issue of whether or not petitioners have the right to construct a fence may be properly threshed out in the ejectment case because it is hinged on the more fundamental issue of who has the right of possession and/or ownership over the subject property.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . in the final analysis, the relief prayed for by Private Respondents in their Petition with the Respondent RTC is for their eviction, although only ‘de facto’ or ‘constructive from the property. For, if the Respondent RTC granted Private Respondents’ petition for injunction or temporary restraining order, and allowed the Private Respondents to fence the perimeter of the property, the Petitioners would have been isolated or marooned in the property occupied by them without any means of ingress or egress, except through the cemented fence. Although the Petitioners would not have been physically and actually evicted from the said property, in effect and for all intents and purposes, their eviction from the property was a fait acompli while Private Respondents’ complaint for unlawful detainer was being litigated before the Respondent MTC. . .

. . . After all, if the Respondent MTC decreed the eviction of the Petitioners from the property, the issue as to whether the Private Respondents had the unfettered right to fence their property would become moot and academic. Such a recourse would have averted a multiplicity of suits. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, as held in the case of University Physicians Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 6 the mere fact that the unlawful detainer case was filed later than, in this case, the injunction suit, is no bar to the dismissal of the earlier case.

It is theorized by petitioners that the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing RTC Civil Case No. 6225 for injunction, has already become final and has rendered moot and academic and/or otherwise barred by res judicata, the unlawful detainer case before the MTC. It is petitioners’ stance that since the dismissal of the injunction case based on forum shopping has already become final, such dismissal bears upon the unlawful detainer case and has the effect of res judicata on the same.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Again, this theory of petitioners is unmeritorious. Res judicata applies only where judgment on the merits is finally rendered on the first complaint. It does not apply if no trial has been held yet on the first complaint. A judgment on the merits presupposes that trial has been conducted, evidence presented, and issues sufficiently heard and passed upon. It is a judgment rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal technical point. 7

In the case under consideration, at the time the injunction case before the RTC was ordered dismissed by the Court of Appeals, no decision has yet been reached. The dismissal was merely based on the finding of forum-shopping and that a similar action is pending resolution before another court. It cannot therefore have the effect of res judicata in the case for unlawful detainer before the MTC.

Moreover, it is worthy to note that on August 11, 1997, prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals which was promulgated on February 18, 1998, the Metropolitan Trial Court had already rendered a decision in the unlawful detainer case. Consequently, the dismissal of the case would not be in keeping with the demands of judicial policy as well as equity. Courts, as a matter of judicial policy, must strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. 8

Finally, it should be noted that this petition, which is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, is denominated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, when it should be properly a petition for review under Rule 45. Errors of judgment of the Court of Appeals when brought up to this Court for review are properly designated as petitions for review and not as special civil actions. Even for this reason alone, the petition must fail.

SC Circular 28-91 or the rule prohibiting forum-shopping was designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. It should not be interpreted with absolute literalness as to defeat its ultimate objective which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. 9 Thus, the Court of Appeals was right in not ordering the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Vitug and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Romero, J., on official business abroad.

Panganiban, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 432; Heirs of Placido Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 368; Sandel v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 101; Dizon v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 391; Munar v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 372; Wilmon Auto Supply Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 108.

2. Hilario v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 420.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

3. First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259.

4. Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 371.

5. Ibid.

6. 233 SCRA 86 citing the cases of Teodoro v. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150; Pardo v. Encarnacion, 22 SCRA 632; and Rosales v. CFI, 154 SCRA 153.

7. A.G. Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11662, October 23, 1997, 281 SCRA 155 citing Santos v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 238.

8. Heirs of Crisanta Gabriel Almonadie v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 15.

9. Gabioza v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary




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






July-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104600 July 2, 1998 - RILLORAZA ET AL. v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109493 July 2, 1998 - SERAFIN AQUINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116151 July 2, 1998 - ESTER JANE VIRGINIA F. ALMORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119398 July 2, 1998 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120642 July 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE REYES and NESTOR PAGAL

  • G.R. No. 124765 July 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERNESTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 125498 July 2, 1998 - CONRADO B. RODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 126044-45 July 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONOY DIZON

  • G.R. No. 126950 July 2, 1998 - NELSON NUFABLE, ET AL. v. GENEROSA NUFABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129120 July 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134090 July 2, 1998 - ERNESTO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1998 - JASPER AGBAY v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312 July 5, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTOM BERMAS and GALMA ARCILLA

  • G.R. No. 97347 July 6, 1998 - JAIME G. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110085 July 6, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES R. MACUHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121662-64 July 6, 1998 - VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127125 & 138952 July 6, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX PANIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131618 July 6, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANGAT Y PALOMATA

  • G.R. No. 134826 July 6, 1998 - RENE CORDERO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119942 July 8, 1998 - FELIPE E. PEPITO ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121176 July 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON PARAZO

  • G.R. No. 126258 July 8, 1998 - TALSAN ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. BALIWAG TRANSIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128875 July 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO NUÑEZ Y DUBDUBAN

  • G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1998 - MARITES BERNARDO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1267 July 13, 1998 - ALFREDO S. CAIN v. EVELYN R. NERI

  • AM No. RTJ-99-1455 July 13, 1998 - REYNALDO DE VERA v. SANCHO A. DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 120160 July 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ATREJENIO y LIBANAN

  • G.R. No. 128074 July 13, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISA ABDUL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104302 July 14, 1998 - REBECCA R. VELOSO v. CHINA AIRLINES LTD.

  • G.R. No. 106435 July 14, 1998 - PAMECA WOOD TREATMENT PLANT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123646 July 14, 1998 - NAZARIO C. AUSTRIA v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1998 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION v. BF HOMES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 130381 July 14, 1998 - FRANCISCO HERRERA v. PATERNO CANLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130636 July 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO QUIBOYEN

  • G.R. No. 126947 July 15, 1998 - HARRY ANG PING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133215 July 15, 1998 - PAGPALAIN HAULERS v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137796 July 15, 1998 - MONDRAGON LEISURE AND RESORTS CORP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110086 July 19, 1998 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120972 July 19, 1998 - JOSE AGUILAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121315 & 122136 July 19, 1998 - COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123143 July 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TADEJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 123550-51 July 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO AQUINO Y CALOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127005 July 19, 1998 - JOSE ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127485 July 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO RAMILLA

  • G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1998 - PACITA I. HABANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1998 - JUAN DOMINO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134998 July 19, 1998 - SILVESTRE TIU v. DANIEL MIDDLETON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 95-11-P July 20, 1998 - ELEONOR T.F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. GREGORIA R. FLORENDO

  • A.M. No. 99-5-26-SC July 20, 1998 - RE: DONATION BY THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN

  • A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC July 20, 1998 - RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES FOR QUALIFYING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE

  • G.R. No. 100789 July 20, 1998 - AUGUSTO A. CAMARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103547 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 110798 July 20, 1998 - ODELON T. BUSCAINO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 112963 July 20, 1998 - PHIL. WIRELESS INC. (Pocketbell), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120236 July 20, 1998 - E.G.V. REALTY DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122122 July 20, 1998 - PHIL. FRUIT & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123010 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGED T. GHARBIA

  • G.R. No. 124032 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONTGOMERY VIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127122 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO LOSANO

  • G.R. No. 127574 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SUGANO

  • G.R. No. 128286 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT BASAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128839 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 129535 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO RECONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130372 July 20, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUIAMAD MANTUNG

  • G.R. No. 131099 July 20, 1998 - DOMINGO CELENDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131405 July 20, 1998 - LEILANI MENDOZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134213 July 20, 1998 - ROMEO J. GAMBOA, JR. v. MARCELO AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111762 July 22, 1998 - ROY A. DIZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121038 July 22, 1998 - TEOTIMO EDUARTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122947 July 22, 1998 - TIMOTEO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123926 July 22, 1998 - ROGELIO MARISCAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129254 July 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO JANAIRO

  • G.R. No. 129112 July 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MIJANO

  • A.M. No. 98-12-377-RTC July 26, 1998 - RE: CASES LEFT UNDECIDED BY JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464 July 26, 1998 - EUSEBIO GO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN

  • G.R. No. 120998 July 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONEL MEREN

  • G.R. No. 126096 July 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO SANDRIAS JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 126745 July 26, 1998 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130092 July 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRANDARES

  • G.R. No. 130546 July 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON FLORES

  • G.R. No. 125539 July 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PATALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132242 July 27, 1998 - ROBERTO S. ALBERTO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 137718 July 27, 1998 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1264 July 28, 1998 - BASILIO P. MAMANTEO v. MANUEL M. MAGUMUN

  • SB-99-9-J July 28, 1998 - JEWEL F. CANSON v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76272 July 28, 1998 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76340-41 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107746 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110001 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMER HEREDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118312-13 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 118777 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO MANGAHAS

  • G.R. No. 122453 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY REYES

  • G.R. No. 122627 July 28, 1998 - WILSON ABA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124452 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO TAMBIS

  • G.R. No. 124823 July 28, 1998 - PASVIL/PASCUAL LINER v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125086 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MILAN and VIRGILIO MILAN

  • G.R. No. 125550 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126650 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMARJONEL FRANCISCO TOMOLIN

  • G.R. No. 127937 July 28, 1998 - NAT’L. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129051 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 130334 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO POÑADO

  • G.R. No. 130507 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 131149-50 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO DIAZ y DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 133186 July 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL YABUT

  • G.R. No. 135150 July 28, 1998 - ROMEO LONZANIDA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1998 - JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO M. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137149 July 28, 1998 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. FELT FOODS

  • G.R. No. 123544 July 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BERANA

  • G.R. No. 129289 July 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARULLO

  • G.R. No. 130681 July 29, 1998 - JOSE V. LORETO v. RENATO BRION, ET AL.