Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > November 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1998 - VICTORIANO B. TIROL v. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135913. November 4, 1999.]

VICTORIANO B. TIROL, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, NARCISO S. NARIO, and ANACLETO D. BADOY (SB 3rd Division), HON. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LEONARDO P. TAMAYO, HON. PROSECUTOR PELAGIO S. APOSTOL, and COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), Region VIII, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LEYTE GOVERNMENT CENTER, CANDAHUG, PALO, LEYTE, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


PARDO, J.:


The case is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the following orders of the Sandiganbayan, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Order dated September 22, 1998 denying petitioner’s motion to suspend trial in SB Criminal Case No. 23785; 1 andchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

2. Order dated October 13, 1998 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the said denial. 2

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

In May 1993, based on a complaint filed by members of two groups, the Federated PTA Organization and the Teachers and Employees Union, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a general audit of the transactions of the Lalawigan National High School, Lalawigan, Borongan, Eastern Samar between January 1, 1990 and April 30, 1993. On October 19, 1993, the COA audit team reported that the acquisition of equipment costing P80,000.00 was made through negotiated contract, and not by public bidding in violation of COA Circular 85-55A, and resulted in overpricing amounting to P35,100.00. On December 1, 1994, COA Regional Director Santos M. Alquizalas recommended to Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) Arturo C. Mojica the filing of criminal and administrative charges against the responsible personnel, namely: petitioner Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr., Conchita C. Devora and Maria A. Alvero.

The three accused participated in the transaction as follows: Conchita C. Devora, a Secondary School Principal I, approved the transaction, countersigned the check and requisitioned the items; Maria A. Alvero, as Bookkeeper, signed box no. 4 of the voucher; petitioner Tirol, as Director III, signed the checks and approved the Requisition and Issue Voucher (RIV).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

After conducting preliminary investigation, on March 20, 1997, Graft Investigation Officer III Virginia Palanca-Santiago, with the approval of Deputy Ombudsman Mojica and Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, found the existence of probable cause for the indictment of petitioner Tirol, now Regional Director, DECS V, Legaspi City, and his two co-accused for violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. On the same date, March 20, 1997, the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan an information for violation of Section 3 (g) of R. A. No. 3019 against the three accused.

Upon motion of petitioner Tirol for permission to travel abroad on official business, on September 17, 1997, the Sandiganbayan conditionally arraigned Tirol, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman. Petitioner Tirol, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.

On January 2, 1998, petitioner Tirol filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for leave to seek reconsideration/reinvestigation by the Ombudsman. On January 5, 1998, the Sandiganbayan ordered all the accused to file with the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, their motion for reconsideration of the finding of probable cause, within ten (10) days therefrom. The court directed the prosecutor to re-evaluate his findings and conclusions within thirty (30) days from receipt of the motion.cralawnad

On March 5, 1998, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the denial of the motion for reconsideration. On May 22, 1998, the Ombudsman approved the recommendation.

On July 17, 1998, petitioner Tirol filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari, 3 pursuant to Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). Petitioner averred that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in concluding that the approval of the requisition and issue voucher (RIV) and signature in the check made petitioner liable for the overpricing.

Upon arraignment on August 24, 1998, Accused Devora and Alvero pleaded not guilty to the information.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

On September 2, 1998, petitioner Tirol filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to reset trial and manifestation. He sought to reset the scheduled hearing on September 17 and 18, 1998, pending resolution of the petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 133954) filed with the Supreme Court.

On September 4, 1998, the Sandiganbayan in open court denied the motion to reset trial. On September 22, 1998, the Sandiganbayan reduced the ruling in writing by an order nunc pro tunc. The court ordered the pretrial conference to proceed as scheduled. The Sandiganbayan ruled that an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act, refers only to administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman, not to judicial cases filed with the court.

On September 14, 1998, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the court denied in an order dated October 13, 1998.

Hence, this petition. 4

Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to defer/suspend the trial in SB Criminal Case No. 23785, pending the disposition of the earlier petition for review filed with this Court. Petitioner avers that continuing with the trial in Criminal Case No. 23785, without awaiting the decision in the aforesaid petition would render the petition moot and academic. Petitioner cites Section 27, R.A. No. 6770, which provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision of denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court." chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Petitioner avers that all orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in both administrative and criminal cases are appealable to the Supreme Court. Petitioner submits that to restrict the applicability of review or appeal to administrative cases, is absurd and illogical considering that criminal cases are more afflictive to the concerned individual.

At the same time, petitioner contends that limiting the applicability of Section 27 to administrative cases would restrict the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court of all acts by government agencies which are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Solicitor General, in his comment, maintains that Section 27, R.A. No. 6770, providing an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, applies only to administrative cases. The Solicitor General invokes the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, 5 which states that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is involved only when an appeal by certiorari, under Rule 45, is taken from decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action.

The Solicitor General also contends that, contrary to petitioner’s averment, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is available to petitioner whenever he believes that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in his determination of the existence of probable cause.

However, in this case, since all the accused have been properly arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the case has passed the pre-trial stage and is ready for trial, the remedy available now to the accused is to proceed to trial, await judgment and appeal the decision in the event that it is unfavorable to them.

We resolve to dismiss the petition.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 provides that orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Rules of Court. However, in Fabian v. Desierto, 6 we declared that Section 27 is unconstitutional since it expanded the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, without its advice and consent, in violation of Article VI, Section 30 of the Constitution. Hence, all appeals from decision of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases may be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

True, the law is silent on the remedy of an aggrieved party in case the Ombudsman found sufficient cause to indict him in criminal or non-administrative cases. We cannot supply such deficiency if none has been provided in the law. We have held that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. 7 Hence, there must be a law expressly granting such privilege. The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. As we ruled in Fabian, the aggrieved party is given the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Such right of appeal is not granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, like finding probable cause to indict accused persons.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

However, an aggrieved party is not without recourse where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

At any rate, it should be stressed that there is pending before this Court a petition for review under Rule 45 questioning the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman. What is at issue in this petition for certiorari is the propriety of the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to suspend trial pending resolution of the certiorari case.

We find that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suspend trial SB Criminal Case No. 23785. We have held that as a rule, criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final 8 . While we recognized exceptions to this rule in Brocka v. Enrile, 9 we find that this case does not fall within the exceptions to warrant restraining the criminal prosecution.

Consequently, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to suspend trial.

WHEREFORE, the court hereby DISMISSES the petition.

No. costs.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Puno and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., on official business abroad.

Endnotes:



1. Original Record, p. 196-C.

2. Id., at p. 199.

3. Docketed as G. R. No. 133954.

4. Petition filed on November 3, 1998, Rollo, pp. 3-24.

5. 295 SCRA 470 (1998).

6. Ibid.

7. Calucag v. Commission on Election, 274 SCRA 405 (1997).

8. Deloso v. Desierto, G.R. 129939, September 9, 1999.

9. 192 SCRA 183 (1990). Among the exceptions are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;

c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;

d) When the act of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

j) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.




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






November-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-99-1315 November 3, 1998 - JESUSA MANINGAS, ET AL. v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS

  • G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1998 - LIM TONG LIM v. PHIL. FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES

  • G.R. No. 137136 November 3, 1998 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. CAMILLE T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1998 - VICTORIANO B. TIROL v. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1425 November 16, 1998 - DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504 November 16, 1998 - ANG KEK CHEN v. AMALIA R. ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 106593 November 16, 1998 - NAT’L HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106795 November 16, 1998 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113638 November 16, 1998 - A. D. GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU v. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115180 November 16, 1998 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123045 November 16, 1998 - DEMETRIO R. TECSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123686 November 16, 1998 - APOLINARIO MELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124166 November 16, 1998 - BENGUET CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125814-15 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON PATALINGHUG

  • G.R. No. 126332 November 16, 1998 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 128361 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROY "SONNY" GALLO

  • G.R. No. 128452 November 16, 1998 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128957 November 16, 1998 - ANTONIO PARE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1998 - UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131777 November 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

  • G.R. No. 132497 November 16, 1998 - LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5170 November 17, 1998 - LILIA FERRER TUCAY v. MANUEL R. TUCAY

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-95-1324 November 17, 1998 - EVARISTO MANAHON v. ALVIN I. TAN

  • G.R. No. 123152 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO LASOLA

  • G.R. No. 129169 November 17, 1998 - NIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129256 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL PINCA

  • G.R. No. 130591 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO LACABA

  • G.R. No. 130607 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 131499 November 17, 1998 - HERMIE M. HERRERA, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR TORIO

  • G.R. No. 132238 November 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO BAYGAR

  • G.R. No. 133148 November 17, 1998 - J.R. BLANCO v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134467 November 17, 1998 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-99-1326 November 18, 1998 - MARIVIC T. BALISI-UMALI v. SIXTO A. PEÑALOSA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1338 November 18, 1998 - ESTELA P. VALLES v. NILA ARZAGA-QUIJANO

  • G.R. No. 103476 November 18, 1998 - CODIDI MATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106531 November 18, 1998 - FERNANDO GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109371 November 18, 1998 - JOSE GAUDIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122240 November 18, 1998 - CRISTONICO B. LEGAHI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127167 November 18, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-94-1080, P-95-1128 & P-95-1144 November 19, 1998 - DINAH CHRISTINA A. AMANE, ET AL. v. SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110048 November 19, 1998 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114198 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO BALUDDA

  • G.R. No. 114508 November 19, 1998 - PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115412 November 19, 1998 - HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126932 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUA GALLADAN

  • G.R. No. 127768 November 19, 1998 - UNITED AIRLINES v. WILLIE J. UY

  • G.R. No. 128797 November 19, 1998 - FIRST NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129096 November 19, 1998 - MARIVIC ZARATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BASCO

  • G.R. No. 130772 November 19, 1998 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES v. NLRC, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 130922 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REQUIZ

  • G.R. No. 131479 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GASPAR

  • G.R. No. 131732 November 19, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON CATAMPONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132474 November 19, 1998 - RENATO CENIDO v. AMADEO APACIONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132644 November 19, 1998 - ERNESTO DAVID, ET AL. v. CRISTITO MALAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134685 November 19, 1998 - MARIA ANTONIA SIGUAN v. ROSA LIM

  • A.M. No. P-94-1076 November 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO v. JAMESWELL M. RESUS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1341 November 22, 1998 - JULITO BIAG v. LUALHATI GUBATANGA

  • G.R. No. 97914 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL BROMO

  • G.R. No. 122279 November 22, 1998 - C & A CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127566 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULALIO PADIL

  • G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO BRAVO

  • Administrative Case No. 5169 November 24, 1998 - ELMO S. MOTON v. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1351 November 24, 1998 - RENATO G. CUNANAN v. ARTURO C. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 66508 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO SIOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102648 November 24, 1998 - DRS. ALENDRY and FLORA P. CAVILES v. EVELYN and RAMON T. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 110559 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111854 November 24, 1998 - BARANGAY BLUE RIDGE "A" OF QUEZON CITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114671 November 24, 1998 - AURELIO SALINAS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119492 November 24, 1998 - ROLANDO MALINAO, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 122006 November 24, 1998 - ALLIED INVESTIGATION BUREAU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 132748 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 135864 November 24, 1998 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138876 November 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA

  • A.M. No. 99-9-141-MTCC November 25, 1998 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE FELIPE M. ABALOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1236 November 25, 1998 - GERMAN AGUNDAY v. NIETO T. TRESVALLES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1237 November 25, 1998 - ALFONSO LUMIBAO, ET AL. v. MAMERTO C. PANAL

  • G.R. No. 109024 November 25, 1998 - HEIRS OF MARCIANO SANGLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1998 - TEODORA SALTIGA DE ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114262 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 119466 November 25, 1998 - SALVADOR and LIGAYA ADORABLE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122823 November 25, 1998 - SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123059 November 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAPILLO

  • G.R. No. 124140 November 25, 1998 - BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1998 - ALFREDO N. AGUILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128389 November 25, 1998 - DON ORESTES ROMUALDEZ ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1998 - MIGUEL MELENDRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134340 November 25, 1998 - LININDING PANGANDAMAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116616 November 26, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO EMBERGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117929 November 26, 1998 - CORA VERGARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129955 November 26, 1998 - MARIANO and JULIETA MADRIGAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134229 November 26, 1998 - LITO and JERRY LIMPANGOG. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC November 29, 1998 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ANTONIO LAMANO

  • G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1998 - ADALIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119341 November 29, 1998 - EDUARDO FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119350-51 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO SUBA

  • G.R. No. 123307 November 29, 1998 - SAMUEL BARANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124640 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY A. CAPCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126800 November 29, 1998 - NATALIA P. BUSTAMANTE v. RODITO F. ROSEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127840 November 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND PARAISO

  • G.R. No. 128743 November 29, 1998 - ORO CAM ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133750 November 29, 1998 - APEX MINING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133927 November 29, 1998 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1998 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136191 November 29, 1998 - JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.