Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 122725 September 8, 1998 - BIOGENERICS MARKETING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 122725. September 8, 1999.]

BIOGENERICS MARKETING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION and WOLFGANG ROEHR, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SERAFIN G. PANGANIBAN, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


The requirement of a cash or surety bond for the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s monetary award is jurisdictional; non-compliance therewith is fatal and renders the award final and executory. Corollarilly, failure to file a motion for reconsideration of a resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as a requisite sine qua non in pursuing any further relief or subsequent remedy likewise gives a stamp of finality to the resolution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On 13 March 1991 petitioner Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation (BIOGENERICS), a domestic corporation, through petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, Chairman of its Board of Directors, employed private respondent Serafin G. Panganiban as its President and General Manager. On 18 December 1992, acting on an information that respondent Panganiban was allegedly trying to form a corporation in competition with BIOGENERICS, petitioner Roehr dismissed Panganiban from employment without prior notice. 1 On 27 January 1993 Panganiban filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, back wages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

BIOGENERICS in its answer contended that Panganiban was not dismissed but that he voluntarily resigned from employment after being confronted with his alleged disloyal act of planning to set up a corporation in competition with the business of his employer. 2cralawnad

On 18 May 1994 the Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal of Panganiban was illegal having been effected without just cause and without due process. Accordingly, BIOGENERICS and Roehr were held solidarily liable to Panganiban for P330,000.00 representing his separation pay, P1,870,000.00 as back wages, P500,000.00 as moral damages, P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, and 10% of the total amount thereof as attorney’s fees. 3

On 13 June 1994 BIOGENERICS filed before the NLRC a "Memorandum of Appeal" and "Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond" reiterating Panganiban’s voluntary resignation. BIOGENERICS stressed that the award of back wages was proper only when the dismissal of an employee was unjust or unlawful and not when the severance of employer-employee relationship was initiated by the employee. In strengthening their position to reduce the requisite appeal bond, petitioners argued that considering that the authorized capital stock of the corporation was only P2,000,000.00, an amount which was very much less than that awarded, posting the entire amount of the bond would necessarily put the corporation in a serious and precarious financial condition. Consequently, a cash bond of P50,000.00 only was initially posted by petitioners.

On 17 August 1994 the NLRC, finding that petitioner corporation had no justification for a substantial reduction of the bond other than its limited authorized capital stock, ordered petitioners to post an additional cash or surety bond in the amount of P1,950,000.00 within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt, with a warning that their failure to comply therewith would result in the dismissal of the appeal. 4

On 15 September 1994 BIOGENERICS moved for reconsideration praying for further reduction of the bond. It averred that the P2,000,000.00 bond would still put a significant strain on its resources and derail its efforts to recover the business losses it sustained in 1993 as reflected in its financial statement.cralawnad

On 30 September 1994 the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration and disregarded petitioners’ claim of serious business losses. It clarified that the bond required need not be in cash for the law and the implementing rules allowed the posting of a bond in the form of surety secured from reputable bonding insurance company. However, as a gesture of liberality, instead of dismissing the appeal, the NLRC granted petitioners another non-extendible period of five (5) days within which to post additional bond, again, with a warning that failure to post the same would mean a non-perfection of its appeal.

On 22 November 1994 petitioners filed an "Irrevocable Bank Guarantee No. GTE MNL 940027" in the amount of P1,950,000.00 as additional appeal bond which was entered into by and between BIOGENERICS and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. The instrument contained a statement that the "Guarantee will remain in force up to 21 November 1995" 5 or only for a period of one (1) year from the signing of the agreement.

As a consequence, the NLRC rejected the "Bank Guarantee" as a substitute for the bond holding that what is contemplated under Art. 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, is a cash or surety bond, and in case of a surety bond, the same must be issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court as provided under Sec. 6 of Rule 6 of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Thus, for the third time, the NLRC ordered petitioners to post a cash or surety bond within a non-extendible period of five (5) days.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On 20 February 1995, in compliance with the order of the NLRC, petitioners through Ms. Carmen Rodriguez, BIOGENERICS’ Chairman of the Board and estranged wife of Roehr, filed a cash bond (RCBC Manager’s Check No. 001097) in the amount of P1,940,240.00 plus a deposit fee of P9,760.00 for a total amount of P1,950,000.00.

On 1 March 1995 Rodriguez moved to withdraw the cash bond alleging that she voluntarily posted the cash bond on the mistaken belief that she had the obligation to post the bond in behalf of her husband and she learned upon advice that it was the legal duty of BIOGENERICS as appellant to post the necessary appeal bond.

It allowing the withdrawal of the bond, the NLRC relied on the provision of Sec. 6 of Rule 6 of the New Rules of Procedure which states that it is the employer who should post the cash or surety bond. It stated that in the present case, it was the wife of Roehr who posted the cash bond, which was contrary to the rules. In the Resolution of 6 March 1995, petitioners were also directed for the last time to post the requisite appeal bond within ten (10) days from notice with a final warning that the non-posting of the bond would eventually cause the dismissal of the appeal. Petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration.

On 5 June 1995 the NLRC issued the assailed resolution dismissing the appeal for petitioners’ failure to post the required bond. 6 The records showed that the Resolution of 6 March 1995 was received by counsel for petitioners on 7 March 1995. 7 However, petitioners opted not to comply with the Resolution. As a consequence, the NLRC considered the appealed decision as affirmed and thus had become final and executory.chanrobles law library

Petitioners moved for reconsideration contending that the "NLRC should not have allowed Rodriguez to withdraw the cash bond because the money used in the posting of the cash bond belonged to Roehr and that the order of the NLRC directing petitioners to post another appeal bond would not only be off-tangent but certainly oppressive and confiscatory." 8 Their motion having been denied, petitioners sought the present recourse by imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC.

We must first examine the consequence of petitioners’ inaction after the receipt by their counsel on 7 March 1995 of the NLRC Resolution of 6 March 1995. This Resolution allowed the withdrawal of the cash bond by Ms. Carmen Rodriguez and ordered petitioners for the fourth time to post the requisite appeal bond. As found by the NLRC and reflected in the records, there was no dispute that counsel for petitioners had indeed received the Resolution. The failure to file a motion for reconsideration on the pretext that he did not receive the Resolution was fatal and thus rendered it final and executory.

We have ruled that the implementing rules of respondent NLRC are unequivocal in requiring that a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of respondent Commission should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or subsequent recourse, otherwise, the order, resolution or decision would become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. 9 Obviously, the rationale therefor is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had. This merely adopts the rule that the function of a motion for reconsideration is to point out to the court the error it may have committed and to give it a chance to correct itself. Subsequent issuance by the NLRC of the questioned Resolution dated 5 June 1995 was, therefore, a mere surplusage sought only to formalize the finality of the order. On the other hand, the motion for reconsideration thereon by petitioners was futile and belated as there was already a final judgment.

But a far more compelling factor militates against petitioners which convinces us that the instant petition is devoid of merit. It is obvious that since no appeal bond was posted by petitioners, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor Arbiter, for which reason the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had in the meantime become final and executory and therefore immutable.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter are governed by the following provisions of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC —

SECTION 1. Period of Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter and the POEA are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter or of the Administrator, and in case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders . . .

SECTION 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. — The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Sec. 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal . . .chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

SECTION 6. Bond. — In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in the amount equivalent to the monetary award.

Thus it is clear that the appeal from any decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC shall be made within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decision, award or order, and must be under oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee accompanied by a memorandum of appeal. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award, the appeal is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond also within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decision in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. The mandatory filing of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is evident from the aforequoted provision that the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond. It is not an excuse that the over P2 million award is too much for a small business enterprise, like the petitioner company, to shoulder. The law does not require its outright payment, but only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is moderate and reasonable sum for the premium for such bond. 10chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

BIOGENERICS filed its "Memorandum of Appeal" and "Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond" with the NLRC on 13 June 1994 or exactly on the tenth day of the reglementary period. Having failed to adduce a valid justification for the reduction of the appeal bond to overcome the mandatory nature of the requirement, the NLRC denied its motion but granted petitioners a new period of ten (10) days within which to post the bond. But, again, petitioners failed to post the bond; instead, they moved for reconsideration. On this score alone, the appeal BIOGENERICS should have been dismissed outright for not having been perfected on time. That the NLRC entertained the motion for reconsideration and even went to the extent of further granting petitioners three (3) extensions, or a total of thirty (30) days including the first extension, within which to post the appeal bond, indicated its over-leniency to disregard the Labor Code as well as its own Rules to favor petitioners. Worse, petitioners gravely abused the liberality extended by the Labor Tribunal when they persistently failed and refused to post the bond despite the extensions given them.

Finally, in an attempt to provide their petition a semblance of merit, petitioners maintain that the NLRC should have not allowed Ms. Carmen Rodriguez to withdraw the appeal bond as the money used for the purpose allegedly belonged to petitioner Roehr. This last-ditch effort to thwart the claim of private respondent Panganiban deserves scant consideration. Petitioners failed to substantiate this claim.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The assailed Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 5 June 1995, respectively, and 24 October 1995 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Records, pp. 17-18.

2. Id., p. 36.

3. Decision penned by Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr.; Records, p. 362.

4. Rollo, p. 66.

5. Ibid.

6. Records, pp. 556-557; Rollo, pp. 9-10.

7. Bailiff’s Return issued by Ernesto C. Provido, Bailiff II, NLRC; Records, p. 582.

8. Rollo, p. 6.

9. Zapata v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 77827, 5 July 1989, 175 SCRA 56, 60.

10. See Unicane Workers Union-CLUP and its Members v. Unicane Food Products Mfg. Corp. and its Owner/Manager, Benido Ang, G.R. No. 107545. 9 September 1996, 261 SCRA 573, 584.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





September-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1406 September 1, 1998 - EVELYN DE AUSTRIA v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 129680 September 1, 1998 - CARRARA MARBLE PHIL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. 136159 September 1, 1998 - MACRINA S. SAURA, ET AL. v. RAMON G. SAURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96428 September 2, 1998 - WILMA T. BARRAMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118784 September 2, 1998 - CHRISTINA AYUSTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119730 September 2, 1998 - RODOLFO NOCEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127022 & 127245 September 2, 1998 - FIRESTONE CERAMICS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130501 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 130550 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES PEÑAFLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 106916 September 3, 1998 - MASAGANA CONCRETE PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116568 September 3, 1998 - DELFIN GARCIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125808 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE TAPALES

  • G.R. No. 129103 September 3, 1998 - CLAUDIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130525 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SACAPAÑO

  • G.R. No. 130964 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ACUNO

  • G.R. No. 131827 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERLITO PELEN

  • G.R. Nos. 131830-34 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MOSQUEDA

  • G.R. No. 125848 September 6, 1998 - EDMUNDO BENAVIDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120011 September 7, 1998 - LINO A. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122732 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BAYRON

  • G.R. No. 127844 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GALICGIC

  • G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1998 - SEC, ET AL. v. MANUEL D. RECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122725 September 8, 1998 - BIOGENERICS MARKETING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124920 September 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ROSALES

  • A.C. No. 5118 September 9, 1998 - MARILOU SEBASTIAN v. DOROTHEO CALIS

  • A.M. No. P-98-1274 September 9, 1998 - ACELA P. LEONOR v. VILMA B. DELFIN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1477 September 9, 1998 - MAXIMINO BALAYO v. MAMERTO M. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 119085 September 9, 1998 - RESTAURANTE LAS CONCHAS, ET AL. v. LYDIA LLEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120066 September 9, 1998 - OCTABELA ALBA Vda. De RAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120465 September 9, 1998 - WILLIAM UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121764 September 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL H. SESBREÑO

  • G.R. No. 124506 September 9, 1998 - ROMEL JAYME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129939 September 9, 1998 - AMOR D. DELOSO, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133535 September 9, 1998 - LILIA B. ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ- 94-923 & MTJ- 95-11-125-MCTC September 10, 1998 - ELENA E. JABAO v. MELCHOR E. BONILLA

  • G.R. No. 121982 September 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO CUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125646 & 128663 September 10, 1998 - CITY OF PASIG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129418 September 10, 1998 - RODRIGO G. HABANA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134222 September 10, 1998 - DON TINO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JULIAN FLORENTINO

  • G.R. No. 139043 September 10, 1998 - ALVIN B. GARCIA v. ARTURO C. MOJICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103073 September 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108710 September 14, 1998 - ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110672 & 111201 September 14, 1998 - RURAL BANK OF STA. MARIA, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116109 September 14, 1998 - JACINTO OLAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121365 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACAPANTON SALIMBAGO

  • G.R. No. 126998 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127370 September 14, 1998 - PNB-REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128075 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ABLANEDA

  • G.R. No. 128325 September 14, 1998 - RODOLFO CAOILI , ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128734 September 14, 1998 - ANGEL L. BOLEYLEY v. CLARENCE J. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 128927 September 14, 1998 - REMEDIOS NOTA SAPIERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129286 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMIE BANTILAN

  • G.R. No. 129843 September 14, 1998 - BLUE DAIRY CORPORATION, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129882 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TAN

  • G.R. No. 130947 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ROMAN

  • G.R. No. 132244 September 14, 1998 - GERARDO ANGAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134104 September 14, 1998 - NENITA R. ORCULLO v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO

  • G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1998 - RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129692 September 15, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUBAKAR ANG-NGUHO

  • G.R. No. 104944 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SUPLITO

  • G.R. No. 115215 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZALDE FACO

  • G.R. No. 121719 September 16, 1998 - VICENTE MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125931 September 16, 1998 - UNION MOTORS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126047 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130067 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETA "ANNIE" MORENO

  • G.R. No. 130604 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO JUNTILLA

  • G.R. No. 131784 September 16, 1998 - FELIX L. GONZALES vs.THOMAS and PAULA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 133064 September 16, 1998 - JOSE C. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133949-51 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN BUENDIA

  • G.R. No. 136203 September 16, 1998 - LOREÑO TERRY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138520 September 16, 1998 - BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483 September 17, 1998 - LAURO D. GACAYAN, ET AL. v. FERNANDO PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-989 September 21, 1998 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RODRIGO B. GALO

  • G.R. No. 96982 September 21, 1998 - EMILIANO A. RIZADA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103453 September 21, 1998 - LUIS CEREMONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 106516 September 21, 1998 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1998 - SO PING BUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124355 September 21, 1998 - CHING SEN BEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126118 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO TRESBALLES

  • G.R. No. 127315 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL "Lito" BALDEVIESO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132061 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO HIVELA

  • A.C. No. 5135 September 22, 1998 - ELSIE B. AROMIN, ET AL. v. VALENTIN O. BONCAVIL

  • A.M. No. 99-8-126-MTC September 22, 1998 - ISSUANCE OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER OF JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

  • G.R. Nos. 84813 & 84848 September 22, 1998 - DOMEL TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123901 September 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE A. BARROS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128001 September 22, 1998 - MINERVA FRANCO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131847 September 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO S. ABELLA

  • G.R. No. 133076 September 22, 1998 - MOISES S. SAMSON v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135869 September 22, 1998 - RUSTICO H. ANTONIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Administrative Case No. 1571 September 23, 1998 - PARALUMAN B. AFURONG v. ANGEL G. AQUINO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1340 September 23, 1998 - ZENAIDA MUSNI v. ERNESTO G. MORALES

  • G.R. No. 108129 September 23, 1998 - AEROSPACE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110873 September 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118647 September 23, 1998 - CONSOLIDATED FOOD CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130460 September 23, 1998 - HERMINIO A. SIASOCO, ET AL. v. JANUARIO N. NARVAJA

  • G.R. No. 135042 September 23, 1998 - ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JESUS V. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. 135716 September 23, 1998 - FERDINAND TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 September 24, 1998 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128874 September 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON B. BRAGAS

  • G.R. No. 116599 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PAGPAGUITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129304 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 135691 September 27, 1998 - EMMANUEL SINACA v. MIGUEL MULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105954-55 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 114323 September 28, 1998 - OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126152 September 28, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128806 September 28, 1998 - KAMS INTERNATIONAL INC, ET AL.. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130632 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATY CHUA

  • G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1998 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132324 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO TAN, and JOSE TAN

  • G.R. No. 136294 September 28, 1998 - MARIA G. BALUYUT, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GUIAO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1998 - GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL v. PRIMO R. NALDOZA

  • A.C. No. 5141 September 29, 1998 - PRISCILA L. TOLEDO v. ERLINDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 September 29, 1998 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-94-904 September 29, 1998 - JOSEPHINE C. MARTINEZ v. CESAR N. ZOLETA

  • G.R. No. 105374 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO (DAGIT) RABANG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 124736 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 125330 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TAHOP

  • G.R. No. 128157 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MANAHAN

  • G.R. No. 132878 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 137793 September 29, 1998 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139281 September 29, 1998 - ROMUALDO SUAREZ v. ARSENIO SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1209 September 30, 1998 - FLAVIANO G. ARQUERO v. TERTULO A. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 105327 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO QUINAGORAN

  • G.R. No. 108135-36 September 30, 1998 - POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111915 September 30, 1998 - HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113070 September 30, 1998 - PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113781 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. VERGILIO REYES

  • G.R. No. 120235 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 121324 September 30, 1998 - PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHIL INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122269 September 30, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

  • G.R. Nos. 127173-74 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRENETO CERVETO

  • G.R. No. 127608 September 30, 1998 - GUADALUPE S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128129 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TUNDAGUI GAYOMMA

  • G.R. No. 128862 September 30, 1998 - ESTRELLA REAL ESTATE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130425 September 30, 1998 - ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131166 September 30, 1998 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. SULPICIO LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132480 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY RAQUIÑO

  • G.R. No. 135451 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. SERRANO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 135996 September 30, 1998 - EMILIANO R. "BOY" CARUNCHO III v. COMELEC, ET AL.