Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 103073 September 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 103073. September 14, 1999.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Bureau of Customs, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND R & B SURETY AND INSURANCE, INC., Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking review of the Decision dated November 27, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 21966.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The facts that matter are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Endelo Manufacturing Corporation (Endelo) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of embroidery and apparel articles for export using imported raw materials. Sometime between 1969 and 1970, Endelo imported from Kobe 1 , Keelung 2 and New York, several bales of raw materials including the items involved in the present controversy, covered by eleven import entry numbers, to wit: Import Entry Nos. 065436, 086162, 096980, 103008, 107811, series of 1969, and Import Entry Nos. 002380, 011983, 022298, 029368, 034975, 035418, series of 1970.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

After they were unloaded in the Philippines, the aforementioned materials were deposited in a designated customs bonded warehouse. To release said materials from the customs warehouse, Endelo secured embroidery re-export bonds from the Communications Insurance Company, Inc. (CICI), and R & B Surety Company and Insurance Co., Inc. (R & B Surety). The bonds served to guarantee the payment of duties, taxes and other charges due thereon to the Bureau of Customs should Endelo default in its obligation to re-export the finished goods or the imported materials, in their original state, within the stipulated period from the date of arrival thereof, in compliance with the requirements of Sections 2001 to 2004 of the Tariff and Customs Code and Republic Act No. 3137, 3 as well as the germane rules and regulations issued by the Collector of Customs. The bonds uniformly stipulate that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If within two (2) years from the date of arrival of such materials and supplies, or if, at any time within two (2) years from the said date of arrival, or within two and one-half (2-1/2) years or three (3) years if the time is extended by the EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND INSPECTION BOARD, as provided in Par VIII, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 3137, or by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 1908 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, said importation shall be withdrawn pursuant to regulations and exported beyond the limits of the Philippines as finished embroidery and apparel articles or as raw material in its original state, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect, provided, however, that should the performance by the PRINCIPAL of his/its obligation under this Bond becomes impossible by reason of the cancellation or revocation of his/its license or permit for cause and with the notice in and with due notice in writing to the SURETY Company concerned, then the obligation under this Bond shall at once become due and demandable."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that Endelo’s license to operate was subsequently suspended by the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board on the ground of alleged pilferage of the imported materials from the customs warehouse by one Enrique Jocson who, petitioner claims, is a representative of the respondent corporation.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

According to Endelo, the suspension of its license resulted in its failure to re-export the imported materials or the finished goods. It was not granted an extension of the period, either by the Embroidery Board, or by the Commissioner of Customs. As a consequence, the Commissioner of Customs sent a letter of demand to Endelo, CICI and R& B Surety, for the payment of the customs duties and taxes due to the Bureau of Customs.

On February 21, 1973, in view of the failure of Endelo, CICI, and R & B Surety to heed its demand, the petitioner commenced below the present case for collection of sum of money against Endelo and CICI on seven of the eleven import entries and against Endelo, CICI and R & B Surety, as defendants, on the other four import entries, praying that the defendants pay, jointly and severally, the obligation under their aforementioned bonds plus legal rate of interest thereon, from the filing of the Complaint.

In its Answer to the Complaint, defendant Endelo theorized that it was not liable under the bonds sued upon because of the suspension by the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board of its license to operate. Endelo alleged further that the acts of Enrique Jocson of spiriting out from the customs warehouse the said materials, with the connivance of Eduardo Gatchalian, 4 and of appropriating for himself some of the imported materials, without the knowledge and consent of Endelo, contributed to the failure of the latter to perform its obligation under the said bonds. Endelo also raised as a defense partial importation of the goods and the fact that the Republic did not make any formal demand for the payment of the duties and taxes litigated upon. 5chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

For its part, defendant CICI denied in its Answer any legal obligation to petitioner, and averred a cross-claim against Endelo for alleged unpaid premiums amounting to P600.00, attorney’s fees of P10,000.00, and litigation expenses of P10,000,00.

On the other hand, defendant R & B Surety contended in its Answer that the Complaint states no cause of action and the lower Court has no jurisdiction over the case, arguing that under General Order No. 2-A it is the Military Court which has jurisdiction thereover. R & B Surety likewise filed a cross-claim against Endelo. In answer to the crossclaims, Endelo asserted that subject bonds were not secured by Endelo but by Enrique Jocson himself, without the knowledge and consent of Endelo. The latter also filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendants, Enrique Jocson and Eduardo Gatchalian. 6

After trial, the court a quo came out with a decision adjudging the three defendants liable in all the eleven causes of action, and disposing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, based on the allegations, prayer and evidence adduced, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Endelo Manufacturing Corp. (Endelo, in brief), Communications (CICI, for convenience) and R and B Surety Insurance Company, Inc. (R and B, in brief), as follows:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo Manufacturing Corporation and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally the amount of P481,767.00 plus interests at the legal rate of interest from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C (1S) 210 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated June 13, 1969;

2. CICI C (1S) 211 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated June 13, 1969;

3. CICI C (1S) 217 in the sum of P50,000.00 dated March 7, 1969;

4. CICI C (1S) 218 in the sum of P50,000.00 dated March 7, 1969;

5. CICI C (1S) 382 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 2, 1969;chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P1,009,521.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by Communications Insurance Company, Inc., to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 94 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 6, 1969;

2. CICI C(18) 95 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 9, 1969;

3. CICI C(18) 96 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 10, 1969;

4. CICI C(18) 97 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated August 14, 1969;

5. CICI C(18) 383 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 2, 1969;cralawnad

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P749,132.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 313 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated September 23, 1969;

2. CICI C(18) 385 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 2, 1969;

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P499,565.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI, to wit:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

1. CICI C(18) 515 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated September 24, 1969;

2. CICI C(18) 384 in the sum of P250,000.00 dated July 2, 1969;

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P944,322.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C (18) 315 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated September 24, 1969;

2. CICI C (18) 407 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated November 3, 1969;

3. CICI C (18) 409 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated November 4, 1969;chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P526,704.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 437 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 6, 1970;

2. CICI C(18) 438 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 6, 1970;

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P321,497.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C (18) 438 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 6, 1970;

EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo and CICI, and R & B Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. (R & B Surety, in Brief), to pay; jointly and severally, plaintiff the amount of P1,515,798.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI and R and B Surety, to wit:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

1. CICI C(18) 500 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated February 24, 1970;

2. CICI C(18) 441 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 6, 1970

3. CICI C(18) 438 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 6, 1970;

4. R and B Surety C(19) 0064 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated February 20, 1970;

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo CICI, and R & B Surety to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P662,961.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI and R and B Surety, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 443 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated January 7, 1970;

2. R and B Surety C(19) 0067 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated March 18, 1970 increased to P1,000.00 as Bond indorsement dated April 29, 1970;chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo CICI, and R & B Surety to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P1,200,651.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI and R and B Surety, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 512 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated April 1, 1970;

2. CICI C(18) 512 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated April 2, 1970;

3. R and B Surety C(19) 0073 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated April 10, 1970;chanrobles law library : red

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(a) Ordering defendants Endelo CICI, and R & B Surety to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P925,607.00 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; and

(b) Ordering the forfeiture of the bonds filed by CICI and R and B Surety, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CICI C(18) 512 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated April 2, 1970;

2. R and B Surety C(19) 0067 in the sum of P500,000.00 dated March 1, 1970 increased to P1,000,000.00 as per Bond Indorsement dated April 29, 1970;

COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

(a) Ordering all the defendants to pay costs;chanrobles law library : red

As to the THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against 3rd Party Defendants Atty. Eduardo Gatchalian (not summoned, hence, no jurisdiction on his person had been acquired) and Enrique Jocson, is hereby DISMISSED for failure of proof and substantiation of its allegations on the part of 3rd party plaintiff Endelo and with costs of suit.

COUNTERCLAIM OF 3rd party defendant Enrique Jocson for want of proof and substantiation of the allegations stated in his responsive pleading.

CROSS CLAIM:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Anent the Crossclaim of defendant CICI, Judgment is hereby rendered in its favor and against defendant Endelo, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Sentencing defendant Endelo Manufacturing Corporation, to subrogate the answering defendant CICI in, or indemnify the latter for, any such liability, plus 14% interest thereon, as stipulated; and

2. Ordering defendant Endelo to pay answering defendant P600.00 for unpaid premiums.

As regard the crossclaim of defendant R and B Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. judgment if hereby rendered in its favor and against principal defendant Endelo, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

1. Sentencing defendant Endelo Manufacturing Corporation to subrogate answering defendant R and B Surety in and to indemnify the latter, for any such liability, plus twelve percent (12%) interest thereon as stipulated.

SO ORDERED." 7

Only R & B Surety appealed to the Court of Appeals from the decision with respect to the eight (8) to eleven (11) causes of action, for which the petitioner (now respondent) was made liable by the lower court of origin.

On November 27, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision reversing the judgment of the trial court.

Dissatisfied, petitioner has come to this Court via the petition for review on certiorari under consideration, anchored on the assignment of errors, that:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

I


THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF ATTY. RODOLFO CASARENO, (CUSTOMS LEGAL OFFICER), SERGIO ROMERO (BONDS CUSTODIAN), AND MELCHOR CRUZ (CUSTOMS EXPORT TRADE ASSESSOR) ARE HEARSAY, HENCE, INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST R AND B SURETY.

II


THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE SUSPENSION OF ENDELO’S LICENSE TO OPERATE WAS NOT FULLY SUBSTANTIATED.

III


THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE THAT ENDELO PARTICIPATED OR RATIFIED ENRIQUE JOCSON’S ACTS OF PILFERAGE.

IV


THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT R AND B SURETY’S LIABILITY UNDER ITS EMBROIDERY BONDS WAS EXTINGUISHED UPON PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY IT OF ENDELO’S SUSPENSION OF LICENSE TO OPERATE.

In its Comment, private respondent maintains that the above assignment of errors does not call for the exercise of this Court’s power of review as contemplated by Rule 45, invoking the settled rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals which are supported by substantial evidence are binding and conclusive upon this Court. 8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In a number of cases, this Court sanctioned a departure from the general rule, as in the case at bar, where the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are contrary to what the trial court 9 found and concluded.

In the first assigned error, petitioner cites the testimonies of its witnesses, Rodolfo Casareno, Sergio Romero and Melchor Cruz, disputing the finding of the Court of Appeals that the same are hearsay and therefore, insufficient to establish and support petitioner’s cause of action.

Verily, the respondent court erred in holding that the testimonies of the above-named witnesses are pure hearsay for not being based on personal knowledge as they were not present during the transaction, subject of the documents they presented. Very much to the contrary, their testimonies are properly within the exception to the hearsay rule under Section 44 of Rule 130, which permits entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the Philippines or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, to be admitted as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Correct is the assertion by petitioner that Atty. Casareno’s testimony concerns the existence of various documents which form part of the records of the Bureau of Customs. 10 As such, his testimony is not hearsay since it relates to facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. 11 The same is true with the testimony of Sergio Romero. As Bonds Custodian, he testified that the bonds posted by the defendant (now the respondent corporation) remained uncancelled, matters properly within his (Sergio Romero’s) personal knowledge. 12 Equally competent is the testimony of Melchor Cruz. Being a Customs Export Trade Assessor, his testimony pertained to certain records evidencing the failure of Endelo to re-export the imported raw materials in their original state or as finished products. These matters are well within Cruz’s personal knowledge and therefore, outside the realm of hearsay evidence. 13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioner next attacks the finding by the Court of Appeals that Endelo’s alleged misdeed justifying the suspension of its license to operate has not been sufficiently proven. It was the petitioner’s version that due to pilferage activity, i.e. withdrawal of goods from a customs bonded warehouse without clearance from the Collector of Customs, perpetrated by Enrique Jocson on behalf of Endelo, an investigation dating back to 1969-1970 was conducted by the Customs Police Office together with the Embroidery and Apparel Board. On account of this, petitioner stressed that to release Endelo and its sureties from liability for customs duties and other tax liabilities would be to put a premium on the said illegal act of pilferage. 14

Admittedly, Endelo’s license to operate was suspended sometime in 1970, a fact clearly gleanable from the allegations of Endelo in its Answer to the Complaint, claiming that its failure to export the imported raw materials in its original state or as finished products was due to the suspension of its license to operate allegedly done illegally and unnecessarily by the Board. Such allegation of illegal and unnecessary suspension was, however, not backed by any supporting evidence. Neither is there sufficient proof that the suspension of Endelo’s license was made during the two-year period. Much less has it been shown that such suspension prevented it from complying with its obligations under the bonds.

Records show that the pilferage by Endelo and the subsequent investigation conducted thereon, which resulted in the suspension of its license in 1970, was admitted by Atty. Casareno under cross-examination on October 23, 1986. That the investigation report thereon could not be produced was adequately explained by Atty. Casareno who testified that the investigation report and records pertaining to such investigation have been condemned since the said documents were kept in the custody of the Bureau of Customs only for a period of five (5) years.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Having relied on the illegality of its suspension by way of defense, Endelo and not petitioner has the burden of proving the same. In addition, Endelo was duty-bound to prove whether or not the suspension of its license was for an indefinite period or merely for a limited time. Despite this well-established rule, the Court of Appeals shifted that burden to the petitioner, and without any sustainable basis, upheld the theory of Endelo that the suspension of its license was invalid. But no such implication can be drawn either from the failure of petitioner to show the propriety of the suspension order or from the mere non-production of the documents or records of the alleged investigation prior to the order of suspension. Further, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions has to be applied. 15

Finally, petitioner assails private respondent’s discharge from any liability under subject embroidery bonds on the ground that R & B Surety was not notified of the suspension of Endelo’s license to operate to which the latter is entitled under the bonds. It is argued that R & B Surety’s obligations thereunder became due and demandable notwithstanding the lack of notice since the said bonds did not require the Republic to give such notice in case of mere suspension of Endelo’s license to operate, 16 the requisite notice being required only in case of a revocation or cancellation of the license.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

This issue is rendered moot and academic in view of the Court’s finding that R & B Surety, which is sought to be held solidarily liable with Endelo, has not been able to discharge its burden of proving the alleged impropriety of the said suspension of its license and whether the same was for an indefinite period as to amount to a cancellation or revocation of subject license. What is more, Endelo was not without recourse insofar as its duty to comply with its obligation was concerned. Assuming for the sake of argument that the suspension in question was indeed illegal, records show no effort on the part of Endelo to have the said suspension lifted by the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board. As aptly observed by petitioner, such omission has bolstered the submission that the suspension of Endelo’s license was proper and the alleged pilferage was the main cause therefor. Moreover, it does not appear that Endelo was precluded from exporting the imported materials subject of the controversy, in their original state, within two (2) years from the time they were deposited in the bonded warehouse of the Bureau of Customs.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21966 is SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of origin, dated February 13, 1989, REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Japan.

2. Taiwan.

3. An Act creating the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board.

4. The then Chairman of the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board.

5. Rollo, p. 47.

6. Ibid.

7. RTC Decision, pp. 22-27.

8. Boneng v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 133563, March 4, 1999; citing Pal v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 621.

9. Manlapaz v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 147 SCRA 236, 239.

10. Rollo, p. 113.

11. Ibid., citing Section 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.

12. Rollo, p. 19-20.

13. Ibid., p. 20-21.

14. Petition, pp. 21-28.

15. People v. Lapura, 255 SCRA 85, 92.

16. Petition, pp. 32-33.




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.