Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 108710 September 14, 1998 - ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108710. September 14, 1999.]

ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division), MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND RICHARD K. SPENCER, Respondents.


R E S O L U T I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


This petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assails the Decision 1 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which ruled that jurisdiction over a complaint by a corporate executive and management officer for illegal dismissal rests with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Said Decision reversed and set aside the holding of the Labor Arbiter 2 who sustained petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and damages.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

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

An Italian citizen, petitioner was the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of private respondent, Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation (MICC). He started work on July 1, 1985. On August 10, 1988, MICC terminated his employment.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the NLRC, National Capital Region on September 21, 1989, a complaint 3 for illegal dismissal with corresponding damages.

MICC based petitioner’s dismissal on the ground that the petitioner failed to secure his employment permit, grossly mismanaged the business affairs of the company, and misused corporate funds. However, petitioner argued that it was the duty of the company to secure his work permit during the term of his office, and that his termination was illegal for lack of just cause.

On November 27, 1991, Labor Arbiter Asuncion rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, disposing as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, Respondents, Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation and Richard K. Spencer, are jointly and severally ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. To reinstate the complainant Armando T. de Rossi to his former positions as Executive Vice-President and General Manager, without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges and with full backwages, from the date his salary was withheld until he is actually reinstated. His reinstatement is immediately executory;

2. To pay the complainant the sum of P800,000 as moral damages, and another P700,000.00 as exemplary damages.

3. To pay Attorney’s fee equivalent to 10% of the total amount awarded.

SO ORDERED." 4

MICC appealed the decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC (First Division) on the ground that Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reinstating the petitioner and awarding him backwages and damages, because the termination of petitioner was for a valid cause.

On January 6, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution, 5 stating that the reinstatement order is immediately executory, even pending appeal pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code.

On January 16, 1992, respondents opposed the said motion. On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed a manifestation reiterating his request for reinstatement.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On February 26, 1992, and March 12, 1992, respectively, private respondents filed a counter manifestation and motion; they reiterated their vehement objection thereto as already signified in their opposition. Further, they contended that the position of executive vice-president is an elective post, specifically provided by the corporate’s by-laws. Thus, the dismissal of the petitioner was an intra-corporate matter within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and not with the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC. Therein, private respondents cited several cases decided by the Court in support of their contention, among them: Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 145 SCRA 211, Fortune Cement Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 193 SCRA 258, PSBA v. Leano, 127 SCRA 778.

On July 7, 1992, OIC and Executive Labor Arbiter Lita Aglibut issued a writ of execution. Aglibut directed Sheriff Max Lago to collect the backwages of petitioner de Rossi, in the amount of six hundred seventy five thousand (P675,000.00) pesos from MICC. Further, she gave MICC the option to reinstate de Rossi physically or constructively through payroll reinstatement until the final resolution of the case by the NLRC.

On August 5, 1992, private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the writ of execution, reiterating their argument that the SEC and not the NLRC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter which involves the removal of a corporate officer.

On October 30, 1992, the NLRC rendered its decision dismissing the case by virtue of Section 5, paragraph (c), of P.D. No. 902-A. However, the Commission stated that, although in its view it has jurisdiction over the case, it must yield to the Supreme Court’s decisions recognizing SEC’s jurisdiction over such a case, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is our view that notwithstanding the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, we in this Commission, have jurisdiction over this case. The reason being, Article 217 of the Labor Code was amended on March 21, 1989 by Section 9, Republic Act 6715, viz.:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


On the other hand, we are mindful of a rule in this jurisdiction (geared towards stability of jurisprudence) that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘If a judge of a lower court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission of deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by his superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal views, he must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the highest court of the land, and that any deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delay and expenses to the litigants.’(emphasis by NLRC, People v. Santos, 56 O.G. 3546)chanrobles law library : red

Guided by the above mandate, we thus have stated our ‘opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with our views, we cannot but apply the law as interpreted by the highest court of the land’, and rule that jurisdiction here is not with us but with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside, and this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED." 6

In his petition for certiorari dated February 11, 1993, petitioner contends that:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

"I. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OR ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL FILED BY PETITIONER.

"II. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL ARE RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION BY THIS HONORABLE COURT." 7

Petitioner asserts that even managerial employees are entitled to the protection of labor laws. He states that his case is peculiar, and not similar to those cited by private respondents. Petitioner claims that he was neither elected to the post nor stockholder of MICC. Furthermore, petitioner avers that during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, private respondents never questioned the issue of jurisdiction; it would be too late to raise it now.

Respondent NLRC argues that under the Corporation Code, there is no requirement that an executive vice-president of a corporation should be a stockholder or a member of the Board of Directors. Further, as observed by the Solicitor General, Section 5 of P.D. 902-A did not limit the jurisdiction of the SEC to controversies in the election or appointment of directors and trustees, but also included officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations.chanrobles law library

On this score, we are in agreement with the public respondent’s submission through the Solicitor General. In a string of cases 8 this Court has consistently held that the SEC, and not the NLRC, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers. Section 5 paragraph (c) of P.D. 902-A unequivocally provides that SEC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate affairs regarding the election or appointment of officers of a corporation, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(c) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporation, partnership or association."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have earlier pronounced that an "office" is created by the charter of the corporation under which a corporation is organized, and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders. 9 In the present case, private respondents aver that the officers and their terms of office are prescribed by the corporation’s by-laws, which provide as follows:chanrobles law library : red

BY-LAW NO. III Directors and Officers

x       x       x


"The officers of the corporation shall be the President, Executive Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, each of whom may hold his office until his successor is elected and qualified, unless sooner removed by the Board of Directors; Provided, That for the convenience of the corporation the office of the Secretary and Treasurer may be held by one and the same person. Officers shall be designated by the stockholders’ meeting at the time they elect the members of the Board of Directors. Any vacancy occurring among the officers of the Corporation on account of removal or resignation shall be filled by a stockholder’s meeting. Stockholders holding one half, or more of the subscribed capital stock of the corporation may demand and compel the resignation of any officer at any time." 10

The by-laws being in force, clearly petitioner is considered an officer of MICC, elected and/or designated by its board of directors. Following Section 5(c) of P.D. No. 902-A, the SEC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over controversies regarding the election and/or designation of directors, trustees, officers or managers of a corporation, partnership or association. This provision is indubitably applicable to the petitioner’s case. Jurisdiction here is not with the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC, but with the SEC.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Note that a corporate officer’s removal from his office is a corporate act. If such removal occasions an intra-corporate controversy, its nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom, or lack thereof, with which the Board of Directors might have in taking such action. 11 When petitioner, as Executive Vice-President allegedly diverted company funds for his personal use resulting in heavy financial losses to the company, this matter would amount to fraud. Such fraud would be detrimental to the interest not only of the corporation but also of its members. 12 This type of fraud encompasses controversies in a relationship within the corporation covered by SEC jurisdiction. 13 Perforce, the matter would come within the area of corporate affairs and management, and such a corporate controversy would call for the adjudicative expertise of the SEC, not the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC.

Petitioner maintains that MICC can not question now the issue of jurisdiction of the NLRC, considering that MICC did not raise this matter until after the case had been brought on appeal to the NLRC. However, it has long been established as a rule, that jurisdiction of a tribunal, agency, or office, is conferred by law, and its lack of jurisdiction may be questioned at any time even on appeal. 14 In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78, 90, 15 this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Labor Arbiter first, and of the NLRC on appeal, is fatal to petitioner’s cause.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED, and the respondent NLRC’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 25-44; dated October 30, 1992 and penned by Commissioner Vicente Veloso with Presiding Commissioner Bartolome Carale and Romeo Putong, concurring.

2. Manuel P. Asuncion; Rollo, pp. 69-79.

3. NLRC Records, pp. 2-6; NLRC Case No. 00-09-04460-89.

4. Supra, note 2 at 79.

5. Rollo, pp. 87-88.

6. Rollo, pp. 39-40, 42-43.

7. Id., at 12.

8. PSBA v. Leano, 127 SCRA 778 (1984); Dy v. NLRC, 145 SCRA 211 (1986); Cagayan de Oro Coliseum, Inc. v. Office of the MOLE, 192 SCRA 315 (1990); Fortune Cement Corporation v. NLRC, 193 SCRA 258 (1991); Lozon v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 1 (1995); Espino v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 52 (1995). Note that these cases are distinct from G.R. No. 122725, Biogenerics Marketing & Research Corp. v. NLRC, September 8, 1999 because in Biogenerics the jurisdictional issue concerns the cash or surety bond requirement. For lack of such requirement, NLRC dismissed petitioners’ appeal.

9. Tabang v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 462, 467 (1997); citing 2 Fletcher Cyc. Corp., Ch. II, Sec. 266.

10. Records, NLRC at 153. Emphasis supplied.

11. Lozon v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 1, 9 (1995); Espino v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 52, 69 (1995).

12. Alleje v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 495, 501 (1995).

13. Magalad v. Premier Financing Corporation, 209 SCRA 260, 264 (1992).

14. Estrada v. NLRC, 262 SCRA 709, 714 (1996).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

15. Citing Roxas v. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957 (1918); Corona v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 378 (1992); Javier v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 572 (1992); Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 283 (1992); People v. Eduarte, 182 SCRA 750 (1990).




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.