Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > A.M. No. P-99-1340 September 23, 1998 - ZENAIDA MUSNI v. ERNESTO G. MORALES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-99-1340. September 23, 1999.]

ZENAIDA MUSNI, Complainant, v. ERNESTO G. MORALES, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 15), Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


The process server is duty-bound to serve summons, writs and other court processes promptly. Unjustified delay in performing this task constitutes neglect of duty and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Case


And
The Facts


Before us is an administrative case for gross neglect of duty filed by Zenaida Musni against Ernesto G. Morales, a process server assigned at the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 15). In her Complaint-Affidavit received by the Office of the Court Administrator on September 17, 1997, she alleged the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Ako ang siyang nagrereklamo (complainant) sa kasong sibil na may bilang 788-M-96 na may titulong ‘Zenaida Musni v. Sps. Ysaac and Bernardita Tanjutco and the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation’ na nakabinbin sa Regional Trial Court ng Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15, sala ni Judge CARLOS C. OFILADA.

"2. Ang naturang kaso ay aking inilagak sa (filed with) hukuman ng Malolos, Bulacan noon pang Oktubre 22, 1996;

"2.[a.] Bilang patunay na ang kasong ito ay nailagak sa hukuman sa nasabing petsa, kalakip bilang bahagi ng Sinumpaang Salaysay na ito ang kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) na may marka ng pagkakatanggap ng Regional Trial Court ng Malolos, Bulacan noong Oktubre 22, 1996 bilang Annex ‘A’.

"3. Noong Enero 17, 1997, nakatanggap ang aking abugado ng inamiendahang sagot (Amended Answer) mula sa inereklamong (defendants) mag-asawang Tanjutco na may petsang Enero 7, 1997.

"4. Matagal din naming hinintay ng aking abugado ang sagot (Answer) ng inereklamong (defendant) Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), ngunit magpahanggang sa buwan ng Hulyo 1997, ito’y hindi [pa] dumadating.

"5. Dahil dito ay ilang beses ding sumaglit ang aking abugado sa sala ni Judge OFILADA upang mag-follow up kung ano ang nangyayari o ginagawa ng process server ng nasabing korte, na nakilala ko na lamang noong bandang huli na na[g]ngangalang ERNESTO G. MORALES, ngunit ayon daw sa mga empleyado ng nasabing korte, ay wala ang nasabing process server.

"6. Dahil dito ay napilitan ang aking abugado na magtalaga (assigned) ng kanyang empleyado, si ROEL OLEDAN, na siyang nagdala ng sulat patungkol sa Clerk of Court ng Branch 15 upang malaman kung ang Summons at kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) ay na i-serve na sa inerereklamong (defendant) RCBC at kung kailan;

"6.a. Ang kopya ng nasabing sulat ay kalakip at bahagi ng Sinumpaang Salaysay na ito bilang Annex ‘B’.

"7. Ang nasabing sulat ay ayaw [pa] di-umanong tanggapin ng process server ng nasabing korte noong ito’y unang dinala ni ROEL OLEDAN noong Hulyo 15, 1997 sa kadahilanang sinabihan daw siya ni BERNARDITA TANJUTCO na huwag daw i-serve ang Summons at kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) sa inereklamong (defendant) RCBC.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"8. Dahil dito ay bumalik muli si ROEL OLEDAN sa Branch 15 noong Hulyo 18, 1997, at noon lamang tinanggap ang sulat ng aking abugado ng Branch 15;

"8.a. Makailang-ulit ding nagbalik-balik si ROEL OLEDAN sa nasabing korte upang i-follow up ang katugunan sa sulat ng aking abugado, ngunit walang nangyari dito dahil hindi naman daw inaabutan ang process server.

"9. Bagaman ang sulat ay patungkol sa Clerk of Court ng Branch 15 at humihingi ng sertipikasyon kung ang Summons at kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) ay na i-serve na sa inereklamong (defendant) RCBC, ang nasabing Clerk of Court ay hindi nagbigay ng sertipikasyon at nagbigay na lamang ng kopya ng Process Server’s Return of Service na may petsang Hulyo 28, 1997;

"9.a. Ang kopya ng nasabing Process Server’s Return of Service ay kalakip at bahagi ng Sinumpaang Salaysay na ito bilang Annex ‘C’.

"10. Makikita sa nasabing Process Server’s Return of Service na bagaman naglabas ng Summons ang Branch 15 ng Regional Trial Court ng Malolos noong Oktubre 29, 1996, ito at ang kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) ay pinarating lamang ng process server na si ERNESTO G. MORALES sa nasabing inereklamong (defendant) bangko noong Hulyo 25, 1997, o SIYAM (9) NA BUWAN MATAPOS MAILAGAK ANG REKLAMO (COMPLAINT) SA HUKUMAN.

"11. Kalakip at bahagi ng Sinumpaang Salaysay na ito ang Sinumpaang Salaysay ni ROEL OLEDAN na nagpapatunay sa kanyang mga nasaksihan patungkol sa laman ng aking Sinumpaang Salaysay bilang Annex ‘D’.

"12. Dahil sa lahat ng nabanggit aking inirereklamo ang nasabing process server na si ERNESTO G. MORALES na karampatang kasong administratibo dahil sa kanyang lubhang pagpapabaya (gross negligence) sa pagtupad ng kanyang t[u]ngkulin o dahil sa kanyang pakikipagkasundo kay BERNARDITA TANJUTCO na huwag paratingin sa inereklamong RCBC ang Summons at kopya ng Reklamo (Complaint) ko."cralaw virtua1aw library

On December 2, 1997, Respondent Morales was required to file his Comment.

In his Comment, Respondent Morales admitted that there was delay in the service of the summons but explained that "there was no malice, intent and self-interest" in his lapse, viz.:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The undersigned emphatically denies the material allegations embodied in the ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay’ of Zenaida Musni;

"2. After the undersigned received the summons on the above-cited case, he served the same upon the defendants-spouses Isaac Tanjutco and Bernardita Tanjutco on November 18, 1996, being nearer;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"3. During the service of the summons and copies of the complaint upon the defendants-spouses, the undersigned was made to understand that the said defendants [were] making all efforts to settle the matter and [were] paying all avenues for an amicable settlement, negotiations between all the parties;

"4. The delay in the service of the summons and the copy of the complaint to the defendant bank was not intentional but merely an anticipation of a settlement between the parties;

"5. And then, later on, the undersigned learned that no settlement [or] any negotiations were made, so he finally served the summons and copy of the complaint upon the defendant bank;

"6. Furthermore, it [may be] noted that in the course of the trial of this case all parties manifested their inte[n]tion to settle this matter amicably and in fact hearings had been reset [a] few times to give them enough time to finalize their negotiation. Enclosed is an order of this Court confirming the fact that said negotiations are being undertaken with respect to this case[;]

"7. And that, this comment is being submitted to attest to the fact that when the undersigned delayed . . . the service of the oft-mentioned summons — there was no malice, intent, and self-interest except the foregoing facts."cralaw virtua1aw library

Report and Recommendation

In his Report dated August 6, 1999, which we quote below, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended that respondent be fined in the sum of P3,000 for neglect of duty:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"EVALUATION : It is clear from the foregoing that there was a delay in the service of summons upon defendant RCBC. Summons was issued as early as October 29, 1996 yet but it was served together with the copy of the complaint upon defendant RCBC only on July 25, 1997, or nine (9) months thereafter. Respondent, in his comment dated December 22, 1997, expressly admitted that he took it upon himself to defer service of the summons on RCBC to give defendant spouses Tanjutco time to forge a settlement with complainant Musni. His explanation is utterly unmeritorious. The Tanjutco[s’] alleged representation about their move to settle the case amicably was not a valid ground for the respondent to withhold service of the summons on the other defendant especially considering that no confirmation [of] the negotiation for settlement has been given by the plaintiff. The duty to serve summons does not include the discretion whether to serve it or not. As process server, respondent ought to know that his duty to effect such service of summons is purely ministerial and should be made within a reasonable period of time. His act unnecessarily caused delay in the proceedings of the case. However, this being his first offense, it should be considered in his favor.

"RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that: . . . (2) respondent Ernesto G. Morales, Process Server, RTC, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, be fined in the amount of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos for neglect of duty and warned that [a] repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

This Court’s Ruling


We agree with the court administrator that the respondent was remiss in performing his duty and that he should be sanctioned.

Responsibility of a Process Server

The responsibilities of a process server have been spelled out as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Process Server serves Court processes such as subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, summonses, Court orders and notices; prepares and submits returns of service of processes, monitors messages and/or delivers Court mail matters; keeps in custody and maintains a record book of all mail matters received and dispatched by the Court; and performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge/Clerk of Court." 1

The significance of the process server’s duty must be underscored. It is through the process server that defendants learn of the action brought against them by the complainant. 2 More important, it is also through the service of summons by the process server that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. It is therefore important that summonses, other writs and court processes be served expeditiously. 3

In the present case, respondent admitted that there was a delay, but justified it by saying that it was "in anticipation of the settlement of the parties." This is not an excuse. We reiterate that his task was to serve the summons expeditiously. His duty being ministerial, he has no discretion to postpone it at the behest of a party-litigant. His refusal to serve the summons immediately constituted a clear neglect of duty. Indeed, he was able to serve the summons only on July 25, 1997, or almost nine months after the trial court had issued it on October 29, 1996.

This Court reminds respondent that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. 4 The judiciary expects the best from all its employees. Respondent’s performance is clearly wanting. Not only did his neglect delay the administration of justice; it also impaired public confidence in the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Ernesto G. Morales is hereby fined in the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000) for neglect of duty. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in respondent’s personal record.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 33.

2. Spouses Andres Olar Et. Al. v. Hon. Fortunato B. Cuna, 90 SCRA 114, 119, May 5, 1979.

3. Tolentino v. Galano, 160 SCRA 373, 378, April 15, 1988; San Pedro v. Atty. Resurreccion, 113 SCRA 543, 545, April 16, 1982.

4. Concerned Citizens of Laoag City v. Bienvenido Arzaga and Alfredo Mauricio, 267 SCRA 176, January 30, 1997.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary




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.