Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1998 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 131621. September 28, 1999.]

LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and THE MANILA INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:


Petitioner Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. (hereafter LOADSTAR), in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to reverse and set aside the following: (a) the 30 January 1997 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401, which affirmed the decision of 4 October 1991 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 85-29110, ordering LOADSTAR to pay private respondent Manila Insurance Co. (hereafter MIC) the amount of P6,067,178, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, P8,000 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of the suit; and (b) its resolution of 19 November 1997, 3 denying LOADSTAR’s motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The facts are undisputed.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On 19 November 1984, LOADSTAR received on board its M/V "Cherokee" (hereafter, the vessel) the following goods for shipment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) 705 bales of lawanit hardwood;

b) 27 boxes and crates of tilewood assemblies and others; and

c) 49 bundles of mouldings R & W (3) Apitong Bolidenized.

The goods, amounting to P6,067,178, were insured for the same amount with MIC against various risks including "TOTAL LOSS BY TOTAL LOSS OF THE VESSEL." The vessel, in turn, was insured by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. (hereafter PGAI) for P4 million. On 20 November 1984, on its way to Manila from the port of Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, the vessel, along with its cargo, sank off Limasawa Island. As a result of the total loss of its shipment, the consignee made a claim with LOADSTAR which, however, ignored the same. As the insurer, MIC paid P6,075,000 to the insured in full settlement of its claim, and the latter executed a subrogation receipt therefor.

On 4 February 1985, MIC filed a complaint against LOADSTAR and PGAI, alleging that the sinking of the vessel was due to the fault and negligence of LOADSTAR and its employees. It also prayed that PGAI be ordered to pay the insurance proceeds from the loss of the vessel directly to MIC, said amount to be deducted from MIC’s claim from LOADSTAR.

In its answer, LOADSTAR denied any liability for the loss of the shipper’s goods and claimed that the sinking of its vessel was due to force majeure. PGAI, on the other hand, averred that MIC had no cause of action against it, LOADSTAR being the party insured. In any event, PGAI was later dropped as a party defendant after it paid the insurance proceeds to LOADSTAR.

As stated at the outset, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of MIC, prompting LOADSTAR to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals, which, however, agreed with the trial court and affirmed its decision in toto.

In dismissing LOADSTAR’s appeal, the appellate court made the following observations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) LOADSTAR cannot be considered a private carrier on the sole ground that there was a single shipper on that fateful voyage. The court noted that the charter of the vessel was limited to the ship, but LOADSTAR retained control over its crew. 4

2) As a common carrier, it is the Code of Commerce, not the Civil Code, which should be applied in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties.

3) The vessel was not seaworthy because it was undermanned on the day of the voyage. If it had been seaworthy, it could have withstood the "natural and inevitable action of the sea" on 20 November 1984, when the condition of the sea was moderate. The vessel sank, not because of force majeure, but because it was not seaworthy. LOADSTAR’S allegation that the sinking was probably due to the "convergence of the winds," as stated by a PAG-ASA expert, was not duly proven at the trial. The "limited liability" rule, therefore, is not applicable considering that, in this case, there was an actual finding of negligence on the part of the carrier. 5

4) Between MIC and LOADSTAR, the provisions of the Bill of Lading do not apply because said provisions bind only the shipper/consignee and the carrier. When MIC paid the shipper for the goods insured, it was subrogated to the latter’s rights as against the carrier, LOADSTAR. 6

5) There was a clear breach of the contract of carriage when the shipper’s goods never reached their destination. LOADSTAR’s defense of "diligence of a good father of a family" in the training and selection of its crew is unavailing because this is not a proper or complete defense in culpa contractual.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

6) "Art. 361 (of the Code of Commerce) has been judicially construed to mean that when goods are delivered on board a ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability." Transportation of the merchandise at the risk and venture of the shipper means that the latter bears the risk of loss or deterioration of his goods arising from fortuitous events, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defects of the goods, but not those caused by the presumed negligence or fault of the carrier, unless otherwise proved. 7

The errors assigned by LOADSTAR boil down to a determination of the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Is the M/V "Cherokee" a private or a common carrier?

(2) Did LOADSTAR observe due and/or ordinary diligence in these premises?

Regarding the first issue, LOADSTAR submits that the vessel was a private carrier because it was not issued a certificate of public convenience, it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor a fixed route, and there was only "one shipper, one consignee for a special cargo."cralaw virtua1aw library

In refutation, MIC argues that the issue as to the classification of the M/V "Cherokee" was not timely raised below; hence, it is barred by estoppel. While it is true that the vessel had on board only the cargo of wood products for delivery to one consignee, it was also carrying passengers as part of its regular business. Moreover, the bills of lading in this case made no mention of any charter party but only a statement that the vessel was a "general cargo carrier." Neither was there any "special arrangement" between LOADSTAR and the shipper regarding the shipment of the cargo. The singular fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper is not sufficient to convert the vessel into a private carrier.

As regards the second error, LOADSTAR argues that as a private carrier, it cannot be presumed to have been negligent, and the burden of proving otherwise devolved upon MIC. 8

LOADSTAR also maintains that the vessel was seaworthy. Before the fateful voyage on 19 November 1984, the vessel was allegedly dry docked at Keppel Philippines Shipyard and was duly inspected by the maritime safety engineers of the Philippine Coast Guard, who certified that the ship was fit to undertake a voyage. Its crew at the time was experienced, licensed and unquestionably competent. With all these precautions, there could be no other conclusion except that LOADSTAR exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the vessel’s seaworthiness.

LOADSTAR further claims that it was not responsible for the loss of the cargo, such loss being due to force majeure. It points out that when the vessel left Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, on 19 November 1984, the weather was fine until the next day when the vessel sank due to strong waves. MIC’s witness, Graceli Tapel, fully established the existence of two typhoons, "WELFRING" and "YOLING," inside the Philippine area of responsibility. In fact, on 20 November 1984, signal no. 1 was declared over Eastern Visayas, which includes Limasawa Island. Tapel also testified that the convergence of winds brought about by these two typhoons strengthened wind velocity in the area, naturally producing strong waves and winds, in turn, causing the vessel to list and eventually sink.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

LOADSTAR goes on to argue that, being a private carrier, any agreement limiting its liability, such as what transpired in this case, is valid. Since the cargo was being shipped at "owner’s risk," LOADSTAR was not liable for any loss or damage to the same. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the provisions of the bills of lading apply only to the shipper and the carrier, and not to the insurer of the goods, which conclusion runs counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc., 9 and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc. 10

Finally, LOADSTAR avers that MIC’s claim had already prescribed, the case having been instituted beyond the period stated in the bills of lading for instituting the same — suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or non-delivery of shipment shall be instituted within sixty days from the accrual of the right of action. The vessel sank on 20 November 1984; yet, the case for recovery was filed only on 4 February 1985.

MIC, on the other hand, claims that LOADSTAR was liable, notwithstanding that the loss of the cargo was due to force majeure, because the same concurred with LOADSTAR’s fault or negligence.

Secondly, LOADSTAR did not raise the issue of prescription in the court below; hence, the same must be deemed waived.

Thirdly, the "limited liability" theory is not applicable in the case at bar because LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent, and because it failed to maintain a seaworthy vessel. Authorizing the voyage notwithstanding its knowledge of a typhoon is tantamount to negligence.

We find no merit in this petition.

Anent the first assigned error, we hold that LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public convenience, and this public character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of the goods in question was periodic, occasional, episodic or unscheduled.

In support of its position, LOADSTAR relied on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 11 where this Court held that a common carrier transporting special cargo or chartering the vessel to a special person becomes a private carrier that is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Code. Any stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent is void only if the strict policy governing common carriers is upheld. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party. LOADSTAR also cited Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 12 and National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 13 both of which upheld the Home Insurance doctrine.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

These cases invoked by LOADSTAR are not applicable in the case at bar for simple reason that the factual settings are different. The records do not disclose that the M/V "Cherokee," on the date in question, undertook to carry a special cargo or was chartered to a special person only. There was no charter party. The bills of lading failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general provision to the effect that the M/V "Cherokee" was a "general cargo carrier." 14 Further, the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper, which appears to be purely coincidental, is not reason enough to convert the vessel from a common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers.

Under the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, LOADSTAR fits the definition of a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code. In the case of De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 15 the Court juxtaposed the statutory definition of "common carriers" with the peculiar circumstances of that case, viz.:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Civil Code defines "common carriers" in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline" ‘. Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1733 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

x       x       x


It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although such backhauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondent’s principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others. There is no dispute that private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that that fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.

The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public convenience, and concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the liabilities of a common carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly and intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of the general community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Moving on to the second assigned error, we find that the M/V "Cherokee" was not seaworthy when it embarked on its voyage on 19 November 1984. The vessel was not even sufficiently manned at the time. "For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code." 16

Neither do we agree with LOADSTAR’s argument that the "limited liability" theory should be applied in this case. The doctrine of limited liability does not apply where there was negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent. 17 LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent in not maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in having allowed its vessel to sail despite knowledge of an approaching typhoon. In any event, it did not sink because of any storm that may be deemed as force majeure, inasmuch as the wind condition in the area where it sank was determined to be moderate. Since it was remiss in the performance of its duties, LOADSTAR cannot hide behind the "limited liability" doctrine to escape responsibility for the loss of the vessel and its cargo.

LOADSTAR also claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it liable for the loss of the goods, in utter disregard of this Court’s pronouncements in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc., 18 and National Union Fire Insurance v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc. 19 It was ruled in these two cases that after paying the claim of the insured for damages under the insurance policy, the insurer is subrogated merely to the rights of the assured, that is, it can recover only the amount that may, in turn, be recovered by the latter. Since the right of the assured in case of loss or damage to the goods is limited or restricted by the provisions in the bills of lading, a suit by the insurer as subrogee is necessarily subject to the same limitations and restrictions. We do not agree. In the first place, the cases relied on by LOADSTAR involved a limitation on the carrier’s liability to an amount fixed in the bill of lading which the parties may enter into, provided that the same was freely and fairly agreed upon (Articles 1749-1750). On the other hand, the stipulation in the case at bar effectively reduces the common carrier’s liability for the loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary (Articles 1744 and 1745), that is, the carrier is not liable for any loss or damage to shipments made at "owner’s risk." Such stipulation is obviously null and void for being contrary to public policy. 20 It has been said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable. 21

Since the stipulation in question is null and void, it follows that when MIC paid the shipper, it was subrogated to all the rights which the latter has against the common carrier, LOADSTAR.

Neither is there merit to the contention that the claim in this case was barred by prescription. MIC’s cause of action had not yet prescribed at the time it was concerned. Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) — which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit — may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar. This one-year prescriptive period also applies to the insurer of the goods. 22 In this case, the period for filing the action for recovery has not yet elapsed. Moreover, a stipulation reducing the one-year period is null and void; 23 it must, accordingly, be struck down.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of 30 January 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles law library

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo and Santiago, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, 58.

2. Ibid., 58-59.

3. Id., 72.

4. Citing Planter’s Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 476 [1993].

5. Citing Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 217 SCRA 359 [1993].

6. Citing Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Jamila & Co., Inc., 70 SCRA 323 [1976].

7. Rollo, 18.

8. Citing National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45 [1997].

9. 70 SCRA 122 [1976].

10. 184 SCRA 682 [1990].

11. 23 SCRA 24 [1968].

12. 274 SCRA 642 [1997].

13. Supra note 8.

14. "A general ship carrying goods for hire, whether employed in internal, in coasting, or in foreign commerce is a common carrier." (Baer, Senior & Co.’s Successors v. La Compania Maritima, 6 Phil. 215, 217-218, quoting Liverpool Steamship Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397, 437), cited in 3 TEODORICO C. MARTIN, PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL LAWS 118 (Rev. Ed. 1989).

15. 168 SCRA 612, 617-619 [1988].

16. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 260, 272-273 [1996], citing Chan Keep v. Chan Gioco, 14 Phil. 5.

17. See JOSE C. VITUG, PANDECT OF COMMERCIAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 311-313 (3rd ed. 1997) (hereinafter VITUG). Also, Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 217 SCRA 359 [1993]; American Home Assurance, Co. v. CA, 208 SCRA 343 [1992], citing National Development Co. v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 593 [1988]; Heirs of Amparo de los Santos v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 649 [1990].

18. 70 SCRA 122 [1976].

19. 184 SCRA 682 [1990].

20. The stipulations on the limitations on the common carrier’s liability, subject matter of Articles 1749-1750 and Articles 1744-1745 of the New Civil Code are not to be confused with each other. (See VITUG 244)

21. 3 MARTIN, 96-97, citing H.E. Heacock Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc., 42 Phil. 205. See Arts. 1744 and 1745 of the New Civil Code.

22. VITUG, 220-222, 224, 256 and 334, citing Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alejandro, 145 SCRA 42 (1986); see also 3 MARTIN 302, 307 and Sec. 3. (6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which provides, inter alia.

SECTION 3. (6) . . .

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered . . .

23. VITUG, 334, citing Elser, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 264.chanrobles.com : virtual law library




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.