Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 136294 September 28, 1998 - MARIA G. BALUYUT, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GUIAO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 136294. September 28, 1999.]

MARIA G. BALUYUT, BEATRIZ G. DAVID, CONSOLACION G. ZAMORA, PURITA G. TONGOL, LUZ G. VIRAY, JOSE S. GUIAO and JESUS GUIAO, Petitioners, v. RODOLFO GUIAO, TRINIDAD G. MANDAL, SPOUSES NICOLAS TUBIL and ILUMINADA CANLAS, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


KAPUNAN, J.:


At bar is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside and reverse the Decision, dated March 30, 1998; and, the Resolution, dated November 9, 1998 of the Court of Appeals which dismissed petitioner’s petition to set aside the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 50 in Civil Case No. G-1972, to wit: the Order, dated May 24, 1996 denying petitioner’s Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession; Order, dated August 28, 1996 denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof; Order, dated November 18, 1996 denying petitioner’s Notice of Appeal; and Order, dated March 7, 1997, denying their Motion for Reconsideration thereof.

The antecedent facts are undisputed:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

On July 7, 1988, plaintiffs (herein petitioners) filed before the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, a complaint against defendants (herein respondents) seeking to declare null and void the donation of a 245.42 square meter portion of the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4528, executed by plaintiff Rosario S. Vda. De Guiao in favor of defendants Rodolfo Guiao and Trinidad G. Mandal, as well as the separate sale of said portion by the defendants in favor of their co-defendants spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas likewise, as null and void. 1

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) and against the defendants (herein respondents), the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Declaring the ‘Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos’ (Exh.’B’) supposedly executed by plaintiff Rosario S. Vda. De Guiao in favor of defendants Trinidad Mandal and Rodolfo Guiao null and void and without force and effect;

2. Ordering defendant spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas to reconvey to plaintiffs, particularly to Rosario S. Vda. De Guiao, the 245.42 square meter lot subject of the repudiated deed of donation;

3. Ordering defendant Rodolfo Guiao to return the amount of P125,000.00 to defendant spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas, representing the purchase price of one-half of the 245.42 square meter lot sold by Rodolfo Guiao to the spouses Tubil, as shown by Exhibit ‘D’;

4. Ordering defendant Trinidad Mandal to return the amount of P16,500.00 to defendant spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas, representing the purchase price of the other half of the 245.42 square meter lot sold by Trinidad Mandal to the spouses Tubil, as shown by Exhibit ‘E’;

5. Ordering all defendants to pay jointly and severally plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Wilfredo G. Laxamana, the sum of P5,000.00 representing attorney’s fees; and

6. Ordering all defendants to pay jointly and severally the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. 2

On appeal, the above decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, to wit:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and the complaint dismissed. Costs against appellees.

SO ORDERED. 3

The record of the case was then returned to the court of origin on September 23, 1992, together with the entry of judgment which had become final and executory.

On April 27, 1995, respondent spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas, in order to take possession of their property, filed a motion with the trial court praying therein that a writ of possession be issued in their favor over the 245.42 square meter portion of the subject property.

On May 23, 1995, the trial court issued an Order granting the aforesaid Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession; and, on May 26, 1995, a Writ of Possession was issued.

On June 9, 1995, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession alleging therein that," (T)he dismissal of the complaint did not give rise to a right to take possession of the property involved. If ever, the only portion that may be executed from the said decision would be the costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

On May 24, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying the Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession. Said Order reads in part: ". . . in ruling that there is a valid donation in favor of the defendants-appellants (herein respondents), the Court of Appeals impliedly ruled that the defendants-appellants has (sic) the right to possess the land which they brought (sic) from the plaintiff-appellee Rosario Guiao." 4

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court denied anew on August 28, 1996.

On September 12, 1996, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order, dated May 24, 1996, denying the Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession.

On November 18, 1996, the trial court denied the Notice of Appeal.

Not satisfied, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court denied on March 7, 1997.

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assigning therein the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION, DESPITE THE EVIDENT VARIANCE BETWEEN THE SAID WRIT AND THE DECISIONS TO WHICH THE LATTER WAS ANCHORED; AND

2) THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY HEREIN PETITIONERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID APPEAL IS ALLOWED BY LAW AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. 5

Anent the second issue, the Court of Appeals said that while the lower court erred in denying petitioners’ notice of appeal, it (the appellate court) was taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari which is allowed under Section 1(f), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 The appellate court expounded on its reasoning, thus:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Under the Revised Rules of Court, only final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal. No interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other (vide Rule 41, Sec. 2). But as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the Supreme Court has allowed an exception to said rule. Thus, in the case of Paulino v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court had the occasion to state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ordinarily, an order of execution of a final and executory judgment is not appealable because otherwise, there would be no end to a case. However, if in the opinion of the defeated party, such order of execution varies the terms of the judgment and does not conform to the essence thereof, or the terms of the judgment does not allow room for interpretation and the interpretation given by the trial court as contained in its order of execution is wrong, the latter may appeal the order so that the Appellate tribunal may pass upon its legality and correctness." (G.R. No. 110271, February 28, 1994, 230 SCRA 475)

The respondent court therefore erred when it denied the notice of appeal filed by petitioners below.

Be that as it may, the case is now before us in a petition for certiorari which is likewise allowable not only under the old Rules (Limpin, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 516) but also under Section 1, paragraph (f), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Annotated by Justice Jose Y. Feria, p. 163). 7

The appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari upon the rationale that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession in favor of respondents. The appellate court ratiocinated, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

While it is true that the Decision of the then Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals was silent with regard to the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of private respondents, we cannot deny the fact that by virtue of the valid donation in favor of private respondents, ownership over the subject property had been transferred to private respondents Rodolfo Guiao and Trinidad Mandal. In the same vein, by virtue of the valid sales made by Rodolfo Guiao and Trinidad Mandal in favor of respondent spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas of the donated property, said private respondents are now the owners of the same. It would be defeating the ends of justice should we require that for private respondents to obtain possession of the property duly adjudged to be theirs, they must submit to court litigations anew and result in multiplicity of suits, which our judicial system abhors. The Supreme Court thus held that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Perez v. Evite, No. L-16003, March 29, 1961, 1 SCRA 949).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

x       x       x


Thus, the Supreme Court pronounced that,." . . the adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected (Olego v. Rebueno, No. L-39350, October 29, 1975, 67 SCRA 446). "When title to real or personal is adjudicated in favor of a party, the judgment will be enforced by giving the enjoyment of the property to the party in whose favor title to it has been decided." (Heirs of Caballero v. Judge Solano, G.R. 112518, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA 660; Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42108, May 10, 1995, 244 SCRA 72). 8

On December 23, 1998, petitioners filed the instant petition for review assailing the afore-quoted decision of the Court of Appeals. They make the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHICH AMOUNTS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION DESPITE THE FINDINGS THAT THE ORDER DENYING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS ERRONEOUS;

2. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO FORWARD THE CASE ON APPEAL BUT RULED ON THE ISSUE WHICH SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL. 9

Petitioners allege that the appellate court erred in ruling on the issue of whether or not the writ of possession was validly issued as this may properly be decided on appeal and not in the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners before said court. Petitioners further contend that the appellate court should have ordered the trial court to forward the records of the case for review on appeal upon finding that the court a quo erred in denying petitioners’ notice of appeal.

Petitioners’ arguments are bereft of merit.

As discussed above, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in denying the notice of appeal on the premise that the Supreme Court has allowed an exception to the rule that only final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal when in the afore-cited case of Paulino v. Court of Appeals, it ruled that when in the opinion of the defeated party, the order of execution varies the terms of the judgment and does not conform to the essence thereof, he may appeal the order.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

However, a perusal of the records will show that the instant case does not fall under the above-stated exception. In this case, the writ of possession clearly does not vary the terms of the judgment which affirmed the validity of the donation as well as the subsequent sale. As the appellate court correctly observed, by virtue of a valid donation in favor of respondents Rodolfo Guiao and Trinidad Mandal, ownership over the subject property had been transferred to the latter. In the same vein, by virtue of the valid sale made by the afore-named respondents in favor of respondent spouses Nicolas Tubil and Iluminada Canlas, the latter became the owners of the same. One of the attributes of ownership is possession; it follows, that respondent spouses, being the owners of the subject property, are entitled to possession of the same.

Clearly, therefore, the writ of possession issued by the trial court does not vary the terms of the judgment attributing ownership of the subject property to respondent spouses. On the contrary, said writ of possession conforms to the essence of the judgment of ownership.

Judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto; and, where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated party’s claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership. 10 Furthermore, adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected. In such a case, a writ of execution would be required if the defeated party does not surrender the possession of the property. 11 Here, there is no allegation, much less proof, that petitioners have any right to possess the land independent of their claim of ownership.

This is in conformity with Section 47 (c), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SECTION 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Emphasis supplied)

Anent the issue of propriety of the Court of Appeals’ ruling on the issue of correctness of the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of respondents, the Court finds that it did so only because petitioners themselves made this one of the assigned errors in their petition for certiorari before said appellate court. Petitioners are now estopped from questioning the Court of Appeals’ ruling on an issue which they themselves raised.

The Court of Appeals, in discussing the issue of propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession, only gave substance to its ruling that the lower court did not err in granting respondents’ motion for the issuance of said writ.

Moreover, to order the lower court to forward the records of the case for review on appeal, as petitioners would have it, when the issue subject of the appeal can properly be (and in fact has already been) ruled on by the appellate court, will only result in protracted litigation which is inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 19-20.

2. Id., at 20-21.

3. Id., at 21.

4. Id., at 22.

5. Id., at 23.

6. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

No appeal may be taken from:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(f) An order of execution;

x       x       x.

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 (n).

7. Rollo, pp. 23-24.

8. Id., at 24-25.

9. Id., at 12.

10. Perez v. Evite, 1 SCRA 949 (1961).

11. Olego v. Rebueno, 67 SCRA 446 (1975).




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.