Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 113070 September 30, 1998 - PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113070. September 30, 1999.]

HON. PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, Former Presiding Judge, Branch XLV, Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, JOSE A. GARCIA, TOMAS GARCIA, VIRGINIA A. GARCIA and MARIA A. DIAZ, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, FRANCISCA A. PONCE DE LEON, ANA MARIA A. DIAGO, AGUEDA A. DIONALDO, MA. LUISA A. VALERA, MA. CRISTINA A. LACSON, ANTONIO B. ARNAIZ, RAMON B. ARNAIZ, MA. MAGDALENA B. ARNAIZ, MA. MANUELA A. SINCO, TERESITA A. PALANCA, JOSEFINA A. TAMBUNTING, CONCHITA Z. ARNAIZ, VICENTE Z. ARNAIZ, LEOPOLDO Z. ARNAIZ, LIBRADA A. LARENA, ARACELI A. PRESTON, ANTONIO E. ARNAIZ, JOSE RAMON B. ARNAIZ and LEONARDO E. ARNAIZ, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


BUENA, J.:


Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the decision 1 of public respondent Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 24139, dated 22 January 1993, and the resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals, dated 05 November 1993, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.chanrobles law library : red

The dispositive portion of the assailed decision 3 of the appellate court reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for certiorari is granted and the assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental in Civil Case 139-B, are hereby nullified and set aside. The writ of prohibition is hereby issued and respondent judge or whoever acts in his behalf in RTC to which this case is assigned is enjoined from taking further action in Civil Case No. 139-B, except to order its immediate dismissal with prejudice.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

As culled from the records, the antecedents of the case, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioners and private respondents are co-owners of Arnaiz Hermanos, a hacienda consisting of several hectares of land devoted to the production and raising of sugar cane, coconut and other crops. Portions of the hacienda also serve as fishpond, salt bed and prawn farm.

Francisca Ponce De Leon along with the other private respondents owns around 64.485976% of the property while petitioners represent a total of 35.5140232%. 4chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

By virtue of a special power of attorney 5 , the co-owners appointed petitioner Jose Garcia, (GARCIA for short) as administrator of the property.

Petitioner Garcia, who owns a 5.91900305% share 6 and who acted as attorney-in-fact of the co-owners, wielded almost absolute power over the property. Among other acts, he decided on the crops planted; the investments made; the equipment used; the purchases done; the produce sold and the quantity, price and time to sell the produce. Moreover, he exercised full control over the funds of the co-ownership, including the distribution thereof to the co-owners.

At the outset, the co-owners took Garcia’s words hook, line and sinker due to the trust and confidence reposed on the latter. With the passage of time, however, the trust and confidence waned; the respondents started to entertain doubts on the manner Garcia administered the property. The respondents wondered why they received only so much when, in their belief, they were entitled to receive more. Likewise, they questioned the manner of distribution of profits prompting the respondents to hire the services of Petronilo S. Santos & Co., a Manila based accounting firm, to conduct an audit 7 of the books of the co-ownership.

The audit resulted to a startling discovery 8 of disbursements, expenditures, withdrawal of funds, deposits and investments which were improperly made and thus, prejudicial to the interest of the co-owners.

As a consequence of these findings, the co-owners, by virtue of resolutions 9 approved by the majority, decided to manage and operate the farm themselves, including its financial matters, and required Garcia to render a fair, true and complete accounting of the transactions entered into by him as administrator.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Eventually, the rift borne by the discovery provoked the co-owners to terminate the co-ownership and divide the property among themselves.

On 17 November 1990, after having agreed on the mechanics of the partition, the petitioners and private respondents, either personally or through duly authorized representatives, convened on November 17, 1990 and partitioned the property owned in common 10 .

In the assemblage, private respondents moved that Garcia be made to account for the proceeds of the operation of the farm during his incumbency as administrator. Petitioner Garcia, however, walked out of the meeting. Notwithstanding Garcia’s absence, the co-owners declared the existence of a quorum and implemented the resolution 11 which earlier revoked the special power of attorney executed in favor of Garcia.

By a majority vote of the co-owners, an action for accounting, docketed as Civil Case 9803 12 was filed against Garcia before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On 23 November 1990, petitioner Garcia filed a complaint for partition 13 with ex parte appointment of receiver, docketed as Civil Case No. 139-B, before the RTC of Bais City, Branch XLV, the lone branch in said city.

On 26 November 1990, herein petitioners filed an urgent ex parte motion for appointment of receiver, 14 which failed to contain a notice of hearing. No copy of the motion was sent to the private respondents.

A day later, the presiding judge of RTC Branch XLV issued an order 15 dated 27 November 1990, 16 appointing lawyer Enrico Garcia as receiver, without any hearing subject however to the filing of a P30,000.00 bond as fixed by the court.

On 28 November 1990, lawyer Enrico Garcia complied with the order of the court by filing the necessary bond 17 and on the same date took his oath of office as receiver. 18

Private respondents, through Ana Maria A. Diago filed with the same court a motion 19 for inhibition and recall and/or annulment of all orders issued in connection with Civil Case No. 139-B.cralawnad

Eventually, lawyer Enrico Garcia, as receiver, filed on December 10, 1990, a motion ex parte 20 in Civil Case 139-B, which sought to grant him authority to withdraw funds from the bank. The motion failed to contain a notice of hearing and private respondents were not furnished with a copy thereof.

In an order 21 dated 06 December 1990, the judge denied the motion for inhibition filed by the respondents.

On 20 December 1990, the lower court denied private respondents’ motion for annulment of the orders and granted the ex parte motion of the receiver, Enrico Garcia, dated 03 December 1990, which authorized the latter to withdraw the amount of P264,321.74 from the Far East Bank and Trust Company, Dumaguete City and/or from the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Bais City, Negros Oriental.

Subsequently, in an order 22 dated 30 January 1991, the lower court granted anew the ex parte motion of the receiver Enrico Garcia, which in effect, empowered the latter to withdraw funds for the operation of the co-ownership property; to sell sugar, molasses, copra, salt and fish products and to deposit the proceeds of the sale with the bank.

On 24 July 1991, the parties entered into a compromise agreement 23 in Civil Case No. 9979 and submitted the same to the court for approval.

The compromise agreement, reads in full thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Comes now the parties duly assisted by their respective counsel unto this Honorable Court hereby submit the following compromise agreement:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

1. That plaintiffs and private defendants hereby agree that the funds of the co-ownership Arnaiz Hermanos which were deposited before the Rural Bank of Bais City under the Savings Account No. 9728 can only be withdrawn upon the authority and signatures of Ana Maria A. Diago and Jose A. Garcia;

2. All other funds of the co-ownership wherever they may be found shall likewise be withdrawn only upon the authority and signatures of Mr. Jose A. Garcia and Ana Maria A. Diago; In this connection, Ana Maria A. Diago and Jose A. Garcia are hereby authorized to open and close account on behalf of the co-ownership funds in whatever bank they may deem appropriate;

3. That the parties hereby agree that whatever remaining balance of the funds of the co-ownership over and above existing and recognized obligations of the co-ownership shall be immediately distributed among the parties in accordance with their respective shares in the co-ownership, provided, however, in case of dispute among the parties as to any obligations of the partnership, the questioned amount of the disputed obligations shall remain deposited in common funds of the co-ownership and can only be withdrawn upon final resolution of the dispute or controversy;

4. All properties of the co-ownership whether real or personal which can be easily divided physically in accordance with the respective shares of the parties of the co-ownership shall be immediately distributed, as far as practicable, the subdivision plan dated 17 November 1990 which was previously agreed upon by the parties shall be respected;chanrobles.com : virtual law library

5. Once the aforementioned properties is (sic) distributed to the respective parties in accordance with their respective shares, each party is free to manage, administer and enjoy his respective share;

6. The parties shall exert earnest efforts in arriving at a final settlement and partition of all the other properties, whether real or personal owned in common by them. In this connection, the parties hereby agree that they shall endeavour to achieve complete settlement of the co-ownership within 30 days from the signing of this agreement; Parties therefore set the following schedules for conference on August 03, 10, 24 and 31, 1991 in the morning and afternoon at the office of the SDD & Co.

7. Pending final winding up of the affairs of the co-ownership, the parties hereby agree that whatever properties remaining of the co-ownership shall be jointly administered by Ana Maria A. Diago and Jose A. Garcia;

8. All other claims and counterclaims of the parties in connection with the above-entitled case are hereby waived.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered on the basis of this compromise agreement.

Dumaguete City, Philippines, July 24, 1991.

Plaintiffs by:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Sgd)

Jose A. Garcia

Defendants by:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Sgd.)

Ana Maria A. Diago"

Accordingly, the compromise agreement was approved by the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch XLII, in an order, 24 dated 25 July 1991, the dispositive portion of which declares:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the aforestated compromise agreement having been executed in accordance with law and not contrary to public policy and moral, the same is hereby approved and judgment is hereby rendered in accordance herewith without pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

July 25, 1991, Dumaguete City, Philippines.

(Sgd.)

Jesus L. Tabilon

Judge"

Herein private respondents then brought before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, docketed as C.A. G.R. No. 24139, which sought to annul or set aside the lower court’s orders dated 27 November 1990; 06 December 1990; 20 December 1990 and 30 January 1991, in Civil Case 139-B.

In granting the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by private respondent, the Court of Appeals declared 25 :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After carefully reviewing the records of this case, We perceive the following important data: (1) that ex parte motions are mere scraps of papers (Manila Surety Co. v. Bath Construction & Co., L-16636, June 24, 1965) and should not have been acted upon; (2) that a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 139-B is so important as to be wrongfully ignored by mere ex parte motions; (3) that a question of inhibition involves an important question of faith in the administration of justice as to be easily ignored or cast aside; (4) that the absence of notice or opportunity to be heard violates the fundamental principle of due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction; and (5) that since partition of the property of the decedent’s ‘Hacienda’ has already been agreed upon by the parties, Civil Case No. 139-B is inappropriate and baseless and should have been dismissed outright."cralaw virtua1aw library

Aggrieved by the decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated 19 February 1993 which the appellate court denied for lack of merit 26 .

Hence, this petition, wherein the following errors 27 were ascribed to the Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it granted the respondents’ petition for certiorari and nullified and set aside the assailed orders of the lower court because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. There was no grave abuse of discretion when the assailed orders were issued.

2. The respondents’ resort to mere procedural technicalities did not serve the highest interest of substantial justice.

3. The respondents were afforded due process before the assailed orders were issued.

4. The respondents’ motion to dismiss was not wrongfully ignored by mere ex parte motions.

II. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ of prohibition and enjoining the presiding judge of the lower court from taking further action in Civil Case 139-B except to order its immediate dismissal with prejudice because:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

1. The issuance of the writ of prohibition in effect had decided Civil Case 139-B on the merits thereby denying petitioners their day in court.

2. The parties had not even started to present evidence in Civil Case No. 139-B before the lower court.

The core of the controversy centers on the effect of the compromise agreement entered into by the parties and approved by the court, on the action for partition with ex parte appointment of receiver, docketed as Civil Case No. 139-B filed by herein petitioner Jose Garcia.

As to the substantive issues raised, petitioners urge that the issuance of the writ of prohibition by the appellate court in effect resolved the merits of Civil Case No. 139-B, thereby denying petitioners their day in court.

We are not impressed with petitioners’ contention.

Assuming that the parties in Civil Case No. 139-B had yet to adduce evidence before the lower court, as alleged by petitioner Jose Garcia, Civil Case No. 139-B is nonetheless rendered moot in view of the judicially sanctioned compromise agreement.

Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. A judicial compromise has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties. 28 Once an agreement is stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties, and having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. 29chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Applying the clear provisions of law and jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, the compromise agreement entered into between the parties, as represented by Jose Garcia on the part of the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) and Ana Maria Diago, on the part of the defendants (herein private respondents), constitutes and operates as a partition that effectively terminated the relation of co-ownership over the properties contemplated thereunder.

It is settled that every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction. 30

Significantly, as early as 17 November 1990, the parties already convened, agreed on the mechanics of the partition and apportioned the property owned in common. Notwithstanding such glaring fact, petitioner Jose Garcia decided to file a complaint for partition with ex parte appointment of receiver docketed as Civil Case No. 139-B. Eventually though, a compromise agreement was forged on 24 July 1991 between the co-owners, as duly represented by petitioner Garcia on the part of the plaintiffs and private respondent Diago on the part of the defendants.

A perusal of the compromise agreement in the instant case would reveal that herein petitioner Jose Garcia was a signatory to the compromise partition dated 24 July 1991. The records would likewise indubitably show that the compromise partition was duly approved by the Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, in an order dated 25 July 1991.chanrobles law library : red

Be that as it may, the partition for which Civil Case No. 139-B was filed had already been realized through the execution of the compromise agreement by the co-owners and the subsequent approval thereof by the court. Stated differently, inasmuch as the co-owners have already agreed to partition the property and in fact appointed Ana Maria Diago and Jose Garcia, as joint administrators during the winding-up period, and considering that the compromise agreement had been duly stamped with judicial approval, the pending issues in Civil Case No. 139-B have already been rendered moot and academic.

The law provides that a compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata. 31 It is axiomatic that a decision based on a compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. A compromise agreement, once approved by final orders of the court, has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery. 32

We see no reason to depart from the general rule in the absence of any vice of consent or forgery clearly established in this case. Indeed, compromises are generally to be favored and cannot be set aside if the parties acted in good faith and made reciprocal concessions to each other in order to terminate a case. 33chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

After all, reciprocal concessions are the very heart and life of every compromise agreement. 34 To lend flesh and blood to this aphorism, the Civil Code not only defines and authorizes compromises, it in fact encourages them in civil actions. 35 Thus Article 2029 of the Civil Code expressly states that the Court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.

Verily, the co-owners by their compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 139-B, contracted, among others, to partition the co-ownership property and to distribute it among themselves. Similarly, the co-owners authorized Ana Maria Diago and Jose Garcia to act as joint administrators pending the final winding-up of the affairs of the co-ownership. Moreover, the parties agreed to waive their respective claims and counterclaims in connection with the case.

We therefore hold that the compromise agreement transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto. Having been approved by a court of law, it has become a judgment which is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.cralawnad

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA - G.R. SP No. 24139 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. C.A. Decision in C.A. GR No. 24139, promulgated on 22 January 1993, penned by Justice Jainal Rasul and concurred in by Justice Emeterio Cui and Justice Pacita Canizares-Nye.

2. Rollo p. 36.

3. Ibid., p. 34-35.

4. Ibid., p. 29.

5. Ibid., p. 29.

6. Ibid., p. 29.

7. Records, p. 72.

8. Rollo, p. 30.

9. Record, pp. 98-105.

10. Ibid., p. 106-110.

11. Resolution No. 1, S. of 1989; O.R., P. 170.

12. Ibid., p. 31.

13. Record, p. 35.

14. Comment, p. 3; Rollo, p. 46. Record p. 20.

15. Comment, p. 4; Rollo, p. 47; O.R., p. 45.

16. Hon. Judge Pampio Abarintos, presiding judge, RTC of Bais City, Branch XLV.

17. Records, p. 51.

18. Ibid., p. 54.

19. Ibid., pp. 59-60.

20. Ibid., p. 121.

21. Ibid., p. 121.

22. Ibid., pp. 241-242.

23. Rollo, p. 133-135.

24. Ibid., pp. 136-138.

25. C.A. Decision; Rollo, pp. 28-35, 34-35.

26. Resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 05 November 1993; Rollo, p. 36.

27. Petition for Review on Certiorari; Rollo, p. 14.

28. Ynson v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 411 (1996).

29. Domingo v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 189 (1996).

30. Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 647 (1997).

31. Article 2037, Civil Code.

32. Santos v. Dames, II, 280 SCRA 13 (1997).

33. Amarante v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 104.

34. Report of the Code Commission; p. 154, cited in Litton v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 40 (1996).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

35. Osmeña v. Commission on Audit, 238 SCRA 463 (1994).




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.