Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 130425 September 30, 1998 - ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130425. September 30, 1999.]

ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION, CAPT. RICARDO D. DICON and PATERNO M. ABELLERA, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeks to annul the 13 June 1997 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which held that petitioner’s dismissal was valid thereby reversing the 19 August 1996 decision of Labor Arbiter Ernesto B. Dinopol declaring petitioner’s dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with payment of back wages and 13th month pay, and its 22 August 1997 Resolution denying reconsideration.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Private respondent Robinsons Land Corporation (RLC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the realty business. Private respondents Paterno M. Abellera and Ricardo D. Dicon are RLC’s Asst. Vice-Pres. for Complex Administration, and Corporate Security and Safety Officer, respectively.

In May 1993 petitioner Cañete Jr. was hired by private respondent RLC as Security Officer assigned at the Robinsons Galleria Shopping Mall (hereafter referred to as the MALL) located at Ortigas Avenue, Mandaluyong City, with the latest salary of P6,400.00 per month.

On 1 November 1995 RLC Shift Security Supervisor Jess L. Balajadia caught a vendor by the name of Ben C. Maniago selling food to tenants and employees inside the MALL in violation of RLC’s rules and regulations. During interrogation, Maniago claimed that he had the blessings and permission of In-house Security Officer Cañete Jr. and private agency Security Guard-in-Charge Mauro A. Montefalco to sell food inside the MALL. Thereafter, Maniago executed a handwritten statement admitting that he had been selling food inside the MALL since February 1995 and that he was allowed to do so on the condition that he would give "Magnum" (Cañete’s call sign) and Montefalco free daily meals. However, he later modified his position and declared that while he supplied Cañete Jr. and Montefalco food everyday they would pay him during payday.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On 2 December 1995 Lt. Col. Rosalina Bailen, 1 Head of RLC Security and Safety, issued a memorandum requiring both Cañete Jr. and Montefalco to submit their written explanation either confirming or denying the allegations.

In his written statement, petitioner Cañete Jr. admitted having ordered food from Ben Maniago but denied that he received the same for free. He claimed that he paid for the food during payday and that Maniago had previously been apprehended but was released after he explained that the food was intended for the MALL’s low-wage sales personnel. Cañete Jr. likewise pointed out that vendors also plied food at the Office Tower and the other administrative offices of RLC and their being prevalent made him believe that it was allowed. For his part Montefalco, in his written statement, also admitted having bought food from Maniago but likewise claimed that he paid for the same during payday.

On 6 December 1995, after deliberating on Cañete Jr.’s explanation, private respondent RLC issued a memorandum terminating his services on the ground of loss of confidence, and declaring that "security is a position of trust and confidence" and that his "actuations were observed to be against the normal norm of being an in-house security officer."cralaw virtua1aw library

On 17 January 1996 Cañete Jr. filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against private respondents for illegal dismissal, underpayment of overtime pay, non-payment of salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and other money claims. In answer to the charges, private respondents reasoned that in allowing an outside vendor to sell food inside the MALL in exchange for free meals for himself, Cañete Jr. violated Secs. 2.04 and 2.08 of the "Employee Discipline Policies and Guidelines" which specifically provided for the penalty of discharge, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

SECTION 2.04. Obtaining or accepting money or anything of value by entering into an arrangement(s) with supplier(s) client(s) or other outsider(s) . . . .

SECTION 2.08. Breach by employee of the trust reposed in him by management or by a company representative.

On 19 August 1996 Labor Arbiter Dinopol ruled in favor of Cañete Jr. declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering payment of his back wages and 13th month pay for 1995 but denying his other claims. Labor Arbiter Dinopol further held that the act prohibited by company rules was the "act of obtaining or accepting money or anything of value by entering into unauthorized arrangements" which Cañete Jr. did not do under the premises.

Consequently, private respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC. On 13 June 1997 the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring that private respondents were justified in dismissing Cañete Jr. since he was tasked with the enforcement of company rules and policies inside the MALL and having been proved to be remiss in his duty by his patent acquiescence to Maniago’s illicit activities, private respondents had every reason to lose their trust and confidence in him.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

On 17 July 1997 Cañete Jr. moved for reconsideration which the NLRC rejected in its Resolution of 22 August 1997.

Petitioner now contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that he was validly dismissed despite the failure of private respondents to sufficiently prove just cause. He argues that the unsworn statements and documents they submitted are inadmissible as evidence as they are mere hearsay and without probative value.

The contention is without merit. The documents submitted by private respondents before the Labor Arbiter are not hearsay and can be accorded probative value because Sec. 3, Rule V, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically allows the parties to submit position papers accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which take the place of their testimony. It is not necessary that the affidavits and other documents presented conform with the technical rules of evidence since in labor cases the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. 2 It is sufficient that the documents submitted by the parties have a bearing on the issue at hand and support the positions taken by them. Moreover, petitioner cannot on this late day object to the admission of evidence on the ground that it is hearsay as the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The failure of a party to object to the admission of evidence constitutes a waiver of his right to make such objection, and consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner also contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding just cause for petitioner’s dismissal on the basis of its strained interpretation of private respondents’ guidelines under Sec. 2.04 specifically the concept of "anything of value." He argues that the extension of credit to him can hardly be equated with "anything of value" as the rule intends to deter employees from receiving "kickbacks" in terms of money or anything of value from suppliers, clients or outsiders and does not apply to "vendors."cralaw virtua1aw library

We do not agree. Sec. 2.04 was correctly interpreted by the NLRC to encompass the extension of credit to petitioner Cañete Jr. by Maniago inasmuch as the latter could not have sold him food on credit if he did not allow Maniago to sell food to other employees inside the MALL. The extension of credit was therefore the consideration for Maniago’s entry into the MALL premises without being bothered by MALL security. To limit the meaning of "anything of value" to "kickbacks" alone would be to jeopardize company interests as RLC clearly intended to prohibit its employees from receiving money or any other consideration by entering into "any and all arrangements." It would likewise be a myopic interpretation of said rule if vendors were to be excluded from the prohibition since Sec. 2.04 clearly states "by entering into an arrangement with suppliers, clients or other outsiders." The NLRC thus correctly held that while it may be concluded that Cañete Jr. and Montefalco did not directly receive money from Maniago, the privilege of buying their food from him on credit is indubitably to be considered as something of value in exchange for their assent to Maniago’s vending activities.

Petitioner further claims that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it declared that private respondents validly dismissed him on the ground of loss of trust and confidence since he merely ordered food from Maniago and allowed him entrance into the MALL premises in the honest belief that the latter was not engaged in vending but was merely delivering food to low-wage earners who could not afford the prices at the fast food stalls. Moreover, he avers that buying food on credit is but a minor infraction which does not warrant his dismissal.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

We do not agree. Petitioner Cañete Jr.’s concern for the lowly paid employees of the commercial establishment cannot conceal the fact that he violated company regulations. Evidence submitted by private respondents revealed that Cañete Jr. received food on credit from Maniago and this was the consideration or the thing of value he obtained in exchange for allowing Maniago to perform a prohibited activity. While petitioner’s altruism is to be applauded, the same cannot prevail over a clear company policy not to admit vendors and to enter into any arrangement with outsiders for a consideration. His effort to effect good faith in allowing Maniago to enter the MALL premises also fails in view of the 2 February 1995 Memorandum issued by Corporate Security and Safety Officer Ricardo D. Dicon which strictly prohibited illegal vendors from entering and doing business inside the MALL.

I reiterate to all security personnel that illegal vendors are strictly prohibited to enter and do their business inside the mall. Anybody caught tolerating this business will be dealt with accordingly.

For strict compliance. 3

Loss of confidence can be a ground for dismissing an employee when there is basis for the same or when the employer has reasonable ground to believe, if not entertain, the moral conviction that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. 4 By petitioner Cañete Jr.’s actions private respondent RLC lost all faith, trust and confidence in him and in his ability to respect and carry out company policies and regulations.cralawnad

Petitioner insists that he cannot be dismissed on the basis of loss of trust and confidence since the position of a security officer is not one of trust and confidence. He argues that a security guard is entrusted only with the physical task of protecting property and the employers’ trust and confidence in him is to the execution of his ministerial functions alone. 5 He is not entrusted with the duties of safekeeping and safeguarding of company policies, management instructions and company secrets; hence, he cannot be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence.

Contrary to petitioner’s claim, he was not a mere security guard but one of the seven In-house Security and Safety Officers of private respondent corporation and, as such, occupied a position of trust and confidence. Moreover, apart from being an in-house security officer, he was assigned the following additional responsibility contained in the Memorandum dated 20 June 1995 of the RLC’s Security and Safety Office:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

MR. ANTONIO CAÑETE — will be responsible on all cases subject for investigations, thus, he will be acting as Security Investigator on all crimes against persons or properties committed within our jurisdiction. 6chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Private respondent RLC had clearly placed reliance on petitioner Cañete Jr.’s abilities, otherwise it would not have assigned him such a vital function.

Petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that he was validly dismissed despite failure of private respondents to observe due process. He avers that he was terminated without having received a formal charge stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for his dismissal and was only informed thereof during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. On 2 December 1995 he received a memorandum requiring him to confirm or deny the veracity of Security Shift Supervisor Balajadia’s report. Shortly thereafter he was fired for loss of confidence without having been informed of the basis thereof. His alleged violation of Secs. 2.04 and 2.08 surfaced only when RLC submitted its position papers before the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner’s contention is baseless. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 7 This requirement is met where one is given a chance to explain his side of the controversy, even if no hearing is conducted. In the instant case, petitioner was apprised of the charges against him as shown by the 2 December 1995 memorandum issued by Head of RLC Security and Safety Lt. Col. Rosalina Bailen requesting him to answer the charges made against him. He then submitted a full-length explanation in his defense and even acknowledged the opportunity given him by the management to explain his side. Hence, contrary to petitioner’s allegations, he was accorded due process before his termination.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Lastly, petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying him his 13th month pay since private respondents never questioned the award thereof.

We agree. Petitioner should be paid his full 13th month pay for 1995 since private respondents never assailed the award before the Labor Arbiter. We cannot adhere to private respondents’ claim that he should only be paid one-half (1/2) thereof on the ground that he received the same in his November payroll since this is the first time this matter has been alleged.

WHEREFORE, the questioned Resolution dated 13 June 1997 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission declaring the dismissal of petitioner Antonio C. Cañete Jr. to be valid, as well as its Resolution of 22 August 1997 denying reconsideration, is AFFIRMED with the sole MODIFICATION that private respondents Robinsons Land Corporation, Capt. Ricardo D. Dicon and Paterno M. Abellera should pay petitioner his full 13th month pay for the year 1995.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Also referred to as "Rosalita" in the NLRC Resolution of 13 June 1997.

2. Art. 221, Labor Code as amended; Salonga v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118120, 23 February 1996, 254 SCRA 11, citing Cagampan v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 85122-24, 28 March 1991, 195 SCRA 533.

3. Rollo, p. 206.

4. Hernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 84392,10 August 1989, 176 SCRA 269; Valladolid v. Inciong, G.R. Nos. 52364 and 53349, 25 March 1983, 121 SCRA 205.

5. Marina Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80962, 28 January 1991, 193 SCRA 420.

6. Rollo, p. 141.

7. Ibid.




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.