Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108027. March 4, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


Accused-appellant Cristina Hernandez, together with Alexander Gaerlan, Engineer Rizalino Mendez, Engineer Pangilinan [sic], and Annie Bernardino, was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale in violation of Article 38 (a) and (b) 1 in relation to Article 39 (a) 2 and Article 13 (b) and (c) 3 of the Labor Code (PD. 442 as amended), committed as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"That on or about the period comprised from January 1986 and March 1986, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, being private individuals represented themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment or job placements to job applicants, namely: Ferdinand Calara, Pedro Bonifacio, Saturnino Agbayani, Ernesto Cruz, Inocencio Padilla, Edwin Mendello, Eugenio dela Cruz, Miguel Bernabe, Joel Monzon, Lucas Mangagil, Alberto Salvatierra, Graciano A. Daga and Luisito B. Mariñas, without first securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Contrary to law." 4

On March 31, 1989, Accused-appellant Hernandez and accused Mendez were arraigned. Both pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued, with the prosecution presenting four (4) witnesses, namely: Ferdinand Calara, Pedro Bonifacio, Ernesto Cruz and Luisito Mariñas. Thereafter, prosecution rested its case. Defense then presented accused-appellant Hernandez as its sole witness. Accused Mendez did not present any evidence on his behalf.

Prosecution witness Ferdinand Calara testified that he met accused-appellant through Annie Bernardino who brought him to Min-Asia Management Services (Min-Asia for brevity). Accused-appellant was introduced to Bernardino as the owner of the company. He likewise met Engineer Mendez and Alexander Gaerlan as Operations Managers and Engineer Pangilinan as Liaison Officer. Accused-appellant and her staff requested Calara, together with other recruits, to pay their placement and agent’s fees, and to submit requirements such as medical certificate, AIDS test, photos, passport, certificate of employment, NBI and police clearances. He was promised by the accused-appellant that he would be deployed abroad anytime within one week minimum to one month maximum. His placement location with be purportedly with ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia as general foreman and later as general skilled worker. 5

Another applicant who testified was Pedro Bonifacio; he stated that he met accused-appellant through his neighbor, Calara. Initially, the job vacancy offered to him was for a waiter. However, he was later informed that there was no more opening for said position. Instead, the post of general skilled worker at ARAMCO would be given to him. He likewise paid the necessary processing fees and submitted the necessary requirements. 6

Ernesto Cruz, another witness, testified that he was introduced to accused appellant by her agent, Bernardino. When he was at Min-Asia preparing his application, he met several other applicants all accompanied by Bernardino. He was likewise made to pay the processing fees. 7

The last witness, Luisito Mariñas, testified that as an applicant he met accused-appellant in Min-Asia through Diwang Tolentino. Mariñas was promised employment abroad as a laborer. He paid a portion of the processing fees in cash, but no receipt was issued. When his employment did not materialize, Mariñas sought to withdraw his money. Accused-appellant issued a check which bounced upon presentation for encashment, by reason of insufficient funds. 8

Payments made by the witnesses for processing of their applications as evidenced by receipts were submitted as exhibits for the prosecution. 9

On the part of the defense, Accused-appellant was presented as lone witness. She claimed that she held office in the same building as Min-Asia, and that she was engaged in the business of retailing Magnolia Chicken. According to her, she sub-leased to Min-Asia one-half of her office space but without a written lease contract between the parties. Her testimony mainly denied the averment that she was connected with Min-Asia (other than as a sub-lessor). She denied all allegations of holding any position with, or being an officer of, the recruitment agency. She further denied, being a stockholder of said agency. Although she testified as to the names of the owners of the agency, she denied any knowledge of their current whereabouts. Neither did she admit to ever personally meeting any of the complainants. She admitted having met co-defendant Mendez, but only because he was an employee of the agency and used to report for work at Min-Asia. She denied as her own the signatures appearing in the exhibits presented to her. 10

After weighing the testimonies and evidence presented, the trial court found the accused-appellant’s defense, which consisted mainly of denying the allegations presented by the witnesses for the prosecution, unconvincing. The trial judge pointed out that, as it has been consistently held by this Court, "the defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused recruited the applicant with the intention to defraud them of their placement fees." 11 Hence, the trial court held that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and disposed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds that the accused CRISTINA HERNANDEZ and RIZALINO MENDEZ, [are] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment, committed in a large scale, as defined in Article 38 (a) and (b) of Presidential Decree No. 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I, P.D. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c) of said Code as further amended by P.D. Nos. 169, 1920 and 2018, accordingly sentences both accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (RECLUSION PERPETUA) with the accessory penalties provided for by law, each to pay a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to return and pay, jointly and solidarily, to Calara the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000) PESOS; to Bonifacio the sum of THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P13,500.00) PESOS; to Cruz the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS; to Mariñas the sum of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (P6,300.00) PESOS; also without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.

Manila, Philippines, November 20, 1991." 12

Records of the case were forwarded to this Court by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, in view of the fact that penalty in this case is life imprisonment. 13 She now seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction on the sole ground that the lower court erred in appreciating the evidence presented by the prosecution in its favor, and disregarding the denial asserted by her.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

In her brief, appellant maintains that she has no personal connection in any way with Min-Asia, either as an officer or as a stockholder thereof. However, she admits that she was a lessor of the office space at Don Santiago Building in Taft Avenue but that she sub-leased half of her space to said agency. The names of the recruiters, Bernardino and Tolentino came up in the testimonies of the complainants but they were never apprehended nor brought to trial, thus she contends that she was held to answer for the charge being allegedly the only link to Bernardino who remains still at large. She denies the signatures indicated in several cash vouchers and receipts as her own. According to her, the fact that she was always seen at the agency, was a mistaken presumption of her connection with Min-Asia. Moreover, she explains the reason she was always within the vicinity of the agency was that the other half of the space rented out was her office. She further states that, it is "unusual and unnatural for the complainants who were all college graduates to entrust their hard earned money to a sexagenarian, [o]n the other hand, it is against human experience that a 64-year-old woman would risk being incarcerated by engaging in illegal recruitment." 14

After a thorough study and consideration of the evidence on record, we are inclined to affirm the trial court’s judgment. We find appellant, despite her denial, to have been engaged in the practice of illegal recruitment in large scale and thus violated the provisions of Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 39 (a) and Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. 15

Appellant’s argument is less than convincing. In the face of direct and positive evidence presented by four complainants against her, the appellant could interpose only the defense of denial. She would want the trial court to make her denial prevail over the testimonies and documents presented by the prosecution. However, nothing on record would show any ill-motive or bias whatsoever that would taint the prosecution’s evidence. It thus becomes impossible for an objective judge to overturn, without legal basis, precedents which maintain that denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between categorical statements of prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and bare denials of the accused, on the other hand, the former must perforce prevail. 16 All of the witnesses testified to having personally met the accused; they averred that she asked from them a sum of money in exchange for the promised employment overseas. Moreover, exhibits were presented in the form of receipts issued by and copies of the documentary requirements submitted to appellant. For appellant to say that she was merely chosen as a scapegoat for appellee’s misfortune, having failed to bring the alleged real recruiter to justice, does not appear well founded. It is but a hasty generalization of no probative significance. Without credible evidence proffered by the defense, bad faith or ulterior motive could not be imputed on the part of the appellees in pointing to the accused as the illegal recruiter who victimized them. When there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit. 17

If indeed appellant was merely the office neighbor of the real illegal recruiter, then there should be no plausible reason for complainants to harbor any grudge against appellant. Appellant’s brief describes her as a "hapless old woman", 18 and referred to complainants as educated "college graduates." 19 To hurl a criminal charge against a woman in her sixties knowing it carries with it such a heavy penalty as life imprisonment, just because complainants needed a "convenient fall guy to answer for their misfortune caused by their own gullibility", 20 goes against the grain of human nature. When a charge of such gravity is made, dismissing the charge as baseless on the basis of a simple denial, without more, could tax one’s credulity. Behind the accusations made by complainants are incontrovertible pieces of evidence found by the trial court, and to which we now give full faith and credence, as proving the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from testimonies, documentary evidence including receipts, bouncing checks, and employment application forms traceable to the appellant are on record. Moreover, we have no reason to discount the trial court’s appreciation of the complainant-witnesses’ truthfulness, honesty and candor. For such appreciation deserves the highest respect, since the trial court is best equipped to make the assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. Its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal. Furthermore, it is also in a vantage position to gauge the credibility of witnesses and to properly appreciate the relative weight of the often conflicting evidence presented by the parties. 21 The uncorroborated testimony of appellant, in our view is far from credible and utterly fails to overcome the great weight of the prosecution’s evidence concerning her guilt.

While the trial court correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, the court a quo inaccurately imposed upon appellant the penalty of "life imprisonment (RECLUSION PERPETUA)." Time and again we have emphasized the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua. Here, that distinction ought to be stressed anew. 22

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, convicting appellant Cristina M. Hernandez of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as defined and penalized under Articles 38 (a), (b) and (39) of the Labor Code is hereby AFFIRMED with the clarification that the penalty imposed therefor is life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 pursuant to Article 39 of the Labor Code. Except as so clarified, the appealed decision stands.

Costs against Appellant.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transactions, enterprise or scheme defined under first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

x       x       x


2. "Art. 39. Penalties. — (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


3. "Art. 13. Definitions. — . . .

(b) ‘Recruitment and placement’ refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

(c) ‘Private fee-charging employment agency’ means any person or entity engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for a fee which is charged, directly or indirectly, from the workers or employers or both.

x       x       x


4. INFORMATION; Rollo, p. 2.

5. DECISION – Crim Case No. 88-62599, p. 2; Rollo, p. 20.

6. Ibid., p. 3; Rollo, p. 21.

7. Id.

8. Id.

9. Id., pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 20-21.

10. Id., p. 4; Rollo, p. 22.

11. Id., p. 6; Rollo, p. 24.

12. Id., p. 8; Rollo, p. 26.

13. NOTICE OF APPEAL, Rollo, p. 17.

14. APPELLANT’S BRIEF, pp. 1-8; Rollo, pp. 59-66.

15. Supra, 1, 2 and 3.

16. People v. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687; People v. Miranda, 235 SCRA 202; People v. Bello, 237 SCRA 347.

17. See People v. Dela Cruz, 229 SCRA 754; People v. Matildo, 230 SCRA 635. People v. Cañeja, 235 SCRA 328.

18. Supra 14 at 7; Rollo, p. 65.

19. Ibid., p. 6; Rollo, p. 64.

20. Supra 17.

21. People v. Del Prado, 253 SCRA 731; People v. Mendoza, 254 SCRA 61; People v. Prado, 254 SCRA 531.

22. People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546, January 30, 1992; See also Administrative Circular No. 6-92, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


For the guidance of all concerned, the reiteration and admonition by the Court on the same subject in People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546, January 30, 1992, are reproduced hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘As noted from the dispositive portion of the challenged decision, the trial court imposed the penalty of" reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment." Evidently, it considered the latter as the English translation of the former, which is not the case. Both are different and distinct penalties. In the recent case of People v. Baguio, this Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘The Code does not prescribe the penalty of "life imprisonment" for any of the felonies therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special laws. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. It is not the same as ‘life imprisonment’ which, for one thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration.

‘As early as 1948, in People v. Mobe, reiterated in People v. Pilones and in the concurring opinion of Justice Ramon Aquino in People v. Sumadic, this Court already made it clear that reclusion perpetua is not the same as imprisonment for life or life imprisonment. Every Judge should take note of the distinction and this Court expects that, henceforth, no trial judge should mistake one for the other.’ (Emphasis supplied).

x       x       x




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO