Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > November 1999 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504 November 16, 1999 - ANG KEK CHEN v. AMALIA R. ANDRADE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504. November 16, 1999.]

ANG KEK CHEN, Complainant, v. JUDGE AMALIA R. ANDRADE, Branch 5, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is an administrative case filed by Ang Kek Chen against respondent Judge Amalia R. Andrade of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, for serious misconduct, gross inefficiency, and extreme bias and partiality. The complaints, four (4) in all, have been filed against respondent judge in connection with her handling of Civil Case No. 90-52142, entitled "Visayan Surety and Insurance Company v. Estate of Choi Chee Ten, Et Al.," of which complainant Ang Kek Chen is one of the defendants.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The complaints were referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which on January 25, 1999, submitted a report, the pertinent parts of which read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In a VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated June 9, 1997, complainant charged respondent Judge Amalia R. Andrade, RTC, Branch 25, Manila with serious misconduct relative to Civil Case No. 90-52142 entitled "Visayan Surety and Insurance Company v. Estate of Choi Chee Tin, Et. Al."cralaw virtua1aw library

Complainant, who is one of the defendants in the aforecited civil case, alleges that on May 20, 1997, he went to respondent court to look into the case records and discovered that the Order dated April 22, 1997 denying his Motion for Disqualification was not mailed to him nor to his counsel allegedly upon instruction of respondent Judge. He asserts that upon verification of the case records, he noticed that no proof of service was attached to the record to show that the aforesaid Order was also mailed to plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Parungao. Upon inquiry, he was informed that Atty. Parungao personally received said Order when the latter attended the hearing on April 22, 1997. However, when he requested for proof of service thereof, none was shown him. He argues that respondent Judge’s concealment of the said Order shows her extreme bias and hostility against him and his counsel. In this complaint, he therefore prays for the disqualification of respondent Judge.

On June 30, 1997, another VERIFIED COMPLAINT was again filed by complainant against respondent Judge for serious inefficiency relative to the care and custody of the records of Civil Case No. 90-52142. He claims that sometime in June 1997, he inspected the records of the case and found the same in disheveled/dilapidated condition, with no cover, with the papers merely stapled, and worse with a considerable number of pages missing. Consequently, on July 3, 1997, he filed a supplement to his complaints captioned "Motion to Act and Motion to Order Disqualification" on ground of shabby record-keeping.

In a VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated January 9, 1998, complainant charged respondent Judge with serious inefficiency and serious misconduct for violation of Canon 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics (Influence of decisions upon the development of the law), and violation of Canon 1 (A Judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), Canon 2 (A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities) and Canon 3 (A Judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence) of the Code of Judicial Conduct claiming that during one of the hearings of the case, plaintiff’s counsel manifested before the Court that the other defendant, Mr. Tui Hok, died on January 5, 1990. Despite admission of plaintiff’s counsel of the fact of death of Mr. Tui Hok, respondent court kept on sending orders and notices to the deceased at 114 West Riverside St., Quezon City, which, according to complainant, is in violation of the Rule that no court can acquire jurisdiction over a dead person.

Complainant likewise alleges that on September 16, 1997 he filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the substitution of the deceased defendant Tui Hok by his heirs and for summons to be served on the latter. Despite repeated follow-ups, manifestations and motions, respondent Judge refused to act on said Omnibus Motion and instead issued the Order dated December 11, 1997 setting the case for trial for the last time on January 21, 1998 with or without the presence of defendants’ counsel.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Complainant further alleges that during the hearing on December 11, 1997, he made a verbal request to cite plaintiff’s counsel in contempt for failure to attend the hearing despite due notice. In open court, respondent Judge shouted, mocked and sneered at him and told him, in a voice full of hatred, that he does not know the legal procedure as it was not the appropriate pleading; and

In a LETTER-COMPLAINT dated September 7, 1998, complainant charged respondent Judge with bias and partiality alleging that the latter obstinately refused to inhibit/disqualify herself from trying the case despite numerous motions filed by complainant.

In two comments, the first undated 1 and the second one dated December 28, 1998, 2 respondent judge denied the accusations leveled against her by complainant. First, she attributes the filing of the complaints against her to her denial of complainant’s motion to suspend proceedings in Civil Case No. 90-52142. She alleged that complainant retaliated by filing several motions for her inhibition, all of which were denied by respondent judge in an Order, dated September 13, 1996. Despite the denial of his motion, complainant persisted in filing pleadings based on the same grounds.

Respondent judge explained that when she took over Civil Case No. 90-52142, the records already consisted of three volumes, but the case had yet to be tried. She claimed that when all of complainant’s pleadings which contain caricatures were segregated, they made up another thick volume. She likewise claimed that Civil Case No. 90-52142 had been assigned to other judges before her but no one wanted to have the case after experiencing the practice of complainant of filing numerous pleadings, strewn with caricatures and newspaper clippings, and containing offensive, scurrilous and libelous language not germane to the issues of the case.

Second, respondent judge denied that she had concealed her Order of April 22, 1997. She explained that it is her practice to dictate her orders in open court immediately after the proceedings in each case; that the orders are transcribed, corrected, signed, and released in the afternoon or in the morning of the following day; and that it is the clerk of court who released the orders.

Respondent judge alleged that complainant would go to the court a day before the scheduled hearing of his case or early in the morning before the start of the trial, but would not attend the actual trial or send his lawyer to represent him. Instead, he would return in the afternoon after the morning’s proceedings to check on what had transpired and get a copy of any order issued that day. Complainant, however, refused to sign the receipt of orders served on him and denied having been furnished a copy of the same.

Third, with respect to the charge that notices and orders continued to be sent to defendant Tui Hok, respondent judge explained that it was because no proof had been submitted to her court to prove the reported death of defendant Tui Hok.

Finally, respondent judge contended that complainant had failed to substantiate the charges of her alleged character deficiencies and vindictiveness. She admitted that, once, she issued a stern warning to complainant after a member of her staff caught complainant writing on the minutes of the hearing of his case. Respondent judge confronted complainant and told him that the minutes were public records and he was altering, if not falsifying, public records.

After evaluating the facts, the Office of the Court Administrator recommends that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. this instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as an Administrative Matter;

2. with the exception of the charge relative to the care and custody of case records, the complaint against respondent Judge Amalia R. Andrade be DISMISSED for failure to substantiate the charges;

3. respondent Judge be REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to be more vigilant in the supervision and management of the personnel and the state of the docket in her sala; and

4. the directive of this Court in its Resolution dated July 29, 1997 in A.M. No. 95-8-274-RTC (Re: Letter-Complaint of Mr. Ang Kek Chen) to REFRAIN from filing his pleadings with this Court containing as in the previous pleadings, scurrilous and libelous remarks be REITERATED otherwise he will be made to account for his acts.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

These recommendations are well-taken.

Indeed, the records show that complainant has been persistently filing pleadings containing extraneous matters such as caricatures, newspaper clippings, and quotations. In its Memorandum, the Office of the Court Administrator points out that complainant "is not a lawyer but claims to have substantially read law books that helped him understand substantive legal principles and procedural rules. His incursions into lawyering resulted in the institution and prosecution of his cases in different fora where he dogmatically pontificates on errors supposedly committed by judges, lawyers and court personnel." 3 Worse, the pleadings and motions filed by complainant contain remarks which are scurrilous and libelous. Complainant was advised to secure the services of counsel, but he has insisted on preparing his pleadings by himself. His co-defendant’s counsel offered his services, which apparently complainant has refused. The result has been that complainant has not only brought the judicial process into disrepute but caused a delay in the disposition of his case.

Nor is there any basis for the charge of serious inefficiency against respondent judge based on her alleged failure to take judicial notice of the death of defendant Tui Hok despite manifestations of plaintiff’s counsel.

Under �16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is provided that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of a counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action . . .

Clearly, the duty of informing the court of the death of a party is on the counsel of the deceased. 4 In Heirs of Maximo Regoso v. Court of Appeals, 5 we held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Under the rules, it is the duty of the attorney for the deceased defendant to inform the court of his client’s death and to furnish the court with the names and residences of the executor, administrator, or legal representative of the deceased . . .

The rules operate on the presumption that the attorney for the deceased party is in a better position than the attorney for the adverse party to know about the death of his client and to inform the court of the names and addresses of his legal representative or representatives.

In the case at bar, no such notice of death, nor a motion for substitution of the deceased defendant, was ever made. Hence, the trial court could not be expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of defendant, Maximo Regoso, without the proper manifestation from his counsel. It must be remembered that the fault or negligence was Attorney Javier’s alone.

Respondent judge cannot be blamed for sending copies of the orders and notices to defendant Tui Hok in the absence of proof of death or manifestation to that effect from his counsel. Nor can she be faulted for not resolving the Motion for Substitution filed by complainant as co-defendant in the civil case, and opting instead to reset the case for trial.

We likewise agree with the finding of the Court Administrator that complainant failed to substantiate his allegation of serious misconduct. There is no basis for the allegation that the failure to serve him a copy of the order dated April 22, 1997 was due to the instruction of respondent judge. In Apiag v. Judge Cantero, 6 we ruled that in order that a judge may be held liable for serious misconduct, there must be "reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules." There is no such evidence presented in this case.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

With respect to the charge of bias and partiality against respondent judge resulting from her denial of complainant’s Motions for Inhibition, this Court’s Circular No. 7, dated November 10, 1980, provides that "all orders arising from motions for inhibition should not be treated as administrative in character but should be considered as judicial. The party who alleges to be aggrieved may apply for the appropriate legal remedy. In the absence of such a proceeding, the order either for or against inhibition stands."cralaw virtua1aw library

Conformably with this circular, complainant should have moved for reconsideration or filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As we held in Flores v. Abesamis: 7

Even assuming arguendo that there was reasonable ground for belief on Flores’ part that Judge Abesamis was refraining from acting on his motions, out of bias or hostility or other improper motive, there were obvious judicial remedies readily available to him to obtain relief — the existence and availability of which precluded his resort to criminal, civil or administrative proceedings against the Judge.

As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural of substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.

Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.

However, we find complainant’s allegation that the records of Civil Case No. 90-52142 have not been properly kept. This is shown by photographs submitted by complainant. 8 It is noteworthy that respondent judge has neither contradicted this matter nor offered any explanation therefor.

The keeping of records is of course the job of clerks of courts. 9 Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon judges to see to it that the personnel of the courts perform their duties well and to call the attention of the clerk of court whenever they fail to do so. 10

On the other hand, complainant should be sternly warned to stop filing unnecessary and frivolous pleadings and motions, especially those decorated with caricatures, newspaper clippings and quotations, which not only contravene the requirements of the Rules of Court on pleadings but also trivializes judicial proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the administrative case against respondent judge is DISMISSED. However, she is ADMONISHED to see to it that the records of cases in her sala are properly kept. On the other hand, complainant is ORDERED to refrain from filing unnecessary pleadings and motions.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 21-25.

2. Id., pp. 428-431.

3. Id., p. 439.

4. Spouses Cordova v. Judge Tornilla, 316 Phil. 522 (1995).

5. 211 SCRA 348, 351-352 (1992). (Emphasis added)

6. 335 Phil. 511, 523 (1997).

7. 275 SCRA 302, 315-316 (1997).

8. Rollo, pp. 196-199.

9. Rule 136, �� 6-7; Banding v. Ching, 268 SCRA 1 (1997).

10. See Secretary of Justice v. Legaspi, 107 SCRA 234 (1981).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-99-1315 November 3, 1999 - JESUSA MANINGAS, ET AL. v. CARLITO C. BARCENAS

  • G.R. No. 136448 November 3, 1999 - LIM TONG LIM v. PHIL. FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES

  • G.R. No. 137136 November 3, 1999 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. CAMILLE T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135913 November 4, 1999 - VICTORIANO B. TIROL v. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1425 November 16, 1999 - DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504 November 16, 1999 - ANG KEK CHEN v. AMALIA R. ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 106593 November 16, 1999 - NAT’L HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106795 November 16, 1999 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113638 November 16, 1999 - A. D. GOTHONG MANUFACTURING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU v. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115180 November 16, 1999 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123045 November 16, 1999 - DEMETRIO R. TECSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123686 November 16, 1999 - APOLINARIO MELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124166 November 16, 1999 - BENGUET CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125814-15 November 16, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON PATALINGHUG

  • G.R. No. 126332 November 16, 1999 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 128361 November 16, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROY "SONNY" GALLO

  • G.R. No. 128452 November 16, 1999 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128957 November 16, 1999 - ANTONIO PARE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999 - UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131777 November 16, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

  • G.R. No. 132497 November 16, 1999 - LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5170 November 17, 1999 - LILIA FERRER TUCAY v. MANUEL R. TUCAY

  • ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-95-1324 November 17, 1999 - EVARISTO MANAHON v. ALVIN I. TAN

  • G.R. No. 123152 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO LASOLA

  • G.R. No. 129169 November 17, 1999 - NIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129256 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL PINCA

  • G.R. No. 130591 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO LACABA

  • G.R. No. 130607 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 131499 November 17, 1999 - HERMIE M. HERRERA, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR TORIO

  • G.R. No. 132238 November 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO BAYGAR

  • G.R. No. 133148 November 17, 1999 - J.R. BLANCO v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134467 November 17, 1999 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-99-1326 November 18, 1999 - MARIVIC T. BALISI-UMALI v. SIXTO A. PEÑALOSA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1338 November 18, 1999 - ESTELA P. VALLES v. NILA ARZAGA-QUIJANO

  • G.R. No. 103476 November 18, 1999 - CODIDI MATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106531 November 18, 1999 - FERNANDO GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109371 November 18, 1999 - JOSE GAUDIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122240 November 18, 1999 - CRISTONICO B. LEGAHI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127167 November 18, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-94-1080, P-95-1128 & P-95-1144 November 19, 1999 - DINAH CHRISTINA A. AMANE, ET AL. v. SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110048 November 19, 1999 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114198 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO BALUDDA

  • G.R. No. 114508 November 19, 1999 - PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115412 November 19, 1999 - HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126932 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUA GALLADAN

  • G.R. No. 127768 November 19, 1999 - UNITED AIRLINES v. WILLIE J. UY

  • G.R. No. 128797 November 19, 1999 - FIRST NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129096 November 19, 1999 - MARIVIC ZARATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129732 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BASCO

  • G.R. No. 130772 November 19, 1999 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES v. NLRC, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 130922 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REQUIZ

  • G.R. No. 131479 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO GASPAR

  • G.R. No. 131732 November 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON CATAMPONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132474 November 19, 1999 - RENATO CENIDO v. AMADEO APACIONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132644 November 19, 1999 - ERNESTO DAVID, ET AL. v. CRISTITO MALAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134685 November 19, 1999 - MARIA ANTONIA SIGUAN v. ROSA LIM

  • A.M. No. P-94-1076 November 22, 1999 - ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO v. JAMESWELL M. RESUS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1341 November 22, 1999 - JULITO BIAG v. LUALHATI GUBATANGA

  • G.R. No. 97914 November 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL BROMO

  • G.R. No. 122279 November 22, 1999 - C & A CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127566 November 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULALIO PADIL

  • G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO BRAVO

  • Administrative Case No. 5169 November 24, 1999 - ELMO S. MOTON v. RAYMUNDO D. CADIAO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1351 November 24, 1999 - RENATO G. CUNANAN v. ARTURO C. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 66508 November 24, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO SIOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102648 November 24, 1999 - DRS. ALENDRY and FLORA P. CAVILES v. EVELYN and RAMON T. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 110559 November 24, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111854 November 24, 1999 - BARANGAY BLUE RIDGE "A" OF QUEZON CITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114671 November 24, 1999 - AURELIO SALINAS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119492 November 24, 1999 - ROLANDO MALINAO, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 122006 November 24, 1999 - ALLIED INVESTIGATION BUREAU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 132748 November 24, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 135864 November 24, 1999 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138876 November 24, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA

  • A.M. No. 99-9-141-MTCC November 25, 1999 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE FELIPE M. ABALOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1236 November 25, 1999 - GERMAN AGUNDAY v. NIETO T. TRESVALLES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1237 November 25, 1999 - ALFONSO LUMIBAO, ET AL. v. MAMERTO C. PANAL

  • G.R. No. 109024 November 25, 1999 - HEIRS OF MARCIANO SANGLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1999 - TEODORA SALTIGA DE ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114262 November 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 119466 November 25, 1999 - SALVADOR and LIGAYA ADORABLE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122823 November 25, 1999 - SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123059 November 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CAPILLO

  • G.R. No. 124140 November 25, 1999 - BERNARDO B. RESOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 127347 November 25, 1999 - ALFREDO N. AGUILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128389 November 25, 1999 - DON ORESTES ROMUALDEZ ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1999 - MIGUEL MELENDRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134340 November 25, 1999 - LININDING PANGANDAMAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116616 November 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO EMBERGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117929 November 26, 1999 - CORA VERGARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129955 November 26, 1999 - MARIANO and JULIETA MADRIGAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134229 November 26, 1999 - LITO and JERRY LIMPANGOG. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC November 29, 1999 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ANTONIO LAMANO

  • G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1999 - ADALIA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119341 November 29, 1999 - EDUARDO FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119350-51 November 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO SUBA

  • G.R. No. 123307 November 29, 1999 - SAMUEL BARANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124640 November 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY A. CAPCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126800 November 29, 1999 - NATALIA P. BUSTAMANTE v. RODITO F. ROSEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127840 November 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND PARAISO

  • G.R. No. 128743 November 29, 1999 - ORO CAM ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133750 November 29, 1999 - APEX MINING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133927 November 29, 1999 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1999 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136191 November 29, 1999 - JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.