Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > November 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 128452 November 16, 1999 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128452. November 16, 1999.]

COMPANIA MARITIMA, INC., EL VARADERO DE MANILA, MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICES, CARLOS P. FERNANDEZ, VICENTE T. FERNANDEZ, LUIS T. FERNANDEZ, and RAMON B. FERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and EXEQUIEL S. CONSULTA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated February 27, 1996, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City, dated March 16, 1993, which ordered petitioners to pay private respondent, Atty. Exequiel S. Consulta, the total amount of P2,590,000.00, as attorney’s fees, and P21,856.40, as filing fees, in connection with three cases which the latter, as attorney, handled for the former.chanrobles law library

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Maritime Company of the Philippines was sued by Genstar Container Corporation before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila. On November 29, 1985, it was ordered to pay Genstar Container Corporation the following amounts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. $469,860.35, or its equivalent in pesos at the current exchange rate.

b. 25% of the total obligation, P2,000.00 as Acceptance Fee, and P250.00 per appearance — as Attorney’s Fees.cralawnad

c. Costs of suit.

As a result, properties of petitioners Compania Maritima, Inc., El Varadero de Manila, and Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services at Sangley Point, Cavite, were levied upon in execution. The properties, consisting of the tugboats Dadiangas, Marinero, and Timonel, the floating crane Northwest Murphy Diesel Engine, and the motorized launch Sea Otter, were worth P51,000,000.00 in sum. However, the same were sold at public auction for only P1,235,000.00 to the highest bidder, a certain Rolando Patriarca. 2

Petitioners Compania Maritima, Inc., El Varadero de Manila, and Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services engaged the services of private respondent, Atty. Exequiel S. Consulta, who represented them in the following cases: (1) Civil Case No. 85-30134, entitled "Genstar Container Corporation v. Maritime Company of the Philippines," wherein petitioners’ properties were levied upon although petitioners had not been impleaded as defendants therein; (2) TBP Case No. 86-03662, entitled "Compania Maritima, Inc., v. Ramon C. Enriquez," which was a criminal case for falsification and for violation of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against Deputy Sheriff Enriquez before the Tanodbayan; and (3) Civil Case No. 86-37196 entitled "Compania Maritima v. Genstar Container Corporation," an action for Injunction, Annulment of Execution Proceedings, and Damages. 3

The cases were eventually resolved in this wise: (1) in Civil Case No. 85-30134, the trial court dismissed the third-party claim and motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed by Atty. Consulta; (2) after Atty. Consulta filed the complaint with the Tanodbayan in TBP Case No. 86-03662, petitioners transferred the handling of the case to another lawyer; and (3) Civil Case No. 86-37196 was eventually dismissed on motion of both parties, but only after the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss filed by Genstar Container Corporation was upheld on appeal by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. 4

For his services in the three cases, Atty. Consulta billed petitioners as follows: (1) P100,000.00 for Civil Case No. 85-30134; (2) P50,000.00 for TBP Case No. 86-03662; and (3) P5,000,000.00 for Civil Case No. 86-37196, including the subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Petitioners did not pay the amount demanded but only P30,000.00 for Civil Case No. 85-30134 and P10,000.00 for TBP Case No. 86-03662. 5

Because of the failure of corporate petitioners to pay the balance of his attorney’s fees, Atty. Consulta brought suit against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City. He sought the recovery of the following: (1) P70,000.00, as the balance of the P100,000.00 attorney’s fees billed for Civil Case No. 85-30134; (2) P40,000.00, as the balance of the P50,000.00 attorney’s fees for TBP Case No. 86-03662, and (3) P5,000,000.00 as attorney’s fees for Civil Case No. 86-37196, including the subsequent appeals therefrom to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. He likewise asked for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit. 6

On March 16, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision which in part stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Considering all the circumstances as above set forth, this Court believes that the amount equivalent to five percent (5%) of the amount involved, or the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P2,550,000.00) would be reasonable attorney’s fees for the services rendered by the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37196 and the two related proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

As for the services rendered by the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 30134, for which he appears to have already been paid P30,000.00, the Court believes that an additional amount of P20,000.00 would be reasonable.

On plaintiff’s demand of P40,000.00, in addition to the P10,000.00 he had initially received for services rendered in the Tanodbayan case No. 86-03662, the Court grants him an additional P20,000.00.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, damages as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. For services rendered by plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37196 and the related proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court — Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P2,550,000.00).

b. For services rendered by plaintiff in Civil Case No. 30134 — Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

c. For services rendered in the TBP Case No. 86-03662 — Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

d. Filing fees in the amount of P21,856.40.

The defendants’ counterclaim and plaintiff’s counterclaim to defendants counterclaim are both dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Said the appellate court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In Civil Case No. 37196, where appellee rendered his legal services, appellants’ property worth Fifty One Million Pesos (P51,000,000.00) was involved. Likewise, the aforementioned case was not a simple action for collection of money, considering that complex legal issues were raised therein which reached until the Supreme Court. In the course of such protracted legal battle to save the appellants’ properties, the appellee prepared numerous pleadings and motions, which were diligently and effectively executed, as a result of which, the appellants’ properties were saved from execution and their oppositors were forced to settle by way of a compromise agreement.

x       x       x


It is a well-settled rule that in the recovery of attorney’s fees, whether as a main action or as an incident of another action, the determination of the reasonableness is within the prerogative of the courts (Roldan v. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 713; Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. v. International Corporate Bank, 182 SCRA 862; Panay Electric v. Court of Appeals, 119 SCRA 456).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Based on the aforequoted ruling, We find that the court a quo did not commit any reversible error in awarding attorney’s fees equivalent to five percent (5%) of the total value of properties involved in Civil Case No. 37196.

Hence, this appeal. Petitioners raise the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Whether or not the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the private respondent by the court a quo and affirmed by the Honorable Court is reasonable.

b) Whether or not the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction may be applied in the case at bar.

With respect to the first question, it is pertinent to note two concepts of attorney’s fees in this jurisdiction. In the ordinary sense, attorney’s fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. 7

The issue in this case concerns attorney’s fees in the ordinary concept. Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer’s compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of his services. 8 In determining the amount of attorney’s fees, the following factors are considered: (1) the time spent and extent of services rendered; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the importance of the subject matter; (4) the skill demanded; (5) the probability of losing other employment as a result of the acceptance of the proffered case; (6) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client; (7) the certainty of compensation; (8) the character of employment; and (9) the professional standing of the lawyer. 9

Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court approved attorney’s fees in the total amounts of P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 for the services of Atty. Consulta in Civil Case No. 85-30134 and TBP Case No. 86-03662, respectively. Based on the above criteria, we think said amounts are reasonable, although the third-party claim and motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed by Atty. Consulta in Civil Case No. 85-30134 was dismissed by the trial court, while TBP Case No. 86-03662 was given by petitioners to another lawyer after Atty. Consulta had filed the complaint. On the other hand, although the order of the trial court in Civil Case No. 86-37196 granting the motion to dismiss filed by both parties did not state the grounds therefor, it is reasonable to infer that petitioners agreed thereto in consideration of some advantage. Hence, the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court that, because of the complexity of the issues involved and the work done by counsel, the amount of P2,550,000.00 was reasonable for Atty. Consulta’s services.

In addition, the value of the properties involved was considerable. As already stated, to satisfy the judgment in favor of Genstar Container Corporation in Civil Case No. 85-30134, properties of petitioners worth P51,000,000.00 were sold at public auction. Only P1,235,000.00 was realized from the sale and petitioners were in danger of losing their properties. As the appellate court pointed out, Atty. Consulta rendered professional services not only in the trial court but in the Court of Appeals and in this Court. There is no question that through his efforts, properties owned by petitioners were saved from execution.

It is settled that great weight, and even finality, is given to the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial courts. 10 Only where it is shown that such findings are whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary can they be overturned. In the present case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual conclusions of the trial court that: (1) the issues in Civil Case No. 86-03662, including the appeals taken therefrom to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, were quite complex; (2) the pleadings filed by Atty. Consulta were well-researched; and (3) as a result of Atty. Consulta’s efforts, the adverse parties were induced to agree to the dismissal of the case.

Petitioners contend, however, that: (1) the said cases merely involved simple issues; (2) the pleadings filed by Atty. Consulta did not exhibit an extraordinary level of competence, effort, and skill; and (3) they did not benefit from the efforts of Atty. Consulta. These allegations have not been proven. Petitioners have not shown that the factual findings of both the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contrary to the evidence. Nor have they shown that they did not benefit from their representation by Atty. Consulta.

With respect to the liability of individual petitioners Carlos P. Fernandez, Vicente T. Fernandez, Luis T. Fernandez, and Ramon B. Fernandez, we hold that the mere fact that they were stockholders and directors of corporate petitioners does not justify a finding that they are liable for the obligations of the corporations.

It is well-settled that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its individual stockholders or members. The fiction of corporate entity will be set aside and the individual stockholders will be held liable for its obligation only if it is shown that it is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes. 11 In this case, the Court of Appeals held that individual petitioners were guilty of fraud, based on its finding that they refused to pay the attorney’s fees demanded by Atty. Consulta. It should be noted, however, that although petitioners Compania Maritima, Inc., El Varadero de Manila, and Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services have an obligation to pay Atty. Consulta for his attorney’s fees, the amount thereof was still in dispute. It was therefore improper for the Court of Appeals to conclude that individual petitioners were guilty of fraud simply because corporate petitioners had refused to make the payments demanded. The fact remains that at the time of demand, the amount due to Atty. Consulta had not been finally determined.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated February 27, 1996, is AFFIRMED with the modification that individual petitioners Carlos P. Fernandez, Vicente T. Fernandez, Luis T. Fernandez, and Ramon B. Fernandez are absolved from personal liability for attorney’s fees to Atty. Exequiel S. Consulta.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Per Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Justices Arturo B. Buena (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Ruben T. Reyes.

2. Complaint, Annex A, Records, pp. 20-23.

3. Id., Annexes B and H, Records, pp. 24-27 and 38-43.

4. Ibid.

5. Id., Annex I, p. 44.

6. Id., pp. 17-19.

7. Traders Royal Bank Employees’ Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 733 (1997)

8. Supra.

9. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 20, Rule 20.1.

10. Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116617, Nov. 16, 1998.

11. McConnel v. Court of Appeals, 111 Phil. 310 (1961).




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.