Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > February 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 133909 February 15, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MARS CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133909. February 15, 2000.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARS CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


Unilateral rescission of a contract is subject to judicial determination. Contractual stipulations should be interpreted together. Ambiguous ones should be construed to conform to the sense that would result when all the provisions are comprehended jointly. Moreover, doubts should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Case


Before the Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the May 20, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 45009, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City (Branch 154). The assailed Decision disposed as follows: 2

"WHEREFORE, [there being] no error in the appealed decision, the same is AFFIRMED in toto."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Facts


In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals relates the facts of this case as follows: 3

"On July 2, 1982, [Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., respondent herein] entered into a subcontract/Agreement with . . . Construction & Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) [petitioner herein], later reorganized into the present Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), for the supply of ‘approximately seventy thousand (70,000) cubic meters of aggregates consisting of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. washed sand,

2. washed 3/4" gravel,

3. washed 1-1/2" gravel

4. sub-base’.

"On August 7, 1982, [respondent] and CDCP executed Amendment No. 1 increasing the amount of the third party liability coverage from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00. On November 5, 1982, [respondent] and CDCP executed Amendment No. 2 amending the scope of services, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘1. Art. I is hereby amended to read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘ARTICLE I — SCOPE OF SERVICES

‘The FIRST PARTY [respondent] shall supply approximately SEVENTY THOUSAND (70,000) cubic meters of concrete aggregates consisting of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. [W]ashed sand app. 17,500 cu. m.

2. Washed 3/4" gravel app. 17,500 cu. m.

3. Washed 1 1/2" gravel app. 35,000 cu. m.

4. Sub-base 2" minus crusher run

x       x       x.’

(Exhibit ‘C-1’, Folder of Exhibits)

"Amendment No. 2 also altered Article IV (5.0) of the original Agreement which provided that ‘(t)he first party guarantees to commence delivery within forty five (45) days after signing of the contract and continue delivery until the quantities enumerated . . . [shall] have been delivered to the jobsite stockpile’ to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘ARTICLE V— DELIVERY

‘The FIRST PARTY [respondent] shall deliver a minimum of SIX THOUSAND (6,000) cubic meters of combined concrete aggregate per month until the entire requirements of the SECOND PARTY [petitioner] to complete the Philphos Project shall have been satisfied.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

"Actual delivery of aggregates started only in March of 1983, or a delay of eight (8) months of the 45 days stipulated in the Agreement (Agreement, Article IV (5.0); TSN, September 6, 1985, pp. 9-10). There were also non-deliveries between the period June 1983 to January 1984 (TSN, supra). Thus [petitioner] was constrained to obtain the necessary materials from other sources, incurring additional costs representing the difference between the agreed price of P140.00 per cubic meter under the Agreement and the pricing of the outside sources. The difference in cost was reimbursed by [respondent] in accordance with the default clause under the Agreement that ‘the Second Party [petitioner] can procure from any other quarry operator . . . (and) should such procurement cost the Second Party more than the agreed price above, the excess [would] be for the account of the First Party . . .’ (Article VII, no. 7). A total of P1.578 M was thusly paid by [respondent] (TSN, September 5, 1985, p. 12).

"The controversy arose when [petitioner] refused to accept [respondent’s] delivery of 17,000.00 cubic meters of washed 1-1/2" gravel, saying that it had no more need for the same. For this, [respondent] claimed the amount of P680,000.00 representing lucrum cessans or unrealized profit with interest at bank rate until fully paid, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. [Respondent] also demanded payment of P118,518.68 (Memorandum for Plaintiff, Record, p. 245) covered by a check tendered by [petitioner] (Exhibit ‘15’) based on a balance on the purchase of 39,200.62 cubic meters of base course amounting to P130,000.00 after deducting half of the overpayment of P23,256.80 made by [respondent] (TSN, April 22, 1986, p. 22).

" [Petitioner] denied that it breached the contract and counter-claimed for the amount of P85,120 as price differential of the procurement cost over the agreed price, plus reimbursement of overpayment of P23,256.80 it had made arising from error in measurement. (Answer, Counterclaim).chanrobles.com : law library

"The lower court rendered judgment, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Wherefore, the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff: a.) the amount of P680,000.00 as lucrum cessans; b.) the amount of P33,387.91 for the outstanding obligation of PNCC in favor of plaintiff (118,518.68 less price differential of P85,120.77); c.) attorney’s fees . . . reduced to the reasonable amount of P50,000.00; and as the costs of litigation.’"

Ruling of the Court of Appeals


The CA ruled that the Contract and its amendments impelled petitioner to accept delivery of the washed 1.5-inch gravel from the Respondent. The figures in the "Scope of Services" provision were interpreted to mean the minimum quantities to be delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner received a total of 8,162.43 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel from the respondent and 9,978.06 cubic meters from other sources. Hence, the petitioner actually utilized only 18,140.49 cubic meters of aggregates of this specification, which was only about half of the stipulated 35,000 cubic meters. Clearly, it breached the Contract when it refused to accept delivery of the 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel from the Respondent.

Because of this breach, the respondent was entitled to lucrum cessans, computed by deducting the production cost from the agreed cost per cubic meter of aggregates.

The outstanding obligation of the petitioner to the respondent was the difference between the subcontractor’s quitclaim minus the penalty charges for outsourcing aggregates, which respondent incurred for its failure to deliver. The amount was based on the Quitclaim presented by petitioner and the undisputed Backcharge Invoice No. 354 presented by Respondent.

The CA denied the petitioner’s prayer for damages arising from the delays in delivery, because respondent had already compensated or paid for such delays. The appellate court rejected petitioner’s contention that the respondent committed bad faith by entering into a contract that it was financially incapable of fulfilling, inasmuch as this issue had not been raised before the trial court.

Hence, this Petition. 4

Issues


In its Memorandum, the petitioner submits the following "issues" for the Court’s consideration: 5

"i. The honorable Court of Appeals . . . decided that PNCC was compelled to accept the delivery of the 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1-1/2" gravel which is not in accord with law and jurisprudence.

"ii. The honorable Court of Appeals . . . decided to award the amount of P680,000.00 as lucrum cessans which is not in accord with law and jurisprudence."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court’s Ruling


The Petition has no merit.

First Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Obligation to Accept Delivery

Petitioner contends that it was not under any obligation to accept 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel, because the delivery was made after the actual aggregate requirement of the project had already been fully satisfied, and after respondent had defaulted on its contractual undertakings.

Interpreting the Contract

Petitioner adds that the respondent had already delivered aggregates, the combined volume of which was about 45 percent over and above that required in Article I, Amendment 2 of the Contract. Hence, the petitioner refused to accept the "excess" delivery in issue.

This contention is incorrect. The various stipulations in a contract should be interpreted together. Ambiguous ones should be so construed as to conform to the sense that would result if all the provisions are comprehended jointly. 6 The "Scope of Services" provision in Amendment 2 stipulated the delivery of 70,000 cubic meters of concrete aggregates consisting of approximately 17,500 cubic meters of washed sand, approximately 17,500 cubic meters of washed .75-inch gravel, 35,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel, and "sub-base 2" minus crusher run. Clearly, at least 35,000 of the 70,000 cubic meters of concrete aggregates that the respondent was supposed to deliver to the petitioner should be washed 1.5-inch gravel. The trial court correctly explained:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Initially, [respondent’s] scope of services [was] to supply 70,000 cu. m. of concrete aggregates consisting of washed sand, washed 3/4" gravel, washed 1-1/2" gravel and sub-base (Art. 1 of the Agreement). This was amended per Amendment No. 2 (Exhibit C) to 70,000 cu. m. of concrete aggregates consisting of washed sand approximately 17,500 cu. m., washed 3/4" gravel approximately 17,500 cu. m., washed 1-1/2" gravel approximately 35,000 cu. m., and sub-base 2" minus crusher run. This amendment . . . made the agreement [ambiguous] because the quantity of sub-base 2" minus crusher run was not specified. If said aggregate was included[;] however, the total would definitely be in excess of 70,000 cu. m. . . . [Petitioner] had ordered from [respondent] more than what was specified in the agreement. This act [signified] that the maximum limit of 70,000 cu. m. [was] disregarded [because of] PNCC’s needs. What then would be the significance of the quantities stated in Amendment No. 2? We interpret that these are the minimum quantities which must be delivered by [respondent]. Both parties are bound by these figures. . . ." 7

Besides, the stipulation would be too burdensome to the respondent if, as petitioner insists, the breakdown of the specified aggregates were interpreted as mere estimates of the project requirements; the respondent would have then been uncertain as to how much it should deliver. Doubts in contracts should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests. 8 Accordingly, these figures, as held by the CA, should be deemed the minimum amounts to be procured and delivered. In this way, both parties would know exactly how much to demand from each other to be able to comply with their respective obligations.chanrobles.com.ph : red

Provisional Unilateral Resolution

PNCC Project Director H. R. Taylor’s letter of May 17, 1984 informed the respondent of the final quantities of concrete aggregates to be delivered, with the advice that no other deliveries would be accepted Hence, the petitioner asserts that, after that advice, it was no longer bound to accept any further deliveries from the Respondent.

We disagree. Such advice is not a sufficient justification for refusing delivery. The only clause on delivery is Stipulation 2 of Amendment 2, which states that" [t]he FIRST PARTY shall deliver a minimum of SIX THOUSAND (6,000) [c]ubic meters of combined concrete aggregate per month until the entire requirements of the SECOND PARTY to complete the Philphos Project shall have been satisfied." 9 The Contract did not authorize the petitioner to limit, by means of a unilateral advice, the quantity of aggregates that may be delivered. Although there were several occasions when the petitioner advised the respondent on the quality and the quantity of concrete aggregates to be delivered, Mr. Solomon Chu (general manager of respondent) testified that the giving of advice did not become the practice between them. 10

By saying that the quantity specified in the letter was its last order, petitioner unilaterally amended its Contract with the Respondent. The act of treating a contract as cancelled or rescinded on account of infractions by the other contracting party is always provisional; 11 that is, contestable and subject to judicial determination. 12 Judicial action is necessary for its rescission in order to afford the other party an opportunity to be heard 13 and to determine if the rescission was proper. 14 When the herein petitioner resolved or rescinded the Agreement without previous court action, it proceeded at its own risk. Only the final judgment of a court will conclusively and finally settle whether such recourse was correct in law.

Default as Insubstantial Breach

Petitioner avers that respondent was already in default when the former refused the latter’s delivery of 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel. Hence, its refusal was justified.

We are not persuaded. The contract specifically provided that if the respondent failed to deliver the required aggregates, the petitioner could procure them from other sources so as not to jeopardize the entire construction project. The records reveal that on several occasions, petitioner purchased concrete aggregates from other suppliers. 15

Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Amendment 2, petitioner imposed penalties for the incremental cost of procuring materials from other sources, which respondent willingly paid in the sum of P1,577,000. Since petitioner was already compensated for respondent’s defaults, such defaults cannot be considered as a substantial breach that justified the rescission of the Contract and the refusal to accept the questioned delivery. 16

Furthermore, when the petitioner exercised its options in case of delay or default on the part of the respondent, the former waived its right to rescind and was thus estopped from rescinding the Contract by reason of such short delivery. 17

In light of the foregoing, the CA correctly held that petitioner was under obligation to accept and to pay for the 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel delivered by the Respondent. 18 As found by the CA, the petitioner procured only a total of 18,140.49 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel from the respondent and from other suppliers (9,978.06 and 8,162.43 cubic meters, respectively). Thus, the respondent had the prerogative to supply, and the petitioner was bound to accept, 16,859.51 (or approximately 17,000) cubic meters of 1.5-inch gravel. Parties to a contract are bound to the fulfillment of what has expressly been stipulated. 19

Second Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Factual Question of Lost Profits

Petitioner avers that the profits which respondent expected to derive from the Agreement were purely speculative, and that the trial and the appellate courts erroneously believed Mr. Chu’s bare testimony on said profits.

We are not persuaded. Whether the respondent failed to realize profits — and if so, how much — and whether the judgment was supported by the evidence presented by it are factual in nature. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. It is not the function of this Court to reexamine the lower courts’ findings of fact. 20 While there are exceptions to this rule, 21 petitioner has not shown its entitlement to any of them.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. First Division composed of J . Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, ponente; JJ Arturo B. Buena (now a member of the Supreme Court) and Buenaventura J. Guerrero, members.

2. CA Decision, p. 38.

3. Ibid., pp. 1-4; rollo, pp. 30-33.

4. This case was deemed submitted for decision upon receipt by this Court of the Memorandum for Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc. on October 11, 1999. This Memorandum was signed by Atty. Luis V. Diores of Diores Law Offices (rollo, p. 93).

5. Rollo, p. 75; the Memorandum for the petitioner was signed by Government Corporate Counsel Jun N. Valerio, Deputy Government Corporate Counsel Elpidio J. Vega, Asst. Government Corporate Counsel Efren B. Gonzales and Government Corporate Attorney IV Manuel V. Fernandez (rollo, p. 75).

6. See Article 1374, Civil Code.

7. RTC Decision, p. 12; CA rollo, p. 66.

8. Article 1378, Civil Code.

9. Exhibit "C-2," RTC records, p. 42.

10. TSN, December 19, 1985, pp. 6-9.

11. University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102, 107, September 29, 1970.

12. UP v. De los Angeles, supra.

13. UP v. De los Angeles, supra; Ocejo, Perez & Co. v. International Banking Corp., 37 Phil. 631, 643, February 14, 1918; Republic v. Hospital de San Juan de Dios, 84 Phil. 820, 827, October 31, 1949; Coronel v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 15, 35, October 7, 1996; and Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 565, 588, January 25, 1988.

14. Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 590, 597, September 29, 1997.

15. Exhibit "I-1," Folder of Exhibits.

16. Power Commercial and Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 597, 608, June 20, 1997; Siska Dev’t. Corp. v. Office of the President of the Phil., 231 SCRA 674, 681, April 22, 1994.

17. Siska Dev’t. Corp. v. Office of the President, supra; Angeles v. Calasanz, 135 SCRA 323, 332, March 18, 1985.

18. CA Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 35.

19. Romero v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 223, 233, November 23, 1995; Pangilinan v. CA, supra, p. 599.

20. Sps. Lagandaon v. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 102526-31, May 21, 1998; National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 112287, December 12, 1997.

21. Fuentes v. CA, 268 SCRA 708-709, February 26, 1997.




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






February-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84905 February 1, 2000 - REGINO CLEOFAS, ET AL. v. ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109193 February 1, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119467 February 1, 2000 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120283 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LUMACANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123358 February 1, 2000 - FCY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124078 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO Y. BLANCO

  • G.R. No. 124832 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CEPEDA

  • G.R. No. 126397 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MENDOZA CERBITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129670 February 1, 2000 - MANOLET O. LAVIDES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131619-20 February 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131679 February 1, 2000 - CAVITE DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL. v. CYRUS LIM, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1359 February 2, 2000 - OFELIA C. CASEÑARES v. ARCHIMEDES D. ALMEIDA, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3808 February 2, 2000 - RAYMUNDO T. MAGDALUYO v. ENRIQUE L. NACE

  • A.M. No. 96-12-429-RTC February 2, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN BRANCH 34, RTC, IRIGA CITY

  • G.R. No. 104314 February 2, 2000 - HEIRS OF NEPOMUCENA PAEZ v. RAMON AM. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000 - MENANDRO B. LAUREANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000 - SUGBUANON RURAL BANK v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121605 February 2, 2000 - PAZ MARTIN JO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122979 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIMON ALIPAYO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126586 February 2, 2000 - ALEXANDER VINOYA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131384-87 February 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEGIO NADERA

  • G.R. No. 134169 February 2, 2000 - SADIKUL SAHALI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135899 February 2, 2000 - AYALA LAND v. MARIETTA VALISNO

  • G.R. No. 81024 February 3, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103412 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107943 February 3, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110259 February 3, 2000 - RODOLFO BARRETTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112905 February 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128772 February 3, 2000 - RICARDO C. CADAYONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130598 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MIER

  • G.R. No. 131835 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO QUILATON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131818-19 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE SANCHA

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 February 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164 February 4, 2000 - VICTORIA R. NABHAN v. ERIC CALDERON

  • G.R. No. 81524 February 4, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116986 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125125-27 February 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANDRO NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 112567 February 7, 2000 - DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116384 February 7, 2000 - VIOLA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134122-27 February 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ALAMA MAGDATO

  • A.M. No. 001363 February 8, 2000 - WILFREDO F. ARAZA v. MARLON M. GARCIA ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113095 February 8, 2000 - ELISEO DELA TORRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123541 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOLO BARITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126097 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIA SUELTO

  • G.R. Nos. 131946-47 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REYES GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132747 February 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CABANDE

  • G.R. Nos. 137017-18 February 8, 2000 - RAMON G. CUYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137686 February 8, 2000 - RURAL BANK OF MILAOR (CAMARINES SUR) v. FRANCISCA OCFEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139157 February 8, 2000 - ROGELIO PADER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076 February 9, 2000 - VENUS P. DOUGHLAS v. FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR.

  • A.C. No. 3324 February 9, 2000 - EDWIN VILLARIN, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105902 February 9, 2000 - SEVERINO BARICUATRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112752 February 9, 2000 - OSS SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125341 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY BARCELONA

  • G.R. No. 128814 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ARAFILES

  • G.R. No. 133509 February 9, 2000 - AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134117 February 9, 2000 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP. v. TEODORA PRICE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135368 February 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ENTILA

  • G.R. No. 136374 February 9, 2000 - FRANCISCA S. BALUYOT v. PAUL E. HOLGANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140276 February 9, 2000 - FELICIDAD CALLA, ET AL. v. ARTURO MAGLALANG

  • G.R. No. 102967 February 10, 2000 - BIBIANO V. BAÑAS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114261 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLY FABRO

  • G.R. Nos. 126536-37 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLIE ALAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130341 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMMEL BALTAR

  • G.R. No. 133259 February 10, 2000 - WENIFREDO FARROL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547 & 133843 February 10, 2000 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 138639 February 10, 2000 - CITY-LITE REALTY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117204 February 11, 2000 - MAGDALITA Y. TANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120646 February 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR DANDO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1534 February 15, 2000 - GERONIMO GROSPE, ET AL. v. LAURO G. SANDOVAL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1187 February 15, 2000 - PACIFICA A. MILLARE v. REDENTOR B. VALERA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1362 February 15, 2000 - ORLANDO LAPEÑA v. JOVITO PAMARANG

  • A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC February 15, 2000 - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF ANTONIO MACALINTAL

  • G.R. No. 103506 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TOLIBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108205 February 15, 2000 - BRIGIDA F. DEE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113940 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIELITO BULURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114740 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO GALAM

  • G.R. No. 115508 February 15, 2000 - ALEJANDRO AGASEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115962 February 15, 2000 - DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122954 February 15, 2000 - NORBERTO P. FERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124245 February 15, 2000 - ANTONIO F. NAVARRETE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126996 February 15, 2000 - CESARIO VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129577-80 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BULU CHOWDURY

  • G.R. Nos. 130203-04 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO MANGILA

  • G.R. No. 130606 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELRANIE MARTINEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131592-93 February 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JULIAN CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 133909 February 15, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MARS CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. Nos. 136282 & 137470 February 15, 2000 - FRANCISCO D. OCAMPO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137287 February 15, 2000 - REBECCA VIADO NON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1473 February 16, 2000 - JESSICA GOODMAN v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 127710 February 16, 2000 - AZUCENA B. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134939 February 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BATO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459 February 17, 2000 - VICTOR D. ONG v. VOLTAIRE Y. ROSALES

  • A.C. Nos. 4426 & 4429 February 17, 2000 - RAMON SAURA, ET AL. v. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA

  • G.R. Nos. 47013, 60647 & 60958-59 February 17, 2000 - ANDRES LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111286 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL DACIBAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115687 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA

  • G.R. No. 122876 February 17, 2000 - CHENIVER DECO PRINT TECHNICS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129887 February 17, 2000 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 131872-73 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHEN TIZ CHANG. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132344 February 17, 2000 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. ROMEO A. JADER

  • G.R. No. 132555 February 17, 2000 - ELISEO MALOLOS, ET AL. v. AIDA S. DY

  • G.R. No. 133025 February 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RADEL GALLARDE

  • G.R. No. 133507 February 17, 2000 - EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118821 February 18, 2000 - BAI UNGGIE D. ABDULA, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI

  • G.R. No. 122346 February 18, 2000 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123164 February 18, 2000 - NICANOR DULLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126351 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 126481 February 18, 2000 - EMILY M. MAROHOMBSAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132217 February 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS

  • G.R. No. 132964 February 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID REY GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 134932 February 18, 2000 - VITO BESO v. RITA ABALLE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120 February 21, 2000 - NBI v. RAMON B. REYES

  • G.R. No. 129056 February 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO MENDIONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117079 February 22, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118670 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124706 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO EREÑO

  • G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LEONARDO QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128883 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR GALIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130667 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO VIRTUCIO JR.

  • G.R. No. 131943 February 22, 2000 - VIRGINIA G. RAMORAN v. JARDINE CMG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 134246 February 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO SAN ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 135829 February 22, 2000 - BAYANI BAUTISTA v. PATRICIA ARANETA

  • G.R. No. 136021 February 22, 2000 - BENIGNA SECUYA, ET AL. v. GERARDA M. VDA. DE SELMA

  • G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000 - AMADO J. LANSANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105630 February 23, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE P. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114243 February 23, 2000 - ISAGANI MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115734 February 23, 2000 - RUBEN LOYOLA ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119268 February 23, 2000 - ANGEL JARDIN, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121980 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GONZALO PENASO

  • G.R. No. 125936 February 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131641 February 23, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132738 February 23, 2000 - PCGG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133715 February 23, 2000 - DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 139599 February 23, 2000 - ANICETO SABBUN MAGUDDATU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1368 February 28, 2000 - ABELARDO H. SANTOS v. AURORA T. LARANANG

  • G.R. Nos. 95891-92 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSMUNDO FUERTES ,ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112160 February 28, 2000 - OSMUNDO S. CANLAS,ET.AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 113907 February 28, 2000 - (MSMG-UWP, ET AL. v. CRESENCIOJ. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124680-81 February 28, 2000 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126443 February 28, 2000 - FLORDESVINDA C. MADARIETA v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127480 February 28, 2000 - CONCHITA L. ABELLERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128010 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128812 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THADEOS ENGUITO

  • G.R. No. 129074 February 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LOMERIO

  • G.R. No. 129761 February 28, 2000 - CORAL POINT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131724 February 28, 2000 - MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORP. v. JACKSON TAN

  • G.R. No. 137887 February 28, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAMIAN ERMITAÑO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 138377 February 28, 2000 - CONCEPCION V. AMAGAN, ET AL. v. TEODORICO T. MARAYAG

  • G.R. No. 139288 February 28, 2000 - LEONIDA S. ROMERO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • AC No. 4834 February 29, 2000 - FELICIDAD L. COTTAM v. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 February 29, 2000 - MAGDALENA M. HUGGLAND* v. JOSE C. LANTIN

  • G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL

  • G.R. No. 115984 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO GAMER

  • G.R. Nos. 116009-10 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LORIEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY LAGARTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123102 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADELO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 125290 February 29, 2000 - MARIO BASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130969 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131820 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. 133694 February 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 136283 February 29, 2000 - VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. REYNALDO Y. MAULIT, ET AL.