Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > March 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 120150 March 27, 2000 - ADRIAN DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120150. March 27, 2000.]

ADRIAN DE LA PAZ, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. and PETRON CORPORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:


Petitioner Adrian de la Paz is a holder of Letter of Patent No. 14132 issued by the Patent Office on February 27, 1981 for his alleged invention Coco-diesel Fuel for diesel engines and its manufacture. On March 7, 1983 petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch LXII, for infringement of patent with prayer for payment of reasonable compensation and for damages against respondents Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Caltex (Phils.), Mobil Oil Philippines Inc, and Petrophil Corporation. There was no mention in the complaint of the amount of damages being claimed but petitioner alleged that the conservative estimate of the combined gross sales of his invention by respondents is P934, 213,780.00 annually computed at the rate of 20 million barrels being, sold yearly by the marketing, arms of respondents at the price of P2,938 per liter. At the hearing on November 13, 1984, petitioner estimated the yearly royalty due him from respondents to be P236,572,350.00.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

At the hearing on February 19, 1985 respondents discovered that petitioner paid only P252.00 as filing fee based on his claim for attorney’s fees in the sum of P200,000.00. Respondents orally moved for dismissal of the complaint for failure of petitioner to pay the correct filing fee. The trial court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and ordered petitioner to pay the additional docket fee in the sum of P945,636.90 computed at P4.00 per P1,000.00 in excess of the first P150,000.00 based on P236,572,350.00, the amount petitioner seeks to recover.

On July 31, 1985, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order requiring him to pay an additional docket fee. This was opposed by respondents. The trial court, however, issued an order allowing petitioner to pay the required additional docket fee after the termination of the case, to be deducted from whatever judgment in damages shall be awarded by the Court. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court, respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to annul and set aside the order of the trial court, with prayer for a restraining order/preliminary injunction. On September 4, 1986, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, respondents filed the instant petition raising the sole issue of whether or not a party can file a complaint without specifying the amount of damages he is claiming and as a result defer the payment of the proper fees until after trial on the merits.

On April 10, 1989, this Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 76119 entitled "Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, Corp. v. Court of Appeals," 1 where it made the following pronouncement:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(N)owhere can a justification be found to convert payment of docket fees to something akin to a contingent fee which would depend on the result of the case. Under the circumstances, the Court would stand to lose the filing fees should the party be later adjudged to be not entitled to any claim at all.

Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel etc., computed as to man hours used in handling of each case. The payment of said fees therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken, without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.

Citing the case Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 2 this Court reiterated the following rules concerning payment of docket fees:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(2) The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until, and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

(3) Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

The dispositive portion of said decision reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; (2) the order of respondent Judge dated July 11, 1985 is REINSTATED; (3) the case is REMANDED to the trial court; (4) the proceedings in Civil Case No. 45-0-88 are ordered RESUMED upon payment of all lawful fees (as assessed by the Clerk of Court of said Court) by private respondent or upon exemption from payment thereof upon proper application to litigate as a pauper; and (5) the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on November 18, 1986 will be deemed LIFTED should order no. 4 be complied with.

SO ORDERED. 3

On May 22, 1989, petitioner filed an application as pauper litigant. 4 In the meantime, petitioner had paid the following amounts as partial payments for docket fees to the court a quo:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

May 23, 1989 — P5,000.00

September 28, 1989 — P5,000.00

December 13, 1989 — P20,000.00

December 14, 1989 — P20,000.00 5

While petitioner’s motion to litigate as a pauper was pending, 6 he filed an amended complaint on March 29, 1990 reducing his claim against respondents from P236,572,350.00 to P162,572,000.00. This was admitted by respondent court. 7 On June 15, 1990, petitioner’s motion to litigate as pauper was denied. 8 Respondents, on the other hand, filed on July 21, 1990 an "Ex-Cautela Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint" alleging that the action for damages had already prescribed and that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Ex-Cautela Motion to Dismiss, however, was denied be the trial court in its order dated February 11, 1991. 9 The respondents filed motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss amended complaint but the same was denied on December 23, 1992. Thus, they appealed to the Court of Appeals by way of petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the rationale that the admission of the amended complaint was done merely to implement the judgment in G.R. No. 76119 which had already become final. Respondents moved for a reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s decision but the motion was denied. Respondents elevated the case to the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed "for having been filed late and the docket fees also paid late." 10 Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Meanwhile, herein petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on June 7, 1991 which was opposed by the respondents. The trial court however admitted the second amended complaint in an order dated April 27, 1992. 11 The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order which was denied. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said order was reversed on the ground that the first and second amendments to the complaint did not toll the running of the prescriptive period within which to perfect a claim.

Hence this petition on the sole issue of, Did our ruling in G.R. No. 76119 give petitioner the right to amend his complaint to accommodate his finances for payment of prescribed docket fees?

We rule in the affirmative.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In Lee v. Republic, 12 the court held that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing fee is paid In Malimit v. Degamo, 13 it was held that payment of the docket fee must be considered the real date of filing for a petition for quo warranto and not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi v. Ramolete, 14 reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of docket fee regardless of the date of its filing in Court. The rule in Magaspi, however, has to be distinguished from the first two cases in that, in Magaspi, what was at issue was not the timeliness of the payment of the docket fee but the amount that had to be paid. Hence, the Court ruled that the court may take cognizance of the case even if the docket fee paid was insufficient. This ruling was overturned in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, 15 where the court stated that "The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of docket fee based on the amount sought in the amended pleading." The strict set of guidelines provided in Manchester prompted by the fraudulent intent of the counsel in said case to avoid payment of the required docket fee.

The Court cannot close this case without making the observation that it frowns at the practice of counsel who filed the original complaint in this case of omitting any specification of the amount of damages in the prayer although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was compounded when, even as this court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and ordered an investigation, petitioner through another counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of damages being asked for in the body of the complaint. It was only when in obedience to the order of this Court of October 18, 1985, the trial court directed that the amount of damages be specified in the amended complaint, that petitioner’s counsel wrote the damages sought in the much reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 in the body of the complaint but not in the prayer thereof. The design to avoid payment of the required docket fee is obvious.

Faced with an entirely different set of circumstances in Sun Insurance v. Judge Asuncion, 16 we modified our ruling in Manchester and decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. The aforesaid ruling was made on the justification that, unlike in the case of Manchester, the private respondent in Sun Insurance, demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required.

At first blush, respondents claim would hold water under a strict application of our ruling in Sun Insurance and G.R. No. 76119. It should be pointed out, however that even before 1986, the trial court, instead of requiring petitioner to pay additional docket fees had ordered that the additional fees may be deducted from whatever damages petitioner may be adjudged to be entitled to in the final disposition of the case. During the pendency of the civil case with the Court of Appeals 17 and later with the Supreme Court, an injunction 18 was issued by both courts restraining the trial court from proceeding with the case until further orders. This made it legally impossible for petitioner to pay the additional docket fee required in the lower court. Hence, instead of dismissing the complaint, this Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings of the case upon full payment of the prescribed docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court or upon exemption from payment of the docket upon proper application by petitioner to litigate as a pauper.

Despite their claim of prescription, however, respondents argue that the proceedings in the trial court can only be deemed resumed upon payment by petitioner of all lawful fees based on the July 11, 1985 order of the court requiring petitioner to pay the additional docket fee in the sum of P945,636.90, or upon exemption from payment of docket fees as pauper litigant. 19 If the claim of petitioner had already prescribed as early as 1986, even if petitioner paid the additional sum of P945,636.90 immediately after G.R. No. 76119 was promulgated, it would not have cured the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.chanrobles.com : red

But there is nothing in G.R. No. 76119 which stated that petitioner should pay the additional docket fee in the sum of P945,636.90, otherwise the lower court would dismiss petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. After the trial court ruled that the payment for the additional docket fee could be deducted from whatever judgment in damages shall be awarded by the court, an injunction was issued by the Court of Appeals and, later, the Supreme Court, during the pendency of the case which preserved the .status quo among the parties. Even if he wanted to, petitioner could not have amended his complaint to lower the amount of his claim to accommodate his finances for purposes of paying the prescribed docket fee during, the reglementary period. Hence, although the case was decided in 1989, petitioner was given the chance to pay the required docket as assessed by the clerk of court or to seek exemption from payment upon proper application to litigate as pauper. Prescinding from the foregoing, if petitioner had been given the chance to pay the correct docket fee even beyond the alleged prescriptive period, there was no reason why he could not have amended his complaint and lowered his claim to accommodate his finances in order to pay the prescribed docket fees. Inasmuch as this Court has not specified the period within which petitioner should comply with its ruling, it is understood that the same was to be done within a reasonable period of time. Of course what is reasonable is relative according to the factual circumstances of the case. In the case at bar this Court finds that the filing of the second amended complaint a year after the denial of petitioner’s motion to litigate as pauper had been denied was reasonable.

It appears that petitioner, a day after the finality of G.R. No. 76119 and during the pendency of his motion to litigate as a pauper, has continuously paid additional sums for the prescribed docket fees amounting to at least P50,000.00, almost equivalent to his annual gross income of P56,271.24. 20 Clearly, the subsequent amendments of his complaint were done for no other reason than to accommodate his finances. Hence, while petitioner’s manner of paying the docket fees in installments should normally be disallowed, it would be more unfair for this Court to sanction respondents’ conduct of prolonging the proceedings of the case in a patent design to wear out the petitioner before conveniently raising the issue of prescription. Equity demands that procedural rules be relaxed considering the peculiar circumstances availing in the case at bar. It would be grossly unjust if petitioner’s claim against respondents, who have allegedly reaped the profits of his lifetime work, would be dismissed for the sole reason that his finances are not sufficient to allow him to file his claim.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 11, 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The assailed orders dated April 27, 1992 and December 23, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Olongapo City are REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com.ph : red

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 171 SCRA 680-81 (1989).

2. G.R. No. 79937-38, February 13, 1989.

3. Supra., at 683.

4. Records, Vol. II, p. 465.

5. Records, Vol. II, p. 754.

6. Petitioner actually filed a motion praying that he be allowed to sue as "partial-pauper."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. Records, Vol. II, p. 532.

8. Records, Vol. II, pp. 559-560.

9. Records, Vol. II, pp. 635-640.

10. Records, Vol. II, p. 862.

11. Records, Vol. II, p. 846.

12. 10 SCRA 65 (1964).

13. 12 SCRA 450 (1964).

14. 115 SCRA 193 (1982).

15. 149 SCRA 562 (1987).

16. 170 SCRA 274 (1989).

17. The case was docketed in the Court of Appeals as C.A. G.R. SP. 08155.

18. Records, Vol. I, p. 334; See Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 76119, supra.

19. Rollo, p. 20.

20. Records, Vol. II, p. 559.




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






March-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104930 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX K BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111928 March 1, 2000 - ALMARIO SIAPIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116464 March 1, 2000 - RODENTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117691 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO B. SAMPIOR

  • G.R. Nos. 119958-62 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124895 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LOS REYES

  • G.R. No. 134286 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO AMBAN

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1184 March 2, 2000 - AMPARO S. FARRALES, ET AL. v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454 March 2, 2000 - NESCITO C. HILARIO v. CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION

  • G.R. Nos. 115239-40 March 2, 2000 - MARIO C.V. JALANDONI v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125332 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126212 March 2, 2000 - SEA-LAND SERVICE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126814 March 2, 2000 - JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL, ET AL. v. GIL P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127718 March 2, 2000 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128360 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CRISPIN

  • G.R. No. 128677 March 2, 2000 - SANTIAGO ABAPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133343-44 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 March 3, 2000 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120656 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL FERDINAND A. OMAR

  • G.R. No. 126021 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE SIAO

  • G.R. No. 135802 March 3, 2000 - PRISCILLA L. TAN v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. 108381 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO I. ACAYA

  • G.R. No. 108951 March 7, 2000 - JESUS B. DIAMONON v. DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109992 March 7, 2000 - HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110899 March 7, 2000 - ELIZARDO D. DITCHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115192 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER D. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 128046 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CHUA UY

  • G.R. No. 128102 March 7, 2000 - AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 March 7, 2000 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138291 March 7, 2000 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK

  • G.R. Nos. 139573-75 March 7, 2000 - JUNE GENEVIEVE R. SEBASTIAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC March 8, 2000 - REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT IN RTC

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446 March 9, 2000 - CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY v. ERNA FALLORAN-ALIPOSA

  • G.R. No. 111174 March 9, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO V. SALUDARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111806 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN G. GALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 March 9, 2000 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116044-45 March 9, 2000 - AMERICAN AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116084-85 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO JOB

  • G.R. No. 118216 March 9, 2000 - DELTAVENTURES RESOURCES v. FERNANDO P. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120060 March 9, 2000 - CEBU WOMAN’S CLUB v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P. DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121998 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO CLEOPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125233 March 9, 2000 - Spouses ALEXANDER and ADELAIDA CRUZ v. ELEUTERIO LEIS

  • G.R. No. 126125 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GAVIOLA

  • G.R. No. 126210 March 9, 2000 - CRISTINA PEREZ v. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127439 March 9, 2000 - ALFREDO PAZ v. ROSARIO G. REYES

  • G.R. No. 127749 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN GAJO

  • G.R. No. 131925 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO CABANAS CUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132745 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO UGIABAN LUMANDONG

  • G.R. No. 133323 March 9, 2000 - ALBERTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133345 & 133324 March 9, 2000 - JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 135613 March 9, 2000 - ARTHUR V. VELAYO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-9-11-SC March 10, 2000 - RE: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST RICARDO BANIEL III

  • A.M. No. 99-9-12-SC March 10, 2000 - ROSA J. MENDOZA v. RENATO LABAY

  • G.R. No. 127845 March 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LODRIGO BAYYA

  • G.R. No. 127673 March 13, 2000 - RICARDO S. MEDENILLA, ET AL. v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130769 March 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER GEGUIRA

  • G.R. No. 132624 March 13, 2000 - FIDEL M. BAÑARES II, ET AL. v. ELIZABETH BALISING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140179 March 13, 2000 - ROQUE FERMO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1443 March 14, 2000 - EVAN B. CALLEJA v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES

  • G.R. No. 109271 March 14, 2000 - RICARDO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110524 March 14, 2000 - DOUGLAS MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000 - LUCIO ROBLES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000 - ENGRACE NIÑAL v. NORMA BAYADOG

  • G.R. No. 135087 March 14, 2000 - ALBERTO SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1544 March 15, 2000 - ROMEO DE LA CRUZ v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • G.R. No. 124453 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH PAMBID

  • G.R. No. 130602 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRONDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130809 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 131814 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221 March 16, 2000 - JOSEFINA M. VILLANUEVA v. BENJAMIN E. ALMAZAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1542 March 16, 2000 - ROLANDO M. ODOÑO v. PORFIRIO G. MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115949 March 16, 2000 - EVANGELINE J. GABRIEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124372 March 16, 2000 - RENATO CRISTOBAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125536 March 16, 2000 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126805 March 16, 2000 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128550 March 16, 2000 - DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129904 March 16, 2000 - GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133226 March 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOCSIN FABON

  • A.M. No. 99-8-286-RTC March 17, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & 99-1484 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 113433 March 17, 2000 - LUISITO P. BASILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115221 March 17, 2000 - JULIUS G. FROILAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 116754 March 17, 2000 - MORONG WATER DISTRICT v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121780 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SUMALDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122510-11 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MANRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124224 March 17, 2000 - NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124526 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY SAPAL

  • G.R. No. 124874 March 17, 2000 - ALBERT R. PADILLA v. FLORESCO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125059 March 17, 2000 - FRANCISCO T. SYCIP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129284 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO FLORES

  • G.R. No. 129297 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO SAN DIEGO

  • G.R. No. 131270 March 17, 2000 - PERFECTO PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134504 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO V. NARCISO v. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134986 March 17, 2000 - CAMPO ASSETS CORP. v. CLUB X. O. COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 138218 March 17, 2000 - CLAUDIUS G. BARROSO v. FRANCISCO S. AMPIG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC March 21, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC March 21, 2000 - REQUEST of Judge IRMA ZITA MASAMAYOR v. RTC-Br. 52

  • G.R. Nos. 130568-69 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHE CHUN TING

  • G.R. No. 130685 March 21, 2000 - FELIX UY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133434 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE E. ADILA

  • A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000 - MANUEL N. CAMACHO v. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 5235 March 22, 2000 - FERNANDO C. CRUZ, ET AL. v. ERNESTO C. JACINTO

  • A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ March 22, 2000 - Spouses CONRADO and MAITA SEÑA v. ESTER TUAZON VILLARIN

  • G.R. No. 122540 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123206 March 22, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132551 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DEDACE

  • Adm. Case No. 4083 March 27, 2000 - LEONITO GONATO, ET AL. v. CESILO A. ADAZA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1204 March 27, 2000 - MILA MARTINEZ v. ALEXANDER RIMANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120150 March 27, 2000 - ADRIAN DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123560 March 27, 2000 - YU ENG CHO, ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS

  • G.R. No. 124118 March 27, 2000 - MARINO ADRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 - ONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 128073 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE MAMALIAS

  • G.R. No. 130669 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON MITRA

  • G.R. No. 130722 March 27, 2000 - REYNALDO K. LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131074 March 27, 2000 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BICHARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132929 March 27, 2000 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. 136478 March 27, 2000 - ARSENIO P. REYES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1528 March 28, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. ALFREDO A. CABRAL

  • G.R. No. 79679 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE CABINGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDA MERIS

  • G.R. No. 131472 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO TIPAY

  • G.R. No. 132518 March 28, 2000 - GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133146 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133832 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO BARREDO

  • A.M. No. P-98-1284 March 30, 2000 - ABRAHAM D. CAÑA v. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION

  • G.R. No. 106671 March 30, 2000 - HARRY TANZO v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109773 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELBERTO BASE

  • G.R. No. 123112 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO CAVERTE and TEOFILO CAVERTE

  • G.R. No. 125355 March 30, 2000 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEALS and COMMONWEALTH MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 129288 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN

  • G.R. No. 138081 March 30, 2000 - BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), ET AL. v. NELSON OGARIO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1167 March 31, 2000 - EMILY M SANDOVAL. v. FELICISIMO S. GARIN

  • A.M. No. P-96-1211 March 31, 2000 - PACIFICO S. BULADO v. DOMINGO TIU

  • G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000 - ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114734 March 31, 2000 - VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115181 March 31, 2000 - MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115990 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR y ESTACIO @ "JOEY"

  • G.R. No. 121517 March 31, 2000 - RAY U. VELASCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121572 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELAMPARO

  • G.R. No. 123113 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY ABALDE

  • G.R. No. 123636 March 31, 2000 - JOSELITO LAGERA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125280 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON SUITOS

  • G.R. Nos. 128056-57 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS PARAMIL

  • G.R. No. 128647 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 132053 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO TAYAG

  • G.R. No. 132192 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO NOROÑA and FREDDIE NOROÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 133387-423 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ABAPO

  • G.R. No. 133857 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY AMIGABLE

  • G.R. No. 139137 March 31, 2000 - ALFREDO ARQUELADA, ET AL v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK