Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > November 2000 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-92-798 November 15, 2000 - JAVIER A. ARIOSA v. CAMILO TAMIN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-92-798. November 15, 2000.]

JAVIER A. ARIOSA, Complainant, v. JUDGE CAMILO TAMIN RTC BRANCH 23, MOLAVE, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


BUENA, J.:


The administrative matter before us is an incident and offshoot of a sworn letter complaint, 1 dated 15 January 1992, filed by complainant Javier Ariosa, then Provincial Governor of Zamboanga Del Sur, charging respondent Judge Camilo Tamin of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga City, Branch 23, with Gross Ignorance of the Law, involving the dismissal of two informations for libel, 2 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

In an Order dated 05 December 1991, respondent RTC Judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 91-10-212 and Criminal Case No. 91-10-213, both for Libel and entitled "People v. Billy Yu, Et Al.," where then Provincial Governor Ariosa stood as complainant, alleging in said Order that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, of which respondent acted as Presiding Judge, had no jurisdiction over the subject libel cases inasmuch as the crime of libel carries only an imposable penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of P2,000.00 or both. 3chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Acting on the sworn-letter complaint of then Governor Ariosa, this Court in a Resolution dated 02 June 1992, required respondent judge to file Comment within (10) days from notice.

On 17 August 1992, respondent filed his Comment 4 alleging that the dismissal of the subject libel cases was proper considering that the Regional Trial Court had "no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the information," invoking the provisions of Article 357 of the Revised Penal Code.

In a Resolution dated 03 September 1992, this Court ordered the referral of the instant administrative matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), for evaluation, report and recommendation.

In a Memorandum dated 04 November 1992, the OCA recommended that respondent judge be imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for ignorance of the law, which recommendation the Supreme Court resolved to adopt in an En Banc Resolution 5 dated 19 November 1992, the decretal portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Accordingly, the Court resolved to hold respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin GUILTY of ignorance of the law and to impose on him a FINE of P5,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent judge."cralaw virtua1aw library

On 11 January 1993, respondent judge filed a Motion for Reconsideration 6 of the En Banc Resolution, dated 19 November 1992.

In a Manifestation dated 07 December 1992, respondent judge asked "for leave to withdraw the ill-considered Motion for Reconsideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

In a Resolution dated 21 January 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc resolved to note the Manifestation and granted the request of respondent judge to withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration.

In a Manifestation dated 17 May 2000, 7 respondent judge assailed the En Banc Resolution dated 19 November 1992 and "submitted that the Supreme Court has no constitutional jurisdiction over the above-entitled case, and therefore the decision rendered by the High Court in November 1992, in the above-entitled case is a patent nullity, because the same is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the laws which this Honorable Court has sworn to uphold and protect." 8

Likewise in the same Manifestation, respondent judge alleged that "the Office of the Court Administrator, in directly filing the above-entitled case before this Honorable Court, illegally usurped the judicial appellate power of review over the judicial work of the court of respondent, which is clearly against the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 828, and the Constitution." 9

In its Prayer, 10 respondent judge ask that "the patently null and void decision of this High Court in the above-entitled case, dated November 19, 1992, which is roughly an equivalent to a skull offering before the jurisprudential banquet of history, be set aside and ordered removed from the annals of this Honorable Court." (Emphasis ours)

In an En Banc Resolution, dated 08 August 2000, this Court resolved to note the Manifestation dated 17 May 2000, and further required respondent Judge Tamin to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for using intemperate language in said Manifestation.

On 07 September 2000, respondent judge filed his Compliance, 11 alleging therein that he "wholly acknowledges, deeply regrets and is full of contrition" for having used "intemperate language in his Manifestation." Respondent judge explained that his Manifestation was written and prepared by him "in a state of deep depression and despair which darkened his sense of propriety in dealing with this Honorable Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover in said Compliance, respondent judge prayed that the Supreme Court grant amnesty, "as a gift of benevolence," to all lower court judges found guilty of administrative charges which "do not involve immorality, dishonesty, and graft and corruption, or any acts which would cause dishonor and disrepute to the judiciary," "to inaugurate the commencement of the new era of the highest standard of excellence in the jurisprudential craftsmanship, judicial statesmanship and wisdom for the Philippine Judiciary in the new century and millennium."cralaw virtua1aw library

Stripped of rhetoric, we find respondent judge guilty of using intemperate, abrasive and abject language against the High Court. Certainly, the ill-suited actuation and scabrous language of respondent judge demand the sternest rebuke from this Court, if we were to preserve the integrity and hallowed image of the Supreme Court as the bastion of justice and unflappable refuge of the oppressed. By using such vindictive tone and acrimony in his Manifestation, respondent judge clearly engaged in an act so undignified, repulsive and unbecoming a man of his stature as a magistrate of the law and a distinguished member of the Bench.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, resorting to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and becomes self-destructive. 12 High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times. 13 Applying this aphorism to the solemn realm of the judicial arm of government, it is apt for us to reiterate that "an overspeaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal." 14

Notably, by occupying an exalted seat in the judiciary, judges, in effect, undertake to embrace a profession and lead lives that demand stringent ethical norms. Being in the forefront of the noble task of dispensing justice, respondent judge should have demonstrated finesse in his choice of words, as normally expected of men of his stature. Verily, the use of vulgar and curt language — especially against the Highest Tribunal — does not befit the person of a judge who is viewed by the public as men and women of wisdom and scruples. 15 To put it differently, a judge should be temperate 16 in all his dealings — official or otherwise — more so when the subject of comment and criticism is no less than the Highest Court of the land — the Supreme Court.

To this end, this Court, in dissecting the language employed in respondent’s Manifestation, is of the firm view that respondent Judge Tamin has undeniably transgressed the permissible limits and bounds of constructive criticism and fair comment so as to render him liable for administrative liability and penalty. Free expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one’s irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy the courts and their members. 17

Under these circumstances, we can neither overemphasize nor underestimate the significance of according utmost premium to the integrity and image of the Courts of justice — most especially that of the Supreme Court — considering that appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. As the final bastion of justice, the Supreme Court cannot sanction any act, or omission, that shatters the faith of every law-abiding citizen in the judiciary and puts the judicial arm of government in shameful light and chagrin. This rubric grasps deeper relevance when the ravisher of the image of the court of justice, so to speak, is one within its distinguished ranks — a magistrate supposedly sworn to protect, uphold and perpetuate the rule of law and reign of justice.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent Judge Camilo Tamin guilty of using intemperate and undignified language against the Supreme Court, in clear violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby imposes upon respondent judge a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and further sternly warns respondent that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Mendoza, JJ., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 1.

2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 3-5; Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 6-8.

3. Rollo, p. 23.

4. Dated 20 July 1992, Rollo, p. 25-27.

5. Rollo, pp. 35-37.

6. Dated 25 November 1992.

7. Received by the OCA on 14 June 2000.

8. Rollo, p. 63.

9. Ibid.

10. Rollo, p. 67.

11. Dated 23 August 2000.

12. Alfonso and Coraminda Lumibao v. Judge Mamerto C. Panal, MCTC, Malungon-Alabel, Saranggani, A.M. No. 95-35-MTJ, promulgated on 25 November 1999, per Justice Arturo B. Buena, citing Galang v. Santos, 307 SCRA 582 [1999] and Court Employees of the RTC, Br. 27, Gingoog City v. Galon, 265 SCRA 770 [1996].

13. Quiroz v. Orfila, 272 SCRA 324 [1997].

14. Delgra, Jr. v. Gonzales, 31 SCRA 237 [1970]; Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1949 ed., pp. 214-215, citing Bacon in his Essay, "Of Judicature" .

15. Lumibao v. Judge Panal, supra.

16. Canon 4, Canons of Judicial Ethics.

17. In Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo, promulgated on April 17, 1990, A.M. No. 92-7-360-0.




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-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1510 November 6, 2000 - RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ v. RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. 140665 November 13, 2000 - VICTOR TING "SENG DEE", ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2611 November 15, 2000 - FELY E. CORONADO v. ERNESTO FELONGCO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1333 November 15, 2000 - LAMBERTO P. VILLAFLOR v. ROMANITO A. AMATONG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1583 November 15, 2000 - PASTOR O. RICAFRANCA v. LILIA C. LOPEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-92-798 November 15, 2000 - JAVIER A. ARIOSA v. CAMILO TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 103149 November 15, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 125903 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO SAULO

  • G.R. No. 126223 November 15, 2000 - PHI. AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129299 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO OLING MADRAGA

  • G.R. No. 131127 November 15, 2000 - ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131922 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELY LADERA

  • G.R. No. 132671 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO BAULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133240 November 15, 2000 - RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS v. REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY

  • G.R. No. 134310 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO SUALOG

  • G.R. No. 134406 November 15, 2000 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. FRANCISCO RABAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134539 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO BALMORIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135413-15 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMER MOYONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136745 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO RENDAJE

  • G.R. No. 136861 November 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 137122 November 15, 2000 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137915 November 15, 2000 - NARRA INTEGRATED CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137980 November 15, 2000 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 138141 November 15, 2000 - AMELIA MARINO v. SPS. SALCEDO

  • G.R. Nos. 139141-42 November 15, 2000 - MAMBURAO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139283 November 15, 2000 - ALLEN LEROY HAMILTON v. DAVID LEVY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140274 November 15, 2000 - WILLIAM T. TOH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141423 November 15, 2000 - MELINA P. MACAHILIG v. GRACE M. MAGALIT

  • G.R. No. 134309 November 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MARIANO

  • G.R. Nos. 135511-13 November 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRICO MARIANO

  • A.M. No. P-97-1243 November 20, 2000 - NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO v. WILFREDO VILLEGAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1553 November 20, 2000 - ALFREDO BENJAMIN v. CELSO D. LAVINA

  • G.R. No. 95533 November 20, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97472-73 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE PACAÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109338 November 20, 2000 - CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112172 November 20, 2000 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115747 & 116658 November 20, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119991 November 20, 2000 - OLIMPIA DIANCIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122950 November 20, 2000 - ESTATE OF THE LATE MENA BOLANOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123855 November 20, 2000 - NEREO J. PACULDO v. BONIFACIO C. REGALADO

  • G.R. No. 124293 November 20, 2000 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 124572 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO OPOSCULO

  • G.R. No. 125497 November 20, 2000 - UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127750-52 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO DIGMA

  • G.R. No. 128819 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDISON CASTURIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132717 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL MANA-AY

  • G.R. No. 134992 November 20, 2000 - PEPITO S. PUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135294 November 20, 2000 - ANDRES S. SAJUL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135963 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO SABADO

  • G.R. Nos. 137108-09 November 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONNIE TAGAYLO

  • G.R. No. 141975 November 20, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ATLAS FARMS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320 November 22, 2000 - ANTONIO M. BANGAYAN v. JIMMY R. BUTACAN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1160 November 22, 2000 - MA. CRISTINA B. SEARES v. ROSITA B. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1569 November 22, 2000 - MELCHOR E. BONILLA v. TITO G. GUSTILO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1520 November 22, 2000 - REIMBERT C. VILLAREAL v. ALEJANDRO R. DIONGZON

  • G.R. Nos. 116124-25 November 22, 2000 - BIBIANO O. REYNOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119281 November 22, 2000 - VETERANS FEDERATION OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121769 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANDY ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123101 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITING ARANAS @ TINGARDS/RONNIE

  • G.R. No. 128583 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPHINE FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 128872 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATERNO VITANCUR

  • G.R. No. 130331 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADEL TUANGCO

  • G.R. No. 130651 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DESAMPARADO

  • G.R. Nos. 136247 & 138330 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL LIBAN

  • G.R. No. 136857 November 22, 2000 - BARTIMEO VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137908 November 22, 2000 - RAMON D. OCHO v. BERNARDINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137978-79 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR C. SALE

  • G.R. No. 138296 November 22, 2000 - VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ALBERTO DELOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138735 November 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEFINO LEODONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139587 November 22, 2000 - IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED ISMAEL REYES v. CESAR R. REYES

  • G.R. No. 139792 November 22, 2000 - ANTONIO P. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936 November 22, 2000 - SALVADOR BIGLANG-AWA, ET AL. v. MARCIANO I. BACALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140162 November 22, 2000 - AYALA LAND v. MORRIS CARPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113006 November 23, 2000 - ONG CHIU KWAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124371 November 23, 2000 - PAULA T. LLORENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125331 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLINDO BELAJE

  • G.R. No. 126640 November 23, 2000 - MARCELO B. ARENAS, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129896 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS MADRID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132123 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOMER DELOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135331 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMAR PALEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136233 November 23, 2000 - SY CHIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136398 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOUIE RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 136421 November 23, 2000 - JOSE and ANITA LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et AL.

  • G.R. No. 137035 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GALING ESMANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137383-84 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VELASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 137491 November 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE FLORES

  • G.R. No. 139951 November 23, 2000 - RAMON M. VELUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1335 November 27, 2000 - YOLANDA FLORO v. ORLANDO C. PAGUIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1075 November 27, 2000 - PILAR VDA. DELA PEÑA v. TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1431 November 27, 2000 - SOFRONIO VENTURA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO CONCEPCION

  • A.M. No. P-98-1270 November 27, 2000 - ANTONIO ABANIL v. ABEL FRANCISCO B. RAMOS, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1427 November 27, 2000.

    PABLO C. REQUIERME, ET AL. v. EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO

  • G.R. No. 114942 November 27, 2000 - MAUNLAD SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115997 November 27, 2000 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119747 November 27, 2000 - EXPECTACION DECLARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121104 November 27, 2000 - GERARDO PAHIMUTANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122113 November 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON HERNANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127406 November 27, 2000 - OFELIA P. TY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130845 November 27, 2000 - BRYAN U. VILLANUEVA v. TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136757-58 November 27, 2000 - CONSUELO S. BLANCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 139006 November 27, 2000 - REMIGIO S. ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139495 November 27, 2000 - MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140894 November 27, 2000 - ROSARIO YAMBAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143789 November 27, 2000 - SYSTEMS FACTORS CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1531 November 28, 2000 - REYNALDO MAGAT v. GREGORIO G. PIMENTEL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-00-1536 November 28, 2000 - REDENTOR S. VIAJE v. JOSE V. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 129252 November 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CABER, SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 131532-34 November 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY SEGUI

  • G.R. No. 132330 November 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BANGCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139273 November 28, 2000 - CALIFORNIA AND HAWAIIAN SUGAR COMPANY, ET AL. v. PIONEER INSURANCE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1205 November 29, 2000 - OFELIA DIRECTO v. FABIAN M. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1494 November 29, 2000 - ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA v. APOLINARIO F. ESTOQUE

  • A.M. No. SCC-00-5 November 29, 2000 - SALAMA S. ANSA v. SALIH MUSA

  • G.R. No. 109557 November 29, 2000 - JOSE UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116239 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118475 November 29, 2000 - ELVIRA ABASOLO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124475 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PANELA

  • G.R. No. 125935 November 29, 2000 - CARMELITA P. BASILIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126746 November 29, 2000 - ARTHUR TE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129064 November 29, 2000 - JUAN A. RUEDA v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 132977 November 29, 2000 - LUIS MONDIA, JR., ET AL. v. EDGARDO G. CANTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133007 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ADAME

  • G.R. No. 133441 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. ROMMEL PINE

  • G.R. No. 133787 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO BIRAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133925 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. AGUSTIN GOPIO

  • G.R. No. 134606 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE ABILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135035 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO ALVERIO

  • G.R. No. 135405 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JHONNETTEL MAYORGA

  • G.R. Nos. 135671-72 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONTANO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 137049 November 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PFC. RENANTE NACARIO

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 November 29, 2000 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141013 November 29, 2000 - PACIFIC MILLS, ET AL. v. MANUEL S. PADOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142021 November 29, 2000 - TEODORA BUENAFLOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142907 November 29, 2000 - JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET. AL.