Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > January 2001 Decisions > A.M. No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MISAEL M. LADAGA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-99-1287. January 26, 2001.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. MISAEL M. LADAGA, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N


KAPUNAN, J.:


In a Letter, dated August 31, 1998, respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal Case No. 84885, entitled "People v. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga" for Falsification of Public Document pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. 1 While respondent’s letter-request was pending action, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 84885, sent a letter to the Court Administrator, dated September 2, 1998, requesting for a certification with regard to respondent’s authority to appear as counsel for the accused in the said criminal case. 2 On September 7, 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to respondent for comment. 3

In his Comment, 4 dated September 14, 1998, respondent admitted that he had appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without prior authorization. He reasoned out that the factual circumstances surrounding the criminal case compelled him to handle the defense of his cousin who did not have enough resources to hire the services of a counsel de parte; while, on the other hand, private complainant was a member of a powerful family who was out to get even with his cousin. Furthermore, he rationalized that his appearance in the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the public since he did not take advantage of his position. In any case, his appearances in court were covered by leave applications approved by the presiding judge.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On December 8, 1998, the Court issued a Resolution denying respondent’s request for authorization to appear as counsel and directing the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal charges against him for appearing in court without the required authorization from the Court. 5 On January 25, 1999, the Court Administrator filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent for violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees," which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. — Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, Provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;

In our Resolution, dated February 9, 1999, we required respondent to comment on the administrative complaint.

In his Comment, respondent explained that he and Ms. Ladaga are "close blood cousins" who belong to a "powerless family" from the impoverished town of Bacauag, Surigao del Norte. From childhood until he finished his law degree, Ms. Ladaga had always supported and guided him while he looked up to her as a mentor and an adviser. Because of their close relationship, Ms. Ladaga sought respondent’s help and advice when she was charged in Criminal Case No. 84885 for falsification by the private complainant, Lisa Payoyo Andres, whose only purpose in filing the said criminal case was to "seek vengeance" on her cousin. He explained that his cousin’s discord with Ms. Andres started when the latter’s husband, SPO4 Pedro Andres, left the conjugal home to cohabit with Ms. Ladaga. During the course of their illicit affair, SPO4 Andres and Ms. Ladaga begot three (3) children. The birth certificate of their eldest child is the subject of the falsification charge against Ms. Ladaga. Respondent stated that since he is the only lawyer in their family, he felt it to be his duty to accept Ms. Ladaga’s plea to be her counsel since she did not have enough funds to pay for the services of a lawyer. Respondent also pointed out that in his seven (7) years of untainted government service, initially with the Commission on Human Rights and now with the judiciary, he had performed his duties with honesty and integrity and that it was only in this particular case that he had been administratively charged for extending a helping hand to a close relative by giving a free legal assistance for "humanitarian purpose." He never took advantage of his position as branch clerk of court since the questioned appearances were made in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City and not in Makati where he is holding office. He stressed that during the hearings of the criminal case, he was on leave as shown by his approved leave applications attached to his comment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In our Resolution, dated June 22, 1999, we noted respondent’s comment and referred the administrative matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, for investigation, report and recommendation.

In her Report, dated September 29, 1999, Judge Salonga made the following findings and recommendation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

There is no question that Atty. Misael Ladaga appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for "Falsification of Public Documents" before the METC of Quezon City. It is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was without the previous permission of the Court.

An examination of the records shows that during the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. That the respondent appeared as pro bono counsel likewise cannot be denied. His cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga herself positively declared that the respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard for her.

It may not be amiss to point out, this is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like a big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this, during all the years that he has been in government service, he has maintained his integrity and independence.

RECOMMENDATION

In the light of the foregoing, it appearing that the respondent appeared as counsel for his cousin without first securing permission from the Court, and considering that this is his first time to do it coupled with the fact that said appearance was not for a fee and was with the knowledge of his Presiding Judge, it is hereby respectfully recommended that he be REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely. 6

We agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge.

Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. The said section reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advise to clients.

However, it should be clarified that "private practice" of a profession, specifically the law profession in this case, which is prohibited, does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In the case of People v. Villanueva, 7 we explained the meaning of the term "private practice" prohibited by the said section, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We believe that the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, N.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services (State v. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his — livelihood or in consideration of his said services."cralaw virtua1aw library

For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative. 8

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the "private practice" of the law profession contemplated by law.

Nonetheless, while respondent’s isolated court appearances did not amount to a private practice of law, he failed to obtain a written permission therefor from the head of the Department, which is this Court as required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors. 9

Respondent entered his appearance and attended court proceedings on numerous occasions, i.e., May 4-15, 1998, June 18, 1998, July 13, 1998 and August 5, 1998, as borne out by his own admission. It is true that he filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court. However, he failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with. more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 16.

2. Id., p. 10.

3. Id., p. 9.

4. Id., pp. 6-7.

5. Id., at 20.

6. Id., at 57-58.

7. 121 Phil. 894 (1965).

8. Id., at 897.

9. Emphasis supplied.




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






January-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 122934 January 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL PRECIADOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123850 January 5, 2001 - TIMOTEO RECAÑA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129777 January 5, 2001 - TCL SALES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-1608-RTJ January 16, 2001 - SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF TAGUIG v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-99-1463 January 16, 2001 - LORETO T. YU v. MATEO M. LEANDA

  • G.R. No. 117406 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO GARCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 120394-97 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126050 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEAZAR M. MADALI

  • G.R. No. 128362 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 129242 January 16, 2001 - PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130643 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR SEDUCO

  • G.R. No. 132025 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARGARITO GALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134074-75 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DURANAN

  • G.R. No. 134744 January 16, 2001 - GIAN PAULO VILLAFLOR v. DINDO VIVAR

  • G.R. Nos. 135850-52 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS MIRAFUENTES

  • G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 & 138607 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERITO AMAZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137285 January 16, 2001 - ESTATE OF SALUD JIMENEZ v. PHIL. EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE

  • G.R. No. 137665 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO PAINITAN

  • G.R. No. 138385 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTICO TILOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138645 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILBERT CABAREÑO

  • G.R. No. 138959 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO OSING

  • G.R. No. 141008 January 16, 2001 - MARAWI MARANTAO GENERAL HOSPITAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131823 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI PARAISO

  • G.R. Nos. 134844-45 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 135657 January 17, 2001 - JOSE V. LAGON v. HOOVEN COMALCO INDUSTRIES

  • G.R. No. 138609 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO TOYCO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 139340 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATIVIDAD LOVEDORIAL

  • A.M. No. P-00-1428 January 18, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. IMELDA S. PERLEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1579 January 18, 2001 - GERARDO M. SANTOS, ET AL. v. LORENZO R SILVA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106826 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR OLIVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116372 January 18, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128750 January 18, 2001 - CARQUELO OMANDAM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129305 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUKARNO DINDO

  • G.R. No. 130335 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE OLIVO

  • G.R. No. 132159 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR GIVERA

  • G.R. No. 132392 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 135034 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO SEGUIS, AT AL.

  • G.R. No. 136731 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 138233 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONIL ABUNDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139943 January 18, 2001 - MANUEL MIRALLES v. SERGIO F. GO

  • G.R. No. 141183 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO GULION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567 January 19, 2001 - FERNANDO DELA CRUZ v. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA

  • G.R. No. 91486 January 19, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119542 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AS VERJANON RABANAL

  • G.R. No. 128095 January 19, 2001 - MANUEL HUANG CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129769 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BELGA

  • G.R. No. 133090 January 19, 2001 - REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING, ET AL. v. DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL

  • G.R. No. 134913 January 19, 2001 - ZAIPAL D. BENITO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139539 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 139941 January 19, 2001 - VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140232 January 19, 2001 - PCGG v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141466 January 19, 2001 - ELIZA T. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 127182 January 22, 2001 - ALMA G. DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129057 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BILLY DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 130406 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUEL BAWAY

  • G.R. Nos. 134566-67 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GONYETO FRANCISCO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1270 January 23, 2001 - GERMAN WENCESLAO CRUZ v. DANIEL C. JOVEN

  • G.R. No. 93707 January 23, 2001 - ROSITA TAN v. JOSE L. LAPAK

  • G.R. No. 136048 January 23, 2001 - JOSE BARITUA, ET AL. v. NIMFA DIVINA MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136308 January 23, 2001 - ELAINE A. DEL ROSARIO v. MELINDA F. BONGA

  • G.R. No. 138822 January 23, 2001 - EVANGELINE ALDAY v. FGU INSURANCE CORP.

  • G.R. No. 139471 January 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO MAGABO

  • A.C. No. 3637 January 24, 2001 - RURAL BANK OF SILAY v. ERNESTO H. PILLA

  • G.R. Nos. 112089 & 112737 January 24, 2001 - REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120784-85 January 24, 2001 - WARLITO BUSTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121777 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAROL M. DELA PIEDRA

  • G.R. No. 128105 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDRING VALDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128116 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PERALTA

  • G.R. Nos. 135560-61 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN

  • G.R. Nos. 136147-48 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137696 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE SERNADILLA

  • G.R. No. 139519 January 24, 2001 - CONCHITO J. OCLARIT v. MAXIMO G. W. PADERANGA

  • G.R. No. 136304 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER RAMA

  • G.R. No. 137750 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO ABSALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138086 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONDE RAPISORA

  • G.R. No. 140765 January 25, 2001 - GONZALO R. GONZALES v. STATE PROPERTIES CORP.

  • A.C. No. 4943 January 26, 2001 - DIANA D. DE GUZMAN v. LOURDES I. DE DIOS

  • A.M. No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MISAEL M. LADAGA

  • G.R. No. 94996 January 26, 2001 - ALEMAR’S v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99398 & 104625 January 26, 2001 - CHESTER BABST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114316 January 26, 2001 - SECURITY AND CREDIT INVESTIGATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122088 January 26, 2001 - GOLD LOOP PROPERTIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140688 January 26, 2001 - EDUARDO E. GATDULA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 107125 January 29, 2001 - GEORGE MANANTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107529-30 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO Y. BAGCAL

  • G.R. No. 114917 January 29, 2001 - LUCIBAR ROCA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120528 January 29, 2001 - DIONISIO CALIBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120547 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDISON PLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 121413, 121479 & 128604 January 29, 2001 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122452 January 29, 2001 - TAM WING TAK v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. 137152 January 29, 2001 - CITY OF MANDALUYONG v. ANTONIO N. AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 138975 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MADERAS

  • G.R. No. 140158 January 29, 2001 - FERNANDO T. BALTAZAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524 January 29, 2001 - LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. RAMON S. ROCO

  • G.R. No. 124892 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAURO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 134343 January 30, 2001 - MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136228 January 30, 2001 - EMMA GALLARDO-CORRO, ET AL. v. EFREN DON L. GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137344 January 30, 2001 - FEDIL URIARTE, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137770 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO DULOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138936 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SOLIS

  • G.R. No. 142049 January 30, 2001 - GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125923 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORADIO SILVANO

  • G.R. Nos. 128088 & 146639 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON RONAS

  • G.R. No. 130492 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ARROJADO

  • G.R. No. 134958 January 31, 2001 - PATRICIO CUTARAN, ET AL. v. DENR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136102 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE DELAMAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137106-07 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ELPEDES

  • G.R. No. 139813 January 31, 2001 - JOEL BITO-ONON v. NELIA YAP FERNANDEZ, ET AL.