Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > October 2002 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-02-1685 October 15, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE CARLITO A. EISMA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1685. October 15, 2002.]

(Formerly AM. No. 01-6-354-RTC)

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE CARLITO A. EISMA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


VITUG, J.:


On the basis of the "Monthly Report of Cases’’ submitted to it by Judge Carlito Eisma, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, of Zamboanga City, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent on 23 November 2000 a memorandum to Judge Eisma directing him, among other things, to explain why no administrative sanction should be imposed for his failure to timely decide the cases listed in his September 2000 Monthly Report of Cases. In reply, respondent judge wrote that it was never his intention to unduly delay his action on the cases but admitted that there was an unfortunate oversight on his part. He undertook to decide the cases in due time. Noting the explanation, the OCA reminded respondent judge of the reglementary periods for resolving cases and exhorted him to forthwith attend to the remaining cases.

The monthly report of cases for March 2001 submitted by respondent judge would show that there were twenty-six undecided cases (five criminal cases and twenty-one civil cases). The OCA observed that there were long pending civil cases, filed during the late 1980’s to the year 2000, still in the pre-trial stage. In respondent judge’s Docket Inventory of Cases for July to December 2000, it would appear that several criminal cases were filed in the later part of 1999 and during the early months of 2000 that would yet have to be set for arraignment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Respondent judge attributed the delay to his heavy caseload and his various other assignments in Region 9 provinces for the period of from 1982 to 2000. In 1982, he was designated Acting Presiding Judge in the Court of First Instance of Basilan Province. In 1985, he was assigned to be Acting Presiding Judge of Branches 3 and 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Jolo and Parang, in the Province of Sulu, and in Branch 5 of Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, until the appointment of a regular presiding judge. The Court, in 1988, again gave him assignments in Jolo and Parang in view of the death of the regular presiding judge. In 1994, he was ordered to preside over Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, until 1996. In 1997, he was directed by the Court to hear and try a double murder case since the two previously assigned judges inhibited themselves. In year 2000, his sala was named a special court to try drug-related cases where hearings were held daily.

On 8 April 2001, respondent judge was compulsorily retired. In its memorandum of 5 June 2001 to the Court, the OCA reported that of the twenty six cases left undecided by respondent judge at the time of his retirement, only one case, Criminal Case No. 3196 (13487), was still within the reglementary period. The Court, in Its Resolution of 19 June 2001, resolved, thusly:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) NOTE the Memorandum dated 5 June 2001 of Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño;

"(b) REQUIRE Judge Eisma to SUBMIT within ten (10) days from notice a certification, under oath, of: (b-1) the list of cases he had decided from September 2000 to 8 April 2001 with the corresponding dates when these cases were submitted for decision or actually decided and when decisions were promulgated and (b-2) the list of cases he had left undecided;

"(c) DIRECT Judge Eisma and his Branch Clerk of Court to EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why they did not include in the previous Monthly Reports of Cases most of the cases long been submitted for decision and instead added the same per batch in their October and November 2000 and January 2001 Monthly Reports of Cases; and

"(d) DIRECT the FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, to WITHHOLD the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from the retirement benefits of Judge Eisma pending the completion of the requirements herein above enumerated and the evaluation of his administrative liability regarding the cases he left undecided beyond the reglementary period."cralaw virtua1aw library

In compliance with the above resolution, Judge Eisma and his branch clerk of court, Amador Tatel, submitted the list of cases (September 2000 to April 8, 2001) still left undecided. Relative to the unaccounted cases, respondent judge explained that it was only after an inventory that the cases were discovered to have been placed in the court’s warehouse.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Court, in its resolution of "11 September 2001, referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its memorandum dated 22 October 2001, the OCA found respondent judge’s explanation unsatisfactory, it stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . It is the duty of a judge to take note of the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and to see to it that the same are decided within the 90-day period fixed by law, and failure to resolve a case within the required period constitute gross inefficiency. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Benedicto, 206 SCRA 62, citing Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Ralalo, 231 SCRA 403 [1994], citing Longbonn v. Hon. Emilio L. Polig. 186 SCRA 557 [1990].’A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them properly.’ (Re inventory of cases in the RTC, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 360 [1996]). Judge Eisma failed in this respect, hence the resultant delay in the resolution of several cases in his sala."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court resolved, on 27 November 2001, to direct respondent judge and OIC-Branch Clerk of Court Amador T. Tatel, RTC, Branch 13, Zamboanga City to —

"(a) EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice hereof why:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a-1) the following cases, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 1101 (4270), 1116 (4513), 1187 (4540), 1121 (4359) [basis: September 2000 Monthly Report of Cases]; Civil Cases Nos. 1171 (4520), 1144 (230), 1183 (4477), 1146 (4445) [basis: October 2000 Monthly Report of Cases]; Civil Case No. 1137 (4413) [basis: November 2000 Monthly Report of Cases]; and Civil Case No. 1089 (4210) [basis: January 2001 Monthly Report of Cases]; were not included either in the list of cases decided from September 2000 to 8 April 2001 or in the list of cases left undecided by Judge Eisma upon his compulsory retirement; if aforesaid cases have already been decided prior to his retirement, ATTACH to their explanation copies of the decision/resolutions indicating therein the date of promulgation or date when entered in the book of judgment, and

"(a-2) Criminal Case No. 3309 (13933) and Civil Case No. 1186 (4572) which were submitted for decision on 1 March 1995 and 2 October 1998, respectively, were not reported as submitted for decision in any of the Monthly Reports of Cases; and

‘’(b) RENDER a status report under oath, within ten (10) days from notice hereof, on the following cases, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Title of the Case Date of Lapse of Time

Last from December

Hearing 2000

Criminal Cases

PP v. Marivic Lian 02-19-92 8 yrs. & 10 mos.

(5 counts)

Constancia 03-27-95 5 yrs. & 9 mos.

Bundahon

Sarah Osea 06-20-90 10 yrs. & 6 mos.

Owen Osea and 05-20-99 1 yr. & 7 mos.

Sarah Osea

Esclarito Emfistan, 04-06-00 8 mos.

et al.

Rosita B. Suba, et 05-04-99 1 yr. & 7 mos.

al.

Roderick P. 09-15-99 1 yr. & 3 mos.

Oliveros

Enrico Deles 10-14-96 4 yrs. & 2 mos.

A. Gadayan 09-30-98 2 yrs. & 3 mos.

Tessie Walog 03-08-00 9 mos.

(5 counts)

Ludivico Calasang 11-27-00 1 mo.

Maria Rubille 05-11-00 7 mos.

Atilano y Galvez

Celso Fabian y 01-24-00 11 mos.

Ingana

Ramil Siera y 06-07-00 6 mos.

Aplasin

Wilfrido D. 06-15-00 6 mos.

Climaco

Alnasir Ispilin y 06-20-00 6 mos.

Pawaki, Et. Al.

Civil Cases

Eulogio Geronimo v. 06-25-82 18 yrs. & 6 mos.

Lodwina Serrano, Et. Al.

City of Zamboanga v. 03-18-94 6 yrs. & 9 mos.

Argacio Locson & Sons

Maria Luisa T. Santiago 02-09-94 6 yrs. & 10 mos.

vs. A. Posequit, Et. Al.

DBP v. Sps. Estanislao

Roxas and Julia Roxas

Segunda Francisco, Et. Al. 07-11-86 14 yrs. & 5 mos.

vs. P.R. Francisco

R.P. M. Ramillano, Sr. 01-15-92 8 yrs. & 11 mos.

et al.

R.M. Mariwa v. RTC 09-01-89 11 yrs. & 3 mos.

Sheriff E. Cunting Et. Al.

Hadji Jundana Sahi v. 06-15-92 8 yrs. & 6 mos.

Sps. J. T. Angara, Et. Al.

J. Abejas v. Romeo 05-17-95 5 yrs. & 7 mos.

Basinio, Et. Al.

Lolito Limbaga, Et. Al. v. 02-09-96 4 yrs. & 10 mos.

Sixto Infante

Jose Mariano, Et. Al. v. 04-16-97 3 yrs. & 8 mos.

Efren Mariano, Et. Al.

Sonia Alvarez v. Ocson 07-02-93 7 yrs. & 5 mos.

Kibtiani, Et. Al.

Nul Tanjiji v. SKT 03-10-94 6 yrs. & 9 mos.

Shipping Corp.

Modesto Tan Uro, Et. Al. 01-29-99 1 yrs. & 11 mos.

vs. Francisco Tan. Et. Al.

Cesar Atilano v. Sps. 11-21-95 5 yrs. & 1 mo.

Roberto T. Tabar, Et. Al.

Pedro Belarino, Sr., Et. Al. 02-10-99 1 yr. & 10 mos.

vs. G. Canada, Et. Al.

Ezperanza Midel 04-07-97 3 yrs. & 8 mos.

Domingo, Et. Al. v. Heirs

of Consuelo Domingo

Concepcion de Gadon, et 01-17-96 4 yrs. & 11 mos.

al. v. Corazon delos

Santos, Et. Al.

Bienvenido T. Gutierrez 02-07-97 3 yrs. & 10 mos.

vs. Ofelia Olivar

Heirs of the Late Pilar 02-20-98 2 yrs. & 10 mos.

Ignacio Infante v. the

Estate of the Late Sixto

Infante

Estefano Montuno, Et. Al. 02-16-99 1 yrs. & 10 mos.

vs. Sps. Leonardo &

Zosimo Chiong

Hrs. of Sps. Angel Antinio, 09-05-97 3 yrs. & 3 mos.

et al. v. Fidencio

Antonio

King Jr. Security Agency & 05-03-00 7 mos.

General Services v.

DiaStar Security & Gen.

Services

Melania Salvador, Et. Al. v. 04-07-00 8 mos.

PNB, Et. Al.

Original & Judicial 07-22-97 3 yrs. & 5 mos.

Reconstitution

owner’s copies of TCT

No. 2277 for lot No.

3406

In their compliance, respondent judge and Amador T. Tatel submitted a status report on the aforementioned cases. The OCA, in its memorandum of 22 March 2002, made the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In sum, out of the one hundred thirty-six (136) cases included in the list of cases decided from September 2000 to April 8, 2001, only nine (9) cases were resolved within the reglementary period, the rest beyond the 90-day period.

"After Judge Eisma’s retirement he still left twenty-five (25) cases submitted for decision. These are Criminal Cases Nos. 3283 (13755), 1975 (7235), 1106 (4392), 1883 (6862) and 3196 (13487) and Civil Cases Nos. 107 (1249), 183 (1528), 340 (1842), 430 (2005), 560 (2298), 601 (2408), 830 (2973), 834 (2994), 859 (3069), 860 (3105), 873 (3173), 1013 (3826), 1041 (4010), 1069 (4099), 1077 (4153), 1168 (4514), 1192 (4589), 1193 (4601), 1195 (4623) & 1209 (430).

Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘’Rule 1.02. — A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

"Rule 3.05 — A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and without delay.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"The Court in a long line of decision has reminded members of the bench that the unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. (Ang v. Judge Enrique Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590, January 15, 2002; Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109; Ng v. Ulibari, 293 SCRA 342; Guinto v. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1; Report on the Audit and inventory of Cases in RTC, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 502).

"Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes gross inefficiency. Delay in the resolution of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. (Abarques v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109 [1998]).

Indeed, Judge Eisma should be held liable for failure to resolve several cases submitted for decision on time and for leaving unresolved twenty-five more cases submitted for decision before he retires and for failure to act/set for hearing thirty-seven more cases for a considerable length of time."cralaw virtua1aw library

The OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), deductible from the fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) which was withheld from his retirement benefits under the Court’s 19th June 2001 resolution. In recommending the administrative sanction, the OCA took into consideration the forty-three long years of service in the government of respondent judge; the fact that his average caseloads of 417 cases since 1983 was reduced by the end of March 2001 or shortly before his compulsory retirement to only 231; and that When he was designated Acting Presiding Judge of Sulu & Tawi-Tawi and directed to hear election cases in view of the inhibition of the regular presiding judges thereat, he accepted without hesitation the additional assignment despite the known danger of risking his life thereat.

The OCA’s recommendation is well taken.

The Court is not unaware of the awesome burden heaped on the shoulders of every judge. Very often, a judge must cope with a heavy caseload along with still other tasks that attach to his position. The grave responsibility notwithstanding, a judge is not excused from being remiss in all that is incumbent upon him. From the moment he takes his oath, he becomes a beholder to the public and is expected to live up to the exacting standards of an exalted office.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Court has constantly reminded judges of the need to decide cases with dispatch because any delay in the disposition of cases can easily undermine the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. The Constitution itself mandates that courts must decide cases before them within reglementary periods. The Code of Judicial Conduct expresses that "a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay" 1 and shall dispose of the court’s business promptly. Unavoidable circumstances, indeed, could compel judges to ask for extensions of time in resolving cases but, in these instances, the Court has been sympathetic and has almost always acted favorably on such requests.

Regrettably, respondent judge has been neglectful in the above respect. The OCA, nevertheless, is correct in not ignoring respondent judge’s long years of service in the government, his repeated designation to handle other branches of the court, and his evident effort to reduce his caseload prior to his retirement.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Carlito A. Eisma guilty of inefficiency and imposes on him a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS. The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is authorized to deduct this amount from his withheld retirement benefits. Unless there are other reasons to still withhold the Forty Thousand Pesos balance of the sum withheld from his retirement benefits, let such balance be released forthwith to respondent judge.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.




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






October-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 139401 October 2, 2002 - JMM PROMOTIONS AND MANAGEMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143161 October 2, 2002 - J.D. LEGASPI CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 120010 October 3, 2002 - SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (a.k.a. The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp.) v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122174 October 3, 2002 - INDUSTRIAL REFRACTORIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 135796 October 3, 2002 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MERCEDES M. OLIVER

  • G.R. No. 138648 October 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR LOPEZ y MANING

  • G.R. Nos. 139788 & 139827 October 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO L. DEL AYRE

  • A.C. No. 2797 October 4, 2002 - ROSAURA P. CORDON v. JESUS BALICANTA

  • A.M. No. 00-3-14-SC October 4, 2002 - RE: LIST OF JUDGES WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 10-94, DATED JUNE 29, 1994.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1429 October 4, 2002 - FRANCISCA P. PASCUAL v. Judge EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS

  • G.R. No. 107764 October 4, 2002 - EDNA COLLADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128669 October 4, 2002 - MAMERTA VDA. DE JAYME, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130078-82 October 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO I. DELMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137774 October 4, 2002 - SPOUSES MANUEL R. HANOPOL and BEATRIZ T. HANOPOL v. SHOEMART INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 138962 October 4, 2002 - PRESCILLA TUATES, ET AL. v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139611 October 4, 2002 - NOLI ALFONSO, ET AL. v. SPS. HENRY and LIWANAG ANDRES

  • G.R. No. 141608 October 4, 2002 - ANFLO MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL. v. RODOLFO D. BOLANIO

  • G.R. No. 146943 October 4, 2002 - SARIO MALINIAS v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147904 October 4, 2002 - NESTOR B. MAGNO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141296 October 7, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN L. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143383 October 8, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL M. ORQUINA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1532 October 9, 2002 - DONATILLA M. NONES v. VERONICA M. ORMITA

  • G.R. No. 136141 October 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. C. DOMINGO TUPAZ

  • G.R. Nos. 136899-904 October 9, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO DELA CERNA

  • MTJ-02-1458 October 10, 2002 - SOCORRO R. HOEHNE v. JUDGE RUBEN R. PLATA

  • G.R. No. 133227 October 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHITO P. UCAB

  • G.R. No. 138471 October 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL PRUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138510 October 10, 2002 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145436 October 10, 2002 - MICHAEL LONDON for and in behalf of his minor son NICHOLAS FREDERICK LONDON v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131475-76 October 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCELO CALISO

  • G.R. No. 140066 October 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EFREN VILLENA

  • G.R. No. 140638 October 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARNOLD RIZALDO y GARDOSE alias Totong

  • G.R. No. 141949 October 14, 2002 - CEFERINO PADUA, ET AL. v. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143032 October 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SEGUNDINO VALENCIA y BLANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147750 October 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERRY H. EBIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640 October 15, 2002 - ATTY. HERMOGENES DATUIN v. JUDGE ANDRES B. SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1685 October 15, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE CARLITO A. EISMA

  • G.R. No. 133833 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUDY SICAD, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 137047 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRE R. DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 137746 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY SAN PASCUAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140613 October 15, 2002 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140640 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VINSON A. BRIONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142013 & 148430 October 15, 2002 - BIÑAN STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142531 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANILO ASIS y FONPERADA and GILBERT FORMENTO y SARICON

  • G.R. Nos. 145734-35 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTA MEDINA LAPIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148724 October 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO ARNANTE y DACPANO

  • G.R. No. 149472 October 15, 2002 - JORGE SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136821 October 17, 2002 - ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142689 October 17, 2002 - POLICARPO T. CUEVAS v. BAIS STEEL CORP. and STEVEN CHAN

  • G.R. No. 148303 October 17, 2002 - UNION OF NESTLE WORKERS CAGAYAN DE ORO FACTORY (UNWCF for brevity) v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 132030 October 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERICELITO VALLESPIN

  • G.R. Nos. 137274-75 October 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAN AVE

  • G.R. No. 137341 October 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 139302 October 28, 2002 - EDUARDO P. CORSIGA v. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139607 October 28, 2002 - RAMON ISIDRO P. LAPID and GLADYS B. LAPID v. HON. EMMANUEL D. LAUREA

  • G.R. No. 143237 October 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCIS GAVINA Y QUEBEC

  • G.R. No. 146658 October 28, 2002 - MANUEL D. MELOTINDOS v. MELECIO TOBIAS

  • G.R. No. 148899 October 28, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VENTURA PELIGRO Y AMPO

  • G.R. No. 149243 October 28, 2002 - LOLITA B. COPIOSO v. LAURO COPIOSO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152359 October 28, 2002 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WEST NEGROS COLLEGE, INC.,

  • G.R. No. 138855 October 29, 2002 - LAMBERTO CASALLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 138955 October 29, 2002 - AMPARO ROXAS v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 139998 October 29, 2002 - PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC) v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS