Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > September 2002 Decisions > A.M. No. P-00-1364 September 19, 2002 - DIOSCORO COMENDADOR v. JORGE M. CANABE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-00-1364. September 19, 2002.]

DIOSCORO COMENDADOR, Petitioner, v. JORGE M. CANABE, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N


AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:


On February 17, 1997, the Office of Court Administrator received a letter-complaint from Dioscoro Comendador, one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 41 1 against deputy sheriff Jorge M. Canabe assigned to Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court, Carigara, Leyte "for willful and deliberate failure to serve the writ of execution", alleging that Sheriff Canabe received two (2) copies of the writ of execution received by the Municipal Trial Court of Leyte, Leyte on September 29, 1995 2 and "December 1995 "3; that despite receipt of said writs, he failed to serve the same on the defendants and make a return of service per the Certification dated February 3, 1999 issued by the Clerk of Court of MTC Leyte. 4

On September 1, 19975 , respondent was required to file his Answer which he received on October 10, 19976 . No answer was received from respondent and so on February 25, 1999 (or one year and four months later), the then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo sent a letter directing respondent to submit his Answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof; otherwise, the case will be submitted to the Court without his Answer. 7

On April 23, 1999, the OCA received respondent’s Answer which reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"1. That the writ of execution issued on September and December 1995, was served upon the principal defendant Atty. Vicente Ramirez, in Civil Case No. 41, captioned Dioscoro Comendador, Et Al., plaintiff versus Atty. Vicente Ramirez, Et Al., for Malicious Prosecution in the Municipal Trial Court of Leyte, Leyte;

"2. That principal defendant Atty. Vicente Ramirez was a resident of Brgy. San Jose, Tacloban, City, was not contacted because he was in Metro Manila at the time of service, while the other included defendants were all hired laborers and residents of Leyte, Leyte. All were insolvents except for a certain Delfin Relosa whose name appears to be a registered land owner of a parcel of land in the book of the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Leyte, Leyte, but a different person mentioned as defendant in the above-captioned case;

"3. That plaintiff Dioscoro Comendador was personally and verbally informed that Atty. Vicente Ramirez was not personally contacted because he was in Metro Manila at the time of service and readily agree that upon defendant’s return will be the time to serve the writ;

"4. That the charge of willful failure to serve the writ is belied by the fact that there never been an instant case that I have been remiss in my duties to the point of being labeled as incompetent and negligent as the foregoing returns of writ manifestly indicates; if there has not been satisfaction on the execution of judgment, that is not attributable to the fault or negligence or incompetence of the undersigned; as a matter of fact the undersigned has satisfactorily served the writ of execution with the defendant as shown by his signature affixed in the writ of execution (xerox copy of the writ of execution hereto attached), * letter request to the City Assessor, City Assessor’s Office, Tacloban City, to issue a Tax Declaration registered in the name of Atty. Vicente Ramirez; the Municipal Assessor of the Municipal Assessor’s Office, Leyte, Leyte, likewise to issue Tax Declaration in the name of Atty. Vicente Ramirez and his co-defendants, all in xerox copies hereto attached * for ready reference, contrary to the sweeping and malicious accusation by complainant;

"5. That undersigned was given Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos in going to Brgy. San Jose, Tacloban City, residence of defendant Atty. Vicente Ramirez, twice, to serve the writ which is almost one hundred fifteen kilometers back and forth and to the town of Leyte, Leyte, where the other defendants reside, and to contact his lawyer Atty. Manuel Montejo, who is a resident of Naval town, province of Biliran, a distance of almost one hundred fifty kilometers in going to and back and the amount given is not even enough for gasoline expenses for this own vehicle (jeep) he used and other miscellaneous expenses incurred." 8

On January 17, 2000, then Court Administrator submitted the following findings and recommendation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"FINDINGS: The issue which needs to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent failed to serve on the defendant’s (sic) of Civil Case No. 41, the two writs of execution issued by the court.

We do not find sufficient evidence to show that respondent deliberately refused to serve the writs of execution issued by the court. Complainant herein has not fully substantiated his charge against Respondent. The mere absence of a sheriff’s return or report would not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that respondent, willfully and with malice, refused to serve said writs on the defendants in Civil Case No. 41. Substantial evidence is the quantum of proof required in administrative cases (Flordeliza v. Lachica, 254 SCRA 278). This was not evident in this case.

This is not to say, however, that respondent’s actuations did not amount to administrative liability. Paragraph (4) of Administrative Circular No. 12 as issued by this Court provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. All sheriffs and deputy sheriffs shall submit a report to the judge concerned on the action taken on all writs and process assigned to them within ten (10) days from receipt of said writ or process."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the same vein, Section 11, Rule 39 of the then applicable Rules of Court provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 11. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution may be made returnable to the clerk or judge of the court issuing it, at anytime not less that ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days after the receipt by the officer . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

This was furthermore reiterated in Paragraph 2 (x), Section D, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

As clearly shown by the complainant, no return or report was made by the respondent as of February 3, 1997 on the writs issued by the court on September 29, 1995 and December, 1995 as per certification of Clerk of Court Laura D. Delantar, or more than one (1) year after both writs were issued and received by the Respondent. Said failure of the respondent is a violation of his duties as mandated by the provisions as mentioned above.

There is neglect in the performance of his duty if the sheriff fails to submit his report to the court on time (San Jose v. Centeno, 245 SCRA 297). As such, it clearly appears that respondent is similarly liable for said neglect. The sheriff, an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must be circumspect and proper in his behavior (Elipe v. Fabre, 241 SCRA 249).

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully recommended that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. This case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

2. Respondent be FINED P1,000.00 for his failure to make a return of the writ; and

3. Respondent be WARNED that the commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely." 9

On February 16, 2000, the Court resolved to docket the case as regular administrative proceeding and required parties to manifest if they are willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. 10

Accordingly, complainant filed his Manifestation that he is willing to submit the case for resolution based on the documents and other evidence which he had filed. 11

On the part of respondent, he was required in our Resolution dated February 19, 2001 to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with our Resolution dated February 16, 2000 and to comply therewith. 12 On August 6, 2001, the Court resolved to consider the filing of the manifestation as "waived." Thus, respondent is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence in support of his defense.

Hence, herein Resolution.

We agree with the Court Administrator that there is no sufficient evidence which supports complainant’s charge that respondent deliberately refused to serve the writs of execution. However, respondent is not free from any fault on this matter. The perception given to complainant that respondent was deliberately refusing to serve the writs of execution emanated from the undisputed fact that respondent failed to submit his returns within the period required under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, then prevailing, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 11. Return of writ of execution. — Writ of execution may be made returnable to the clerk or judge of the court issuing it, at any time not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days after the receipt by the officer who must set forth in writing on its back the whole of his proceedings by virtue thereof, and file it with the clerk or judge to be preserved with the other papers in the case. A certified copy of the record, in the execution book kept by the clerk, of an execution by virtue of which real property has been sold, or of the officer’s return thereon, shall be evidence of the contents of the originals whenever they, or any part thereof, have been lost or destroyed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent failed to present any countervailing evidence to show otherwise. He failed to attach his alleged proofs that he tried to serve or enforce the writs. The Clerk of Court certified that as of February 3, 1997, respondent had not submitted his returns of the writs issued on September 29, 1995 (or the lapse of one year and five months), and December, 1995 (or the lapse of one year and two months). 13 Respondent is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties.

Contrary to his own claim, Sheriff Canabe has shown his propensity for ignoring not only the Rules of Court but also our own Resolutions duly received by him.

With respect to respondent’s complaint in his Answer that he was given only Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) by the complainant for transportation to serve the writ on a certain Atty. Vicente Ramirez who lived 115 kilometers away from Leyte, Leyte — suffice it to be stated that the applicable rule is embodied in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, to wit:cralaw : red

"SECTION 9. Sheriff, and other persons serving processes. —

x       x       x


In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage, for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no indication in the Answer of respondent or any part of the records that respondent had complied with the above-quoted Rule. The Sheriff is obliged to secure the approval of the issuing court of the estimated expenses and fees for implementation of the writ of execution. 14 The acceptance of cash for whatever amount and purpose without a written approval of the Presiding Judge and the issuance of the corresponding receipt therefor, constitutes gross misconduct.

Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. 15 By the nature of their functions, sheriffs at all times must act above suspicion. 16

In Jumio v. Egay-Eviota, we stressed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"One of the most difficult phases of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with the delicate task of the enforcement and/or implementation of the same must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decision, orders or other processes of the courts of justice would be futile. Stated differently, the judgment, if not executed, would be just an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party." 17

In Pontes v. Tepace, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Indeed, the importance of the role played by sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in the administration of justice cannot be over-emphasized. They are the court personnel primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs originating from courts. Most importantly, they are officers of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends and it is a truism that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law. Hence, sheriffs must at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties. A decision left unexecuted or delayed indefinitely due to the inefficiency, negligence, misconduct or ignorance of the law of sheriffs renders the same inutile. What is worse, the parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system." 18

The Court cannot countenance any act or omission which divides or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. To drive home to all those involved in the administration of justice and to stress the gravity of the gross negligence and gross misconduct committed by respondent, we deem it just and reasonable to increase the fine recommended by the OCA from One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Respondent had compulsorily retired on September 2, 2002.

WHEREFORE, we find Jorge M. Canabe, Sheriff IV, guilty of gross negligence and gross misconduct in the performance of his duties and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Entitled, Dioscoro Comendador, Anunciacion Comendador and Juan Mabines v. Atty. Vicente Ramirez, Delfin Relosa, Ben Coquilla and Dominador Rosal.

2. Rollo, Annex "A", p. 5.

3. Rollo, Annex "B", p. 7.

4. Rollo, Annex "C", p. 3.

5. Rollo, p. 9.

6. Id.

7. Rollo, p. 10.

*. No attachments to the Answer are found.

8. Rollo, pp. 12-13.

9. Rollo, pp. 17-18.

10. Rollo, p. 19.

11. Rollo, p. 21.

12. Rollo, p. 33.

13. Rollo, Annex "C", p. 2.

14. Vda. De Gillego v. Roxas, 235 SCRA 158, 163 [1994].

15. Llamado v. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597, 606-607 [1997].

16. Vda. De Tisado v. Tablizo, 253 SCRA 646, 652 [1996].

17. 231 SCRA 551, 554 [1994].

18. 267 SCRA 185, 194 [1997].




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1455 September 2, 2002 - NECITAS A. ORNILLO v. JUDGE ROSARIO B. RAGASA

  • G.R. Nos. 132791 & 140465-66 September 2, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 139576 September 2, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO PUEDAN

  • A.M. Nos. 2001-1-SC & 2001-2-SC September 3, 2002 - MARILYN I. DE JOYA, ET AL. v. ELSA T. BALUBAR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1715 September 3, 2002 - ATTY. DIOSDADO CABRERA v. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137759 September 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCHIBALD PATOSA

  • G.R. No. 139268 September 3, 2002 - PT&T v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140205 September 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHNNY DELA CONCHA

  • G.R. No. 144763 September 3, 2002 - REYMOND B. LAXAMANA v. MA. LOURDES D. LAXAMANA

  • G.R. No. 144784 September 3, 2002 - PEDRO G. SISTOZA v. ANIANO DESIERTO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1367 September 5, 2002 - FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ 94-995 September 5, 2002 - LUZ ALFONSO, ET AL. v. ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125908 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR BALILI

  • G.R. No. 126776 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. 130660 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLLY AND JOSE DORIO

  • G.R. No. 142380 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 DANILO LOBITANIA

  • G.R. Nos. 142993-94 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIANE BONTUAN

  • G.R. No. 143360 September 5, 2002 - EQUITABLE LEASING CORP. v. LUCITA SUYOM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126752 September 6, 2002 - TOMAS HUGO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140164 September 6, 2002 - DIONISIA L. REYES v. RICARDO L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141246 September 9, 2002 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RICARDO v. GARCIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 141407 September 9, 2002 - LAPULAPU DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORP. v. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORP.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1379 September 10, 2002 - RAMIL LUMBRE v. JUSTINIANO C. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 130650 September 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO VERCELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140799 September 10, 2002 - TOMAS T. TEODORO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143275 September 10, 2002 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENE AND BERNARDO DE LEON

  • G.R. Nos. 146352-56 September 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENIGNO ELONA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1551 September 11, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. EDILTRUDES A. BESA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1629 September 11, 2002 - CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. HELEN D. NUESTRO

  • G.R. No. 132684 September 11, 2002 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140734-35 September 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PADAO

  • G.R. Nos. 142928-29 September 11, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO TAMSI

  • A.M. No. P-01-1454 September 12, 2002 - JUDGE GREGORIO R. BALANAG v. ALONZO B. OSITA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1716 September 12, 2002 - SPO4 FELIPE REALUBIN v. JUDGE NORMANDIE D. PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 134002 September 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS BACCOY

  • G.R. No. 138978 September 12, 2002 - HI-YIELD REALTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 140634 September 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PANSENSOY

  • G.R. No. 148622 September 12, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CITY OF DAVAO

  • A.M. No. 00-11-526-RTC September 16, 2002 - IN RE: MS EDNA S. CESAR, RTC, BRANCH 171, VALENZUELA CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1397 September 17, 2002 - RE: ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT IN MCTC, TERESA-BARAS, RIZAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1635 September 17, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE

  • G.R. Nos. 127660 & 144011-12 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TADEO

  • G.R. No. 129039 September 17, 2002 - SIREDY ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129113 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SABIYON

  • G.R. No. 133645 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEXANDER DINGLASAN

  • G.R. No. 134873 September 17, 2002 - ADR SHIPPING SERVICES v. MARCELINO GALLARDO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 135957-58 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUILLERMO SAMUS

  • G.R. No. 136363 September 17, 2002 - JOSE C. VALLEJO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136769 September 17, 2002 - BAN HUA U. FLORES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

  • G.R. No. 136994 September 17, 2002 - BRAULIO ABALOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 137237 September 17, 2002 - ANTONIO PROSPERO ESQUIVEL and MARK ANTHONY ESQUIVEL v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN

  • G.R. No. 137273 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA (Acquitted), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137824 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NEXIEL ORTEGA @ "REX ORTEGA

  • G.R. No. 138989 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO BENSIG

  • G.R. No. 139013 September 17, 2002 - ZEL T. ZAFRA and EDWIN B. ECARMA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 139787 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANDOLPH JAQUILMAC

  • G.R. No. 141080 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANECITO UNLAGADA

  • G.R. No. 141237 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE NASAYAO y BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 141923 September 17, 2002 - CHINA BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. HON. NORMA C. PERELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 142372-74 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO S. BENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 144907-09 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 146247 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR DAWATON

  • G.R. No. 149754 September 17, 2002 - MORTIMER F. CORDERO v. ALAN G. GO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1639 September 18, 2002 - LYN A. MALAYO and ROWENA P. RIPDOS v. ATTY. LEILA I. CRUZAT

  • G.R. No. 126857 September 18, 2002 - SPOUSES ALENDRY CAVILES and FLORA POTENCIANO CAVILES v. THE HONORABLE SEVENTEENTH

  • G.R. No. 128574 September 18, 2002 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ANGEL TEVES

  • G.R. No. 130994 September 18, 2002 - SPOUSES FELIMON and MARIA BARRERA v. SPOUSES EMILIANO and MARIA CONCEPCION LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 138615 September 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BELAONG

  • G.R. No. 151992 September 18, 2002 - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. JUDGE MA. LUISA QUIJANO-PADILLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1364 September 19, 2002 - DIOSCORO COMENDADOR v. JORGE M. CANABE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1379 September 19, 2002 - PEPITO I. TORRES and MARTA M. TORRES v. VICENTE SICAT

  • G.R. No. 134759 September 19, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO M. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 136462 September 19, 2002 - PABLO N. QUIÑON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 138974 September 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA

  • G.R. No. 144029 September 19, 2002 - SPOUSES GUILLERMO AGBADA and MAXIMA AGBADA v. INTER-URBAN DEVELOPERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131966 September 23, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132396 September 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 154569 September 23, 2002 - ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON, ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1722 September 24, 2002 - FRANCISCO CONCILLO v. JUDGE SANTOS T. GIL

  • G.R. No. 123780 September 24, 2002 - In Re: Petition Seeking for Clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two (2) Final and Executory but Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court

  • G.R. No. 125063 September 24, 2002 - THE HEIRS OF GUILLERMO A. BATONGBACAL v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 136300-02 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL AARON

  • G.R. No. 138608 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO TAMAYO

  • G.R. No. 144308 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO BARCELON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 144573 September 24, 2002 - ROSARIO N. LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO A. LIGGAYU

  • G.R. No. 145712 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR HATE

  • G.R. No. 146698 September 24, 2002 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. SPOUSES SADIC AND AISHA KURANGKING and SPOUSES ABDUL SAMAD T. DIANALAN AND MORSHIDA L. DIANALAN

  • G.R. No. 147348 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL SY alias MICHAEL/DANIEL

  • G.R. No. 148029 September 24, 2002 - MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. BEST DEAL COMPUTER CENTER CORPORATION, et al

  • G.R. No. 148571 September 24, 2002 - GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN

  • G.R. No. 148859 September 24, 2002 - HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 132669 September 25, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAMUEL "SONNY" EMPERADOR y LOPEZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1642 September 27, 2002 - VIOLETA R. VILLANUEVA v. ARMANDO T. MILAN

  • G.R. No. 113626 September 27, 2002 - JESPAJO REALTY CORPORATION v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132364 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO ALVERO y TARADO

  • G.R. No. 133582 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEDDY ANGGIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134387 September 27, 2002 - TEOFILO ABUEVA Y CAGASAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 137405 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DELFIN DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 137990 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON MAHILUM

  • G.R. No. 138647 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON P. BULFANGO

  • G.R. No. 138782 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY VILLEGAS.

  • G.R. No. 139131 September 27, 2002 - JESUS R. GONZALES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140392 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELCHOR P. ESTEVES

  • G.R. No. 140639 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPH BARTOLO alias "BOBONG"

  • G.R. No. 146689 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO (FERDINAND) MONJE Y ROSARIO @ Fernan, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148241 September 27, 2002 - HANTEX TRADING CO., INC. and/or MARIANO CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149276 September 27, 2002 - JOVENCIO LIM and TERESITA LIM v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 150092 September 27, 2002 - GLOBE TELECOM, ET AL. v. JOAN FLORENDO-FLORES

  • G.R. No. 146436 September 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAQUITO CARIÑO