Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > July 2003 Decisions > G.R. No. 152085 July 8, 2003 - MARCIANA ALARCON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152085. July 8, 2003.]

MARCIANA ALARCON, ERENCIO AUSTRIA, JUAN BONIFACIO, PETRONILA DELA CRUZ, RUFINA DELA CRUZ, CELESTINO LEGASPI, JOSE MAYONDAG and DAVID SANTOS, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PASCUAL AND SANTOS, INC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:


Before us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision dated September 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63680, 1 which reversed the decision dated January 10, 2001 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The facts are undisputed.

Respondent corporation, Pascual and Santos, Inc., is the owner of several saltbeds with an area of 4.1763 hectares, situated in Barangay San Dionisio, Manuyo, Parañaque. In 1950, it instituted petitioners as tenants of the saltbeds under a fifty-fifty share tenancy agreement.

The harmonious tenurial relationship between petitioners and private respondent was interrupted in 1994, when the city government of Parañaque, represented by then Mayor Pablo Olivares, authorized the dumping of garbage on the adjoining lot. The garbage polluted the main source of salt water, which adversely affected salt production on the subject landholding.

Petitioners informed respondent of this development, but it failed to take any step to stop the dumping of garbage on the adjoining lot. This prompted petitioners to file a formal protest with the City Government of Parañaque. However, their complaint was likewise ignored.

Thus petitioners were constrained to file with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Region IV (RARAD-IV) a complaint against respondent and Mayor Pablo Olivares for maintenance of peaceful possession and security of tenure with damages. Subsequently, they amended their complaint to one for damages and disturbance compensation, with prayer for temporary restraining order and injunction. Petitioners invoked Sections 7, 2 30(1) 3 and 31(1) 4 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code of the Philippines.

On July 28, 1997, Regional Adjudicator Fe Arche-Manalang rendered a decision holding that under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, issued in 1981, the subject saltbeds have been reclassified to residential lands. Consequently, the juridical tie between petitioners and respondent was severed, for no tenurial relationship can exist on a land that is no longer agricultural. This notwithstanding, petitioners are entitled to disturbance compensation, pursuant to Section 36, par. 1 of R.A. 3844, 5 as amended.

On the other hand, the Regional Adjudicator held that the DAR had no jurisdiction over the complaint against Mayor Pablo Olivares, and dismissed the same. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Directing the Respondent Pascual and Santos Inc., to pay to each complainant as and by way of disturbance compensation 1,500 cavans of salt or their money equivalent at the prevailing market value;

2. Dismissing all other claims for lack of basis;

3. Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 6

On appeal, the DARAB affirmed in toto the above decision of the RARAD. Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63680. On September 28, 2001, the appellate court rendered the assailed judgment reversing the decision of the DARAB, 7 and ordering the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint against Respondent. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence, the instant petition based on the following arguments:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. THAT A LANDOWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION TO A TENANT ON A MERE RECLASSIFICATION WITHOUT THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE LANDOWNER BECAUSE IT WOULD RENDER NUGATORY SECTION 31, PAR. 1 OF RA 3844.

II. THAT METRO MANILA ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 81-01, SERIES OF 1981, DID NOT EXTINGUISH THE TENURIAL RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND DOES NOT ENTITLE THE TENANTS TO DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION FOR PARTIES CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR TENURIAL RELATIONS EVEN AFTER RECLASSIFICATION. 8

At the core of the controversy is the issue of whether or not a mere reclassification of the land from agricultural to residential, without any court action by the landowner to eject or dispossess the tenant, entitles the latter to disturbance compensation.

Before we address the above issue, we need to resolve a procedural issue raised by private respondent regarding the law that must govern the instant case. Is it Republic Act No. 1199, otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, which allows a share tenancy system for landlord-tenant relationship, or RA 3844, as amended, which declares share tenancy as contrary to public policy and provides for the automatic conversion of landlord-tenant relationship from agricultural share tenancy to agricultural leasehold? Respondent contends that RA 1199 must govern the instant petition because Section 35 of RA 3844 clearly exempts the saltbeds from leasehold and provides that the provisions of RA 1199 shall govern the consideration as well as the tenancy system prevailing on saltbeds. The said provision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 35. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Sections, in the case of fishponds, saltbeds, and land principally planted to citrus, coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian, and other similar permanent trees at the time of the approval of this Code, the consideration as well as the tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed by the provisions of Republic Act Number Eleven Hundred and Ninety-Nine, as amended.

We do not agree. Section 76 of Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, 9 expressly repealed Section 35 of RA 3844. It therefore abolished the exemption applied to saltbeds and provided that all tenanted agricultural lands shall be subject to leasehold. Consequently, RA 3844, not RA 1199, must govern the instant petition.

Coming now to the main issue, petitioners argue that they are entitled to disturbance compensation for being dispossessed of their tenancy.

Respondent counters that under Sections 30 10 and 31(1) 11 of RA 3844, a landowner of agricultural land is liable to pay disturbance compensation only when he petitioned the court to eject or dispossess the tenant on the ground that the land has already been reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural. Without such a petition, he has no obligation to pay disturbance compensation because the mere reclassification of the land does not ipso facto extinguish the tenancy relationship between tenant and landowner. Hence, when the subject landholding was reclassified in 1981 by the enactment of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, petitioners and private respondent continued with their tenancy relationship. It was only in 1994 that their relationship was disturbed due to the dumping of garbage by the city government which polluted the source of saltwater.

The petition is devoid of merit.

A tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to a security of tenure. 12 He can only be ejected from the agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law. This is clearly stated in Section 7 of RA 3844, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.

Section 36 provides the different grounds and manner by which a tenant can be lawfully ejected or dispossessed of his landholding. One of them is the reclassification of the landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural. For purposes of this petition, the pertinent provision of said Section 36 reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years; . . ..

It is clear that a tenant can be lawfully ejected only if there is a court authorization in a judgment that is final and executory and after a hearing where the reclassification of the landholding was duly determined. If the court authorizes the ejectment, the tenant who is dispossessed of his tenancy is entitled to disturbance compensation.

Petitioners argue that the RARAD decision, which was affirmed by the DARAB, was the court judgment required by law.

The argument is not well-taken. The RARAD decision is not yet final and executory. It was made the subject of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals and is pending with this Court.

Petitioners likewise contend that the dispossession of the tenant need not be at the instance of the landowner for him to be entitled to disturbance compensation.

The contention is without merit.

Section 37 13 of RA 3844 expressly imposes on the landowner or agricultural lessor the burden of proof to show the existence of the grounds enumerated in Section 36 thereof. It is settled that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 14 This implies that the action which resulted in the tenant’s dispossession was commenced by the landowner, who therefore has the burden of proof to show the existence of any of the grounds for the ejectment of the tenant.

Moreover, contrary to petitioners’ claim, the reclassification of the land is not enough to entitle them to disturbance compensation. The law is clear that court proceedings are indispensable where the reclassification of the landholding is duly determined before ejectment can be effected, which in turn paves the way for the payment of disturbance compensation. As held by the Court of Appeals, the parties can still continue with their tenurial relationship even after such reclassification. In fact, it is undisputed that in this case, the parties continued with their landlord-tenant relationship even after the enactment of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01. It was only in 1994 when this relationship was interrupted because of the dumping of garbage by the Parañaque City Government. Clearly, it was this latter event which caused petitioner’s dispossession, and it would be unfair to oblige respondent to pay compensation for acts it did not commit.

Finally, the case of Bunye v. Aquino, 15 does not apply in the instant case. We allowed the payment of disturbance compensation in the said case because there was an order of conversion issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform of the landholding from agricultural to residential. The decree was never questioned and thus became final. Consequently, the tenants were ejected from the land and were thus awarded disturbance compensation.

In the case at bar, there is no final order of conversion. The subject landholding was merely reclassified. Conversion is different from reclassification. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform. 16 Reclassification, on the other hand, is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion. 17 Accordingly, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.

Since in this case, there is neither a final order of conversion by the DAR nor a court judgment authorizing the tenants’ ejectment on the ground of reclassification, as a result of the landowner’s court action, there is no legal basis to make respondent liable to pay disturbance compensation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals committed no error in ordering the dismissal of the complaint before the DARAB.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition for review is DENIED and the decision dated September 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63680, ordering the dismissal of DARAB Case No. 6408 (Reg. Case No. IV-MM-0083-94), is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero; concurred in by Associate Justices Eriberto V. Rosario, Jr. and Bienvenido L. Reyes.

2. SECTION 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. — The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.

3. SECTION 30(1). Obligations of the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be the obligation of the agricultural lessor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) To keep the agricultural lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of his landholding; and . . .

4. SECTION 31(1). Prohibitions to the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural lessee be dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the Court, the agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized dispossession.

5. SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding: Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years; . . ..

6. CA Rollo, p. 124.

7. Id., at 29.

8. Id., at 8 & 9.

9. Section 76. Repealing Clause. — Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3844, Presidential Decree No. 316, the last two paragraphs of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, Presidential Decree No. 1038, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

10. Section 30. Obligations of the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be the obligation of the agricultural lessor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) To keep the agricultural lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of his landholding; and

(2) To keep intact such permanent and useful improvements existing on the landholding at the start of the leasehold relation as irrigation and drainage systems and marketing allotments. . .

11. Section 31. Prohibitions to the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessor:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural lessee be dispossessed from his landholding without authorization from the Court, the agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized dispossession. . .

12. Tanpingco v. IAC, G.R. No. 76225, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 652.

13. SEC. 37. Burden of Proof. — The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.

14. Cortes v. CA, G.R. No. 121772, 13 January 2003.

15. G.R. No. 138979, 9 October 2000, 342 SCRA 360.

16. Section 2(k) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01-99, Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses.

17. Section 2(R), DAR Administrative Order No. 01-99, Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses.




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






July-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5148 July 1, 2003 - RAMON P. REYES v. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG

  • A.C. No. 5804 July 1, 2003 - BENEDICTO HORNILLA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT

  • A.C. No. 5916 July 1, 2003 - SELWYN F. LAO v. ROBERT W. MEDEL

  • A.M. No. P-94-1031 July 1, 2003 - EFREN L. DIZON v. JOSE R. BAWALAN

  • G.R. Nos. 142553-54 July 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT SAYANA

  • G.R. No. 146397 July 1, 2003 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149335 July 1, 2003 - EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR v. LUIS BUNDALIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149554 July 1, 2003 - SPS JORGE and YOLANDA HUGUETE v. SPS TEOFEDO and MARITES EMBUDO

  • G.R. No. 149878 July 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIU WON CHUA

  • G.R. No. 150413 July 1, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDRA LAO

  • G.R. Nos. 150523-25 July 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ONOFRE M. GALANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755 July 3, 2003 - SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. AMALIA F. DY

  • G.R. No. 145982 July 3, 2003 - FRANK N. LIU, ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOY, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146696 July 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO L. PIDOY

  • G.R. No. 152032 July 3, 2003 - GALLARDO U. LUCERO v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152044 July 3, 2003 - DOMINGO LAGROSA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157004 July 4, 2003 - SALLY A. LEE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143813 July 7, 2003 - KING INTEGRATED SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. GALO S. GATAN

  • G.R. No. 138342 July 8, 2003 - AB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 141324 July 8, 2003 - SPS. VIRGINIA and EMILIO JUNSON, ET AL. v. SPS. BENEDICTA and ANTONIO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 148134 July 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. Nos. 148368-70 July 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO M. FABIAN

  • G.R. No. 151783 July 8, 2003 - VICTORINO SAVELLANO, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. 152085 July 8, 2003 - MARCIANA ALARCON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152476 July 8, 2003 - UNITED SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154093 July 8, 2003 - GSIS v. LEO L. CADIZ

  • G.R. No. 154184 July 8, 2003 - TEODORA and RODOLFO CAPACETE v. VENANCIA BARORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154203 July 8, 2003 - REY CARLO and GLADYS RIVERA v. VIRGILIO RIVERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1346 July 9, 2003 - RUDY G. LACADIN v. MARVIN B. MANGINO

  • G.R. No. 147149 July 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 153888 July 9, 2003 - ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHIL. v. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-1-15-RTC July 10, 2003 - URGENT APPEAL/PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION & DISMISSAL OF JUDGE EMILIO B. LEGASPI, RTC, Iloilo City, Br. 22

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1496 July 10, 2003 - ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS v. MARVIN B. MANGINO

  • G.R. No. 131442 July 10, 2003 - BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK, ET AL. v. ENRICO LANZANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138195-96 July 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR ROA

  • G.R. No. 140183 July 10, 2003 - TEODORO K. KATIGBAK, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144672 July 10, 2003 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. MAERC INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150487 July 10, 2003 - GERARDO F. SAMSON JR. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

  • G.R. No. 157013 July 10, 2003 - ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1709 July 11, 2003 - EDNA B. DAVID v. ANGELINA C. RILLORTA

  • G.R. No. 127489 July 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO GALLEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133237 July 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO I. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 143958 July 11, 2003 - ALFRED FRITZ FRENZEL v. EDERLINA P. CATITO

  • A.C. No. 4078 July 14, 2003 - WILLIAM ONG GENATO v. ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN

  • A.M. No. 03-1787-RTJ July 14, 2003 - SPS. RODOLFO and VIOLETA GUEVARRA v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 109791 July 14, 2003 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CITY OF ILOILO

  • G.R. Nos. 128159-62 July 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 129988 July 14, 2003 - CHINA AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003 - ISABELITA S. LAHOM v. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO

  • G.R. No. 144214 July 14, 2003 - LUZVIMINDA J. VILLAREAL v. DONALDO EFREN C. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146875 July 14, 2003 - JOSE G. MENDOZA, ET AL. v. MANUEL D. LAXINA, SR.

  • G.R. No. 149784 July 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ANSUS

  • G.R. No. 150947 July 15, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MICHEL J. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP, INC.

  • G.R. No. 152154 July 15, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 02-8-188-MTCC July 17, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC-Brs. 1, 2 & 3, Mandaue City

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383 July 17, 2003 - PERLITA AVANCENA v. RICARDO P. LIWANAG

  • A.M. No. P-02-1576 July 17, 2003 - VEDASTO TOLARBA v. ANGEL C. CONEJERO

  • G.R. Nos. 98494-98692, 99006-20, 99059-99259, 99309-18, 99412-16 & 99436-996369, 99417-21 & 99637-99837 & 99887-100084 July 17, 2003 - ROGELIO ALVIZO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127848 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLENE OLERMO

  • G.R. No. 136741 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR B. AÑORA

  • G.R. Nos. 138931-32 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO D. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 140895 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALMA BISDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141121 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. LOZADA

  • G.R. Nos. 143002-03 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARMIE G. SERVANO

  • G.R. No. 143294 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MAGALONA

  • G.R. No. 146590 July 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO G. OPERARIO

  • G.R. No. 114951 July 18, 2003 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140348 July 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRYMEL P. ESTILLORE

  • G.R. No. 141259 July 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTINO PRIETO

  • G.R. No. 147010 July 18, 2003 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. v. DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION CO.

  • G.R. No. 148821 July 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • G.R. No. 151216 July 18, 2003 - MANUEL MILLA v. REGINA BALMORES-LAXA

  • G.R. Nos. 153664 & 153665 July 18, 2003 - GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL v. GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL

  • A.M. No. 00-3-50-MTC July 21, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC, BOCAUE, BULACAN

  • G.R. No. 104768 July 21, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143467 July 21, 2003 - KALAYAAN ARTS AND CRAFTS v. MANUEL ANGLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107199 July 22, 2003 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CONSORTIUM CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132076 & 140989 July 22, 2003 - ROBERTO U. GENOVA v. LEVITA DE. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 140549 July 22, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PETER HIPOL

  • G.R. No. 149531 July 22, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 153686 July 22, 2003 - LEANDRO A. SULLER v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. CA-03-35 July 24, 2003 - ROSALIO DE LA ROSA v. JOSE L. SABIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132218 July 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE NAVARRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 143395 July 24, 2003 - WILFREDO SILVERIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150618 July 24, 2003 - EVANGELINE CABRERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482 July 25, 2003 - ILUMINADA SANTILLAN VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO v. NICASIO V. BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 127878 July 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. MAURO M. DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 143124 July 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY E. SANDIG

  • G.R. No. 146956 July 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER B. FEDERICO

  • G.R. No. 150159 July 25, 2003 - TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR, ET AL. v. SPS. PABLO and ANTONIA RICAFORT

  • G.R. No. 154489 July 25, 2003 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. SPS. ROMULO & WILMA PLAZA

  • A.C. No. 4838 July 29, 2003 - EMILIO GRANDE v. EVANGELINE DE SILVA

  • A.C. No. 5332 July 29, 2003 - JOHNNY K.H. UY v. REYNALDO C. DEPASUCAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1663 July 29, 2003 - MARITES B. KEE v. JULIET H. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1702 July 29, 2003 - LYDIA Q. LAYOSA v. TONETTE M. SALAMANCA

  • G.R. Nos. 136760 & 138378 July 29, 2003 - SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE v. JOSE B. MAJADUCON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137587 & 138329 July 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. TEOFILO I. MADRONIO

  • G.R. No. 142565 July 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 145349 July 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JENIS PATEÑO

  • G.R. No. 152121 July 29, 2003 - EDUARDO G. EVIOTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133923-24 July 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO IBAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 152122 July 30, 2003 - CHINA AIRLINES v. DANIEL CHIOK

  • G.R. Nos. 155217 and 156393 July 30, 2003 - GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORP. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. 00-11-566-RTC July 31, 2003 - RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE SYLVIA G. JURAO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1747 July 31, 2003 - PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN v. MAXIMO G. PADERANGA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1783 July 31, 2003 - CHRISTOPHER V. AGUILAR v. ROLANDO C. HOW, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1790 July 31, 2003 - PABLO B. FRANCISCO v. HILARIO F. CORCUERA

  • G.R. No. 120874 July 31, 2003 - NAPOLEON TUGADE, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124699 July 31, 2003 - BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139120 July 31, 2003 - SPS. FREDDIE & ELIZABETH WEBB, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143126 July 31, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIC V. BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 145260 July 31, 2003 - CITY OF ILIGAN v. PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT GROUP

  • G.R. Nos. 146693-94 July 31, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 148725 July 31, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TAMPIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154650 July 31, 2003 - SPS. MANUEL and CORAZON CAMARA v. SPS. JOSE and PAULINA MALABAO

  • G.R. No. 154826 July 31, 2003 - ROMY AGAG v. ALPHA FINANCING CORP.