Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NAT’L. MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION

201 Phil. 441:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-50402. August 19, 1982.]

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK and THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU-MIF), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (REGIONAL BRANCH NO. IV) and ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

Remulla, Estrella & Associates for petitioner TMBC.

Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo Law Offices for petitioner PCIB.

Villaruz, Padilla & Amansec Law Offices, for respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union.

Luis M. Ermitaño Law Office for respondent Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation.

SYNOPSIS


The Ministry of Labor approved the Philippine Iron Mines’ (PIM) application for clearance to shutdown due to bankruptcy. At the time of said approval, there was pending before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a claim for employees’ severance pay, etc., filed against PIM by respondent union. At that time also, there was a subsisting mortgage on certain machineries owned by PIM in favor of petitioner banks. Subsequently, petitioner banks foreclosed the mortgage on PIM’s properties and eventually acquired the same at the public auction sale; two days after acquisition of the properties, the NLRC rendered judgment granting the Union’s claim in the amount of P4 million. Petitioner banks then sold the properties to ATLAS under a deed of sale which warranted the petitioners’ full and unencumbered title to the properties. But before ATLAS could pay the purchase price, the Union was able to secure a writ of garnishment for P4 million against the said purchase price. Consequently, ATLAS issued a check for P4 million in favor of the Union which the latter encashed and duly distributed among the claimants. Hence, this petition. Petitioners claim that ATLAS was still liable to them for the whole amount of the purchase price since they were not liable to the Union under the NLRC judgment because they were not parties to the action and the funds garnished did not belong to PIM.

The Supreme Court held that petitioners are liable to the Union for the judgment against PIM because 1) the law gives preference to claims of labor in the liquidation of a business; 2) the right of the Union members over the assets of PIM became vested from the date PIM’s application for clearance to shutdown was approved, consequently said assets included the subject properties then still mortgaged to petitioners; and 3) in the Deed of Sale executed by petitioners in favor of ATLAS, the former warranted full, unemcumbered title to the properties.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; INJUNCTION; MOOT AND ACADEMIC WHERE ACTS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED ALREADY CONSUMMATED. — The established principle is that when the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited because nothing more could be done in reference thereto.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR CODE; LABOR CLAIMS; PREFERRED IN CASE OF LIQUIDATION OR BANKRUPTCY; RATIONALE. — The reason behind the provisions of the Labor Code giving preference to claims of labor in the liquidation of a business or industrial concern is patent and manifest. It is but humane and partakes of the divine that labor, as human beings, must be treated over and above chattels, machineries and other kinds of properties and the interests of the employer who can afford and survive the hardships of life better than their workers. Universal sense of human justice not to speak of our specific social justice and protection to labor constitutional injunctions dictate the preferential lien that the above provisions accord to labor.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OVER EMPLOYER’S ASSETS VESTS AT TIME APPLICATION FOR CLEARANCE TO SHUT DOWN IS APPROVED. — Petitioners are trying to make much of the circumstance that the foreclosure sale in their favor antedated by two days the judgment of the NLRC. In this connection, We hold that the right of the Union members over the properties or assets of PIM became vested from the date the Minister of Labor approved PIM’s application for clearance on May 7, 1975. In the most legal sense and, again, consonant with the principles of social justice and protection to labor under the Constitution of the Philippines above referred to the NLRC decision was only confirmatory of such right, not unlike the juridical effect of the issuance of a Torrens title over a piece of land already covered by a legitimate Spanish title. And so, when petitioners acquired the properties of PIM in the foreclosure sales, those properties were already encumbered in favor of the Union members/claimants by force of law.

4. CIVIL LAW; SALE; EFFECT OF WARRANTY; CASE AT BAR. — The deed of sale in favor of ATLAS included, as it should, a warranty that the properties are free from all liens and encumbrances. ATLAS had the right to receive the properties free from any lien and encumbrance, and when the garnishment vas served on it, it was perfectly in the right in slashing the P4,298,307.77 from the P30 million it had to pay petitioners, the SELLERS, in order to satisfy the long existing and vested right of the laborers of financially moribund PIM, without any liability to petitioners for reimbursement thereof.


D E C I S I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Petition for certiorari filed on April 23, 1979 to annul and set aside the order of April 18, 1979 of the National Labor Relations Commission issued in N.L.R.C. Case No. RB-IV-3322-75, thru Labor Arbiter Manuel H. Lorenzo, praying at the same time that this Court order the said respondent Commission to stop delivery of the check of P4,298,307.77 of private respondent Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development and/or for Us to stop payment to the respondent Union on the ground that the issuance of said order of April 18, 1979 was a grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of the Commission’s jurisdiction.

On May 4, 1979, We issued the following resolution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On December 22, 1975 the National Mines & Allied Workers’ Union obtained in NLRC Case No. RB-VI-3322-75 a judgment ordering the Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. to pay the union P4,298,307.77 as severance pay, etc. The judgment became final and executory on January 6, 1976.

"On April 18, 1979 the NLRC, through a Labor Arbiter, granted the union’s ex parte motion of April 16, 1979 for the garnishment of the amount of P4,298,307.77 due from Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation to the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank and the Manila Banking Corporation, as part of the price for which the mining machinery and equipment of the Philippine Iron Mines (acquired under foreclosure sale by the two banks) was sold by the two banks to Atlas. (The total price was thirty million pesos.)

"On that same date, April 18, Atlas complied with the writ of garnishment and delivered to the sheriff a check for P4,298,307.77.

"The order of garnishment and Atlas’ compliance with it are assailed in this certiorari proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the two banks were not parties in the labor case and the funds garnished were not due to the judgment debtor, Philippine Iron Mines.

"After deliberating on these facts, the Court Resolved (1) to REQUIRE the respondents within ten (10) days from notice to ANSWER the petition (not to file a motion to dismiss) and (2) to ISSUE a WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION after the petitioners had filed a satisfactory bond in the sum of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000). It should be specified in the writ that Atlas is directed to stop payment on the said check, that respondent Union is enjoined from cashing the check and, if the check has not yet been delivered to the union, then respondent sheriff is directed to return the check to Atlas. If the check has been delivered to the Union, the latter is enjoined from distributing the proceeds thereof to its members and to return the check to Atlas." (Vol. I, Record.)

with the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction after the required bond was filed on May 9, 1979, after petitioners filed their supplemental petition of April 24, 1979 and Urgent Motion of April 30, 1979.

It appears, however, as stated in the answer of respondent Union dated October 10, 1979, that "the check turned over by the Sheriff of the NLRC to herein respondent on April 20, 1979 was encashed on April 23, 1979 and the proceeds thereof were duly distributed to its members/claimants on the same day (April 23, 1979) and everyday thereafter, until the distribution was finished on May 5, 1979. In fact, on May 10, 1979, respondent union filed with the Labor Arbiter a "Report of Compliance and Motion for Admission and Approval of Schedule of Distribution" dated May 10, 1979, a copy of which is herewith attached and made part hereof as Annex "18." A corresponding order approving the aforesaid distribution was issued by Labor Arbiter Manuel B. Lorenzo on May 12, 1979, a copy of which is herewith attached and made part hereof as Annex "19." Under the present circumstances, respondent union can only invoke the following legal principle:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"‘The established principle is that when the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited because nothing more could be done in reference thereto.’ (Aragones v. Subido, L-24303, Sept. 23, 1968, 25 SCRA 95)" (Pp. 442-443, Vol. II, Record.)

Thus, in the light of the prayer of the petition herein which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. This Petition is given due course;

"2. Pending determination of the merits of this Petition, a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction upon such bond as this Honorable Court may fix, be issued ordering the Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation to stop payment of the check delivered to the NLRC Sheriff, the National Labor Relations Commission (Regional Branch No. IV), particularly the Sheriff thereof, from delivering said check to the Union, and the National Mines & Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF) from distributing the proceeds of the said check to its members; and to return the proceeds of the check for P4,341,290.84 to the petitioners;

"3. After appropriate proceedings, judgment be rendered making the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction permanent and setting aside the NLRC Order dated 18 April 1979.

"Petitioners likewise pray for such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises." (Page 18, Vol. I, Record.)

it would seem that this case is now moot and academic, the prohibitory injunction prayed for being already impossible of enforcement, the acts sought to be enjoined having been already consummated.

But it is obvious from the allegations of the petition that the main and real remedy aimed at by petitioners is for them to be considered as in no way liable for the money paid to the laborers of respondent Philippine Iron Mines by virtue of the writ of execution and garnishment in question and that the obedience or compliance thereto by respondent Atlas was uncalled for, hence Atlas should be held still liable to them for the amount aforementioned it had delivered to the Sheriff in order to complete the P30 M purchase price of the PIM properties sold by them to Atlas.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

To complete the material facts summarized in our abovequoted resolution of May 4, 1979, We have only to add the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the judgment obtained by the respondent Union from the NLRC on December 22, 1975 was the result of an unfair labor practice case filed by said Union against PIM because of its failure to comply with the condition imposed upon it by the Minister of Labor when it was granted clearance to shut down its operation and lay off all its personnel due to its bankruptcy to the effect that said clearance was "subject to such rights and benefits accruing to the workers and employees of your company under (the) existing collective bargaining agreement and relevant provisions of the Labor Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. That PIM was a mortgage debtor separately of the Development Bank of the Philippines and of herein petitioners, but later the DBP conveyed its mortgage rights to PCIB.

3. On account of the failure of PIM to pay its obligations just referred to, PCIB and Manila Bank foreclosed all mortgages in their favor on December 20, 1975 and as they were the only bidders at the auction sale, they eventually secured final conveyances in their favor of said properties.

4. To be sure, respondent Union had already been able to levy on certain properties of P1M which allegedly were not covered by the mortgages to petitioners, and so there are now in the lower courts suits wherein petitioners and the Union are contesting as to who of them have the superior right over said properties. Additionally, there is a proceeding for contempt pending in the NLRC because petitioners’ men would not allow the Sheriff to enforce execution of some of said properties.

We do not see any need to clutter this opinion with the details of those suits and contempt proceedings, considering the view We are taking of the primordial issue as to whether or not petitioners, as auction purchasers of the properties of PIM mortgaged to them and as sellers thereof to Atlas are subject to the claims of the Union finally adjudged by the NLRC.

There are, to Our mind, at least two indubitable grounds why petitioners are liable to the Union for the judgment against PIM.

a. The deed of Sale (Annex M, Petition) by which petitioners conveyed their rights to Atlas, contains the following unequivocal and unambiguous warranties:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Warranties of Sellers. — Sellers (the petitioners in the case at bar) warrant that (1) they have full and sufficient title over the PROPERTIES and that (2) the PROPERTIES are free from all liens and encumbrances, (3) the BUYER (Atlas) being hereby saved free and harmless from all claims in incidental actions of National Mines & Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU) including its action for annulment of the Sheriff’s sale with respect to the contents of a certain bodega (Civil Case No. 2727 of Branch II of the Camarines Norte CFI); (4) the SELLERS have full rights and capacity to convey title to and effect peaceful delivery of these properties their authority to do so having been obtained from the government of the Republic of the Philippines, copy of which is enclosed and made an integral part hereof; and taxes and charges thereon have been fully paid and should any be accrued on the plate of these presents, the same shall be for SELLERS account." (Italics, words and numbers in parenthesis supplied.) (Page 789, Vol. II, Record.)

As Atlas very aptly puts it in its reply-memorandum dated June 13, 1980:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To the extent of being repetitious but if only to bring home the point, under the above-quoted Deed of Sale unconditionally and unqualifiedly protective of Atlas, the petitioners, as the sellers, legally and validly warranted unto Atlas, as the buyer, (1) full and (2) unencumbered title to the subject properties, (3) that they have full rights and capacity to convey title to and effect peaceful delivery of these properties to Atlas, and, very importantly, (4) that they shall hold Atlas ‘free and harmless from all claims and incidental actions of National Mines & Allied Workers Unions (NAMAWU)’ inclusive of NAMAWU’s action for annulment (Civil Case No. 2727, Branch II, CFI-Camarines Norte).

"The above warranties of the petitioners in favor of Atlas need no further interpretation. With due respect, this Honorable Court must instead apply and enforce these warranties against the petitioners, pristinely and unequivocally clear as these warranties are.

"Clearly, the facts of the instant petition viewed vis-a-vis the above-quoted legal and contractual warranties, guarantees and duties of the petitioners in favor of Atlas show that the former have no cause of action against the latter." (Page 790, Vol. II, Record.)

b. We cannot but agree with the Solicitor General that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Fourthly, since the decision of December 22, 1975 in the aforementioned NLRC case was brought about by the cessation or shutdown of business by PIM, its workers enjoy first preference as regards wages due for services rendered prior to the bankruptcy or liquidation, as against other creditors, like herein petitioners, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Thus, Article 110 of the New Labor Code, as amended, as well as Section 10, Rule VIII, Book II, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the New Labor Code provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Art. 110. Worker Preference in case of bankcruptcy. — In the event of bankcruptcy or liquidation of an employer’s business, his workers shall enjoy first preference as regards wages due them for services rendered during the period prior to the bankcruptcy or liquidation, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. Unpaid wages shall be paid in full before other creditors may establish any claim to share in the assets of the employer.’ (New Labor Code)

"‘Section 10. Payment of wages in case of bankcruptcy. — Unpaid wages earned by the employees before the declaration of bankcruptcy or judicial liquidation of the employer’s business shall be given first preference and shall be paid in full before other creditors may establish any claim to a share in the assets of the employees.’ (Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, Book III, Rule VIII)

"It must be noted that the word ‘wage’ paid to any employee is defined as ‘the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employees.’ (Art. 97, par. f, Title II, Chapter I, New Labor Code). Stated differently, ‘wages’ refer to all remunerations, earnings and other benefits in terms of money accruing to the employees or workers for services rendered.

"Thus, all benefits of the employees under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, like severance pay, educational allowance, accrued vacation leave earned but not enjoyed, as well as workmen’s compensation awards and unpaid salaries for services rendered, fall under the term ‘wages’ which enjoy first preference over all other claims against the employer. As such, therefore, even if the employer’s properties are encumbered by means of a mortgage contract, still the workers’ wages which enjoy first preference in case of bankcruptcy or liquidation are duly protected by an automatic first lien over and above all other earlier encumbrances on the said properties. Otherwise, workers’ wages may be imperilled by foreclosure of mortgages, and as a consequence, the aforecited provision of the New Labor Code would be rendered meaningless." (Pp. 760-762, Vol. II, Record.)

The reason behind the provisions of the Labor Code giving preference to claims of labor in the liquidation of a business or industrial concern is patent and manifest. It is but humane and partakes of the divine that labor, as human beings, must be treated over and above chattels, machineries and other kinds of properties and the interests of the employer who can afford and survive the hardships of life better than their workers. Universal sense of human justice, not to speak of our specific social justice and protection to labor constitutional injunctions dictate the preferential lien that the above provisions accord to labor.cralawnad

Petitioners are trying to make much of the circumstance that the foreclosure sale in their favor antedated by two days the judgment of the NLRC. In this connection, We hold that the right of the Union members over the properties or assets of PIM became vested from the date the Minister of Labor approved PIM’s application for clearance on May 7, 1975. In the most legal sense and, again, consonant with the principles of social justice and protection to labor under the Constitution of the Philippines above referred to the NLRC decision was only confirmatory of such right, not unlike the juridical effect of the issuance of a Torrens title over a piece of land already covered by a legitimate Spanish title. And so, when petitioners acquired the properties of PIM in the foreclosure sales, those properties were already encumbered in favor of the Union members/claimants by force of law. Worse, petitioners were well aware they were foreclosing on properties of a mortgage debtor who had already secured from the Ministry of Labor a corresponding clearance for shutdown due to liquidation, and, needless to say, petitioners are presumed to know the law on the matter already referred to above.

Indeed, from whatever point of view We try to look at the situation of petitioners, it always comes out that they cannot cheat the Union claimants/members of what is due them by law for work actually done by them and other benefits. They bought the properties in question with open eyes. They sold the same knowing they were saddled with the rights of the laborers of PIM under the clearance of the Ministry of Labor. The deed of sale included, as it should, a warranty that the properties are free from all liens and encumbrances. ATLAS had the right to receive the properties free from any lien and encumbrance, and when the garnishment was served on it, it was perfectly in the right in slashing the P4,298,307.77 from the P30M it had to pay petitioners in order to satisfy the long existing and vested right of the laborers of financially moribund PIM, without any liability to petitioners for reimbursement thereof.cralawnad

With this declaration of the respective rights of the parties, it follows that all proceedings or suits pending in the lower courts are subordinated to such declaration, if they may not be deemed already moot and academic.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the petition and settling the respective rights of the parties hereto as above declared, with costs against petitioners.

Aquino, Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos, JJ., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 921-MJ August 19, 1982 - ANTONIO C. LUCERO v. CARLOS B. SALAZAR

    201 Phil. 396

  • A.M. No. P-1518 August 19, 1982 - EROTIDO O. DOMINGO v. ROMEO R. QUIMSON

  • A.M. No. 2247-MJ August 19, 1982 - PEDRO G. VALENTIN v. MARIANO P. GONZALES

    201 Phil. 401

  • A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982 - JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA v. JESUS B. BROMO

    201 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. ASSOC. OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES

    201 Phil. 416

  • G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

    201 Phil. 418

  • G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 - ADELA J. CAÑOS v. E.L. PERALTA

    201 Phil. 422

  • G.R. No. L-46499 August 19, 1982 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHIL. AND ALLIED SERVICES v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-48057 August 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO VENEZUELA

    201 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NAT’L. MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION

    201 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-51194 August 19, 1982 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-52720 August 19, 1982 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    201 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-58287 August 19, 1982 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA v. LORENZO MOSQUEDA

    201 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 477

  • G.R. No. L-26940 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-30697 August 2, 1982 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. HERMINIO MARIANO

    201 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-35705 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. UMALI

    201 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982 - AUGUST O. BERNARTE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 513

  • G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

    201 Phil. 519

  • G.R. No. L-40621 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO PADUNAN

    201 Phil. 525

  • G.R. No. L-56962 August 21, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN

    201 Phil. 541

  • G.R. No. L-58805 August 21, 1982 - ROMULO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 549

  • G.R. No. L-59493 August 21, 1982 - MANUEL SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 552

  • G.R. No. L-59823 August 21, 1982 - GETZ CORPORATION PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982 - RAFAEL S. MERCADO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH V, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-44031 August 26, 1982 - SONIA VILLONES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-47099 August 26, 1982 - IGNACIO DELOS ANGELES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 581

  • G.R. No. L-59582 August 26, 1982 - JESUS M. PAMAN v. RODRIGO DIAZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 597

  • A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ v. TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN

    201 Phil. 602

  • A.M. No. P-1722 August 30, 1982 - BENIGNO CABALLERO v. WALTER VILLANUEVA

    201 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-25933 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-27657 August 30, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑ0 v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO

    201 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-29268 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-33515 August 30, 1982 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUND FAMILARA

    201 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-37686 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN L. ARCENAL

    201 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-39298 August 30, 1982 - SULPICIO G. PAREDES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE SIBAYAN

    201 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-42447 August 30, 1982 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    201 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-42660 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO OLMEDILLO

    201 Phil. 661

  • G.R. No. L-43427 August 30, 1982 - FELIPE N. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 666

  • G.R. No. L-45472 August 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF SATURNINA AKUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 680

  • G.R. No. L-46762 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION v. AMADO GAT INCIONG, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 689

  • G.R. No. L-48975 August 30, 1982 - RAFAEL B. MAGPANTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-54068 and 54142 August 30, 1982 - ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 706

  • G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, 1982 - ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-54760 August 30, 1982 - MICAELA C. AGGABAO v. LETICIA U. GAMBOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55801 August 30, 1982 - LEONARDO MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABENIANO LOBETANIA

    201 Phil. 762

  • G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-59548 August 30, 1982 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v. PACITA CAÑIZARES-NYE

    201 Phil. 777

  • G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982 - ROWENA F. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 782

  • G.R. No. L-60342 August 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO S. BANAAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 788

  • G.R. No. L-28237 August 31, 1982 - BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. KER & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    201 Phil. 794

  • G.R. No. L-29971 August 31, 1982 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 803

  • G.R. No. L-32437 August 31, 1982 - SALANDANG PANGADIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, BRANCH I, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 813

  • G.R. No. L-36759 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESIO IMBO

    201 Phil. 821

  • G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

    201 Phil. 828

  • G.R. No. L-38687 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO HISUGAN

    201 Phil. 836

  • G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ATIENZA

    201 Phil. 844

  • G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982 - HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 853

  • G.R. No. L-59887 August 31, 1982 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 857

  • G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MINERVA C. GENOVEA

    201 Phil. 862

  • G.R. No. L-60800 August 31, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 873

  • G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982 - SAMUEL BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 879