Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-56995. August 30, 1982.]

DR. RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR., Judge, Branch VII; Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, DEMOCRATA GUANTERO and ZOSIMO GUANTERO, Respondents.

Romeo B. Esuerte for Petitioner.

Amado B. Pareño for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Felipe Rivera were terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition duly approved by the Court. One of his heirs, Rufino Damandaman, who inherited sugarlands, leased them to petitioner Raymundo Librodo. Thereafter, claiming that private respondents Guanteros feloniously harvested the sugar cane he had planted on the leased land, petitioner Librodo filed a criminal case for theft against the Guanteros, during the pendency of which he also filed a Damages Suit against them. Private respondents, who had earlier filed a Motion to Reopen the Intestate Proceedings, in their Answer to the Damages Suit, asserted that the aforesaid sugar lands were held in co-ownership among the heirs of Felipe Rivera and were still the subject of a pending Intestate Proceeding such that the Lease Contract could not have been validly executed between Damandaman and the petitioner without their conformity as co-owners. Private respondents then filed a Motion to Suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Action on the ground of pendency of the Damages Suit, the Intestate Proceeding and the Ejectment Case instituted by petitioner’s lessor against them, claiming that the issues involved therein constituted a prejudicial question determinative of their guilt in the Criminal Action. The Court, finding that a prejudicial question existed, suspended the criminal proceeding. Upon denial of his Motion to Set Aside the order of suspension, petitioner filed this present action.

The Supreme Court ruled that no prejudicial question exists in this case since the issues raised in the civil cases do not involve the pivotal question of who planted the sugar cane and, therefore, are not determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence in the Criminal Action.

Petition granted and respondent Judge ordered to proceed with the trial of the criminal action.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SUSPENSION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION; REQUIREMENTS THEREFOR. — "A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily he determined." (Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr., 2 SCRA 178 (1961); Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125 [1980]). It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. (Falgui v. Provincial Fiscal of Batangas, 62 SCRA 462 [1975])

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUES RAISED IN THE INTESTATE PROCEEDING WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO THE CRIMINAL ACTION FOR THEFT. — The Intestate Proceeding is a suit between co-heirs, and involves facts totally unrelated to the Criminal Action. The proceedings have, in fact, been terminated except that private respondent has petitioned for reopening. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the project of partition and uphold private respondents’ ownership of the lots herein, that would not be determinative of the criminal responsibility of private respondents for theft of the standing sugar crop, which petitioner claims he has planted in good faith by virtue of a valid contract of lease with mortgage.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENDING EJECTMENT CASE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO THE CRIMINAL ACTION FOR THEFT. — Neither does the Ejectment Case constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Action. It involves the issue of possession between co-heirs, namely, Rufino Damandaman, petitioners lessor, and the Guanteros. Petitioner is not a party to that case. A decision therein in favor of the Guanteros would not affect the rights of petitioner, which spring from his lease contract. In the eventuality that private respondents should prevail, they. are not without legal remedy against their co-heir Rufino Damandaman.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DAMAGES SUIT ACTUALLY THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO THE CRIMINAL ACTION. — In so far as the Damages Suit is concerned, while it included other lots leased by petitioner and prayed additionally for unrealized income, and moral and exemplary damages, the suit is actually the civil aspect arising from the criminal offense treated of in the Criminal Action. Based as the two cases are on the same facts, and the entitlement to damages being predicted on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Action, no necessity arises for that civil case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Action.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUES RAISED IN CIVIL CASES NOT DETERMINATIVE OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL ACTION. — The issues raised in the civil cases do not involve the pivotal question of who planted the sugar cane and, therefore, are not determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence in the Criminal Action. If as the private respondents Guanteros contend, they were the ones who did the planting, that is a matter of defense that may be interposed by them in the Criminal Action. It is not an issue that must be preemptively resolved in the civil cases before proceedings in the Criminal Action may be undertaken.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


Assailed herein are the Orders of respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch VII, suspending criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question and denying reconsideration of his said resolution.

The deceased, Felipe Rivera, died leaving certain properties in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. Among his heirs were Rufino Rivera Damandaman, Democrata Guantero and Zosimo Guantero. His estate was settled in Special Proceedings No. 265 of the Court of First Instance of said province and, on November 24, 1976, it was terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition which the Court had duly approved.

Of the decedent’s estate, Lots 559-B, 1906-B, 1910-B, and 1901-B of the San Carlos cadastre, Negros Occidental, all sugar lands, were, as far as can be gleaned from the records, apparently indicated in the plan submitted to the Court by Geodetic Engineer Ulgasan as the share of Rufino Rivera Damandaman.

On January 18, 1977, a Contract of Lease with Real Estate Mortgage was entered into between Rufino Rivera Damandaman, as lessor-mortgagor, and petitioner Raymundo R. Librodo, as lessee-mortgagee, over the aforestated parcels of sugar lands, for ten agricultural crop years.

On August 31, 1977, private respondent Democrata Guantero filed a Motion to Reopen the intestate proceedings on the ground that the subdivision plan submitted to the Court was made in her absence and that inasmuch as the boundaries therein had not been platted, the judgment of the Intestate Court had not become final.

A question of fact has arisen. Petitioner contends that by virtue of his lease contract, he cultivated and planted sugar cane on Lot 559-B with the intention of harvesting and having it milled in December, 1977. Private respondents Democrata Guantero and Zosimo Guantero (the Guanteros, for short), on the other hand, claim that they were the ones who undertook the planting during that period.

According to petitioner-lessee, on December 5, 1977, the Guanteros feloniously harvested the sugar cane from the lots involved. Apparently, nothing was done about it, but on August 10, 1978, at petitioner’s instance, Criminal Case No. 1103 for Theft (hereinafter referred to simply as the Criminal Action) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the Guanteros. The Information alleged that at or about 6:30 A.M. of December 5, 1977, the Guanteros had feloniously cut, harvested, gathered and carried away all sugar cane planted on Lot No. 559-B-I under lease and cultivation by petitioner thereby causing damage to the latter in the total sum of P15,120.00. 1

Almost a year later, or on August 6, 1979, during the pendency of said Criminal Action, petitioner-lessee instituted Civil Case No. 14701 for damages (Damages Suit) against private respondents before Branch IX of the same Court. Petitioner averred that during the period from December 5, 1977 to December 11, 1977, respondents cut, stole and carried away the sugar cane planted by him as lessee on Lots 559-B, 1906-B-I and 1910-B-1 and at the same time occupied the lots and prevented him from cultivating or taking possession, thereby depriving him of income for two years of no less than P78,280.00, in addition to causing him moral and exemplary damages. 2

In their Answer, respondents asserted that said lots are held in co-ownership among the heirs of the late Felipe Rivera and are the subject of Special Proceedings No. 265 still pending. Private respondent Democrata Guantero denied under oath the genuineness and due execution of the Lease Contract contending that Rufino Damandaman could not execute said contracts without her conformity as co-owner.

On December 13, 1979, the Guanteros filed a Motion to Suspend proceedings in the Criminal Action on the ground of pendency not only of 1) the Damages Suit but additionally of 2) Special Proceeding No. 265 involving the estate of Felipe Rivera (the Intestate Proceeding); and 3) Civil Case No. 1243 filed on January 13, 1977 for Ejectment (the Ejectment Case) instituted by Rufino Damandaman (petitioner’s lessor) against private respondent Democrata Guantero on January 13, 1977.

Private respondents took the position that the Intestate Proceeding, the Ejectment Case and the Damages Suit focused on the issues of possession and ownership of the lots involved as well as of the improvements thereon, hence, determinative of their guilt in the Criminal Action, and constitutive of a prejudicial question.

Petitioner opposed the suspension of proceedings in the Criminal Action contending that the question of ownership was not involved in the Damages Suit nor in the Criminal Action, and that the issue of possession is not a prejudicial question to the Criminal Action. Petitioner further averred that he was not a party in the Intestate Proceeding nor in the Ejectment Case so that the outcome of those cases would not affect his rights as a planter in good faith.

On February 28, 1980, respondent Court issued the challenged Order finding that a prejudicial question existed and suspending the criminal proceedings, premised on the following considerations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First, should defendants Democrata Guantero and Zosimo Guantero be successfully able to establish their claim of ownership of the standing crops referred to in the information for theft against them, then it would necessarily follow that they cannot possibly be charged with cutting and carrying away what rightfully belongs to them.

Second, the prosecution’s claim that the private offended party was a lessee of Lot No. 559-B-1, and therefore, a planter in good faith, must necessarily depend upon whatever right, or extent of that right, that lessor Rufino Damandaman had on Lot 559, which fact is being contested by Democrata Guantero in Civil Case No. 1243, as of the date of the execution of the contract of lease between Damandaman and the lessee because certainly the lessee could acquire only such right that the lessor had on the leased property. Pending the final adjudication of Special Proceeding No. 265 and Civil Case No. 1243, Rufino Damandaman would only have a theoretical and unsegregated right over the estate of the late Felipe Rivera. It is for this reason that the Court is of the opinion that although Dr. Librodo is not a party in Civil Case No. 1243, his right as lessee over the lots involved in said case will be affected by the outcome or result of said case.

Third, with respect to the prosecution’s claim that the two civil actions and the instant criminal action are based on the same ground and not on separate and distinct facts, it should be noted that the fact at issue in the criminal action is whether or not the accused Democrata Guantero and Zosimo Guantero did `feloniously cut, harvest, gather, then carry away all the sugar canes that were then planted on Lot No. 559-B-1 . . .’ while in both Civil Case 1243 and 14701 the fact at issue is whether or not defendant Democrata Guantero (Civil Case 1243) and defendants Democrata Guantero and Zosimo Guantero (Civil Case No. 14701) is/are the owner(s) of the standing canes on Lot 559 (Civil Case 1243) and the standing canes on Lots 559-B-1, 1901-B-1, 1906-B-1, and 1910-B-1 (Civil Case No. 14701). Clearly, the fact at issue in the criminal case is distinct and separate from the facts at issue in this civil cases, but the facts at issue in the civil cases are so intimately connected with the fact at issue in the criminal case that they determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, as already discussed earlier." 3

With the conformity of the prosecuting Fiscal, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied on August 28, 1980. 4

Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set Aside the Orders of February 28, 1980 and August 22, 1980 (should be August 28) alleging that if there should be a proceeding that ought to be suspended, it should be the Damages Suit because a criminal action takes precedence over a civil case, citing section 3(b) of Rule 111, Rules of Court. 5

On January 23, 1981, respondent Court denied said Motion to Set Aside Orders and held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . considering that the issue of whether a prejudicial question exists in this case or not had already been thoroughly discussed by this court in its orders sought to be reconsidered, and that Rule 111, section 3 of the New Rules of Court allows exception, which is the existence of a prejudicial question; and that furthermore, section 5 of said Rule specifically provides for the suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil case, this Court is constrained to deny as it hereby denies the motion for reconsideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner thus resorted to the instant Certiorari Petition, to which we gave due course.

On September 16, 1981, we required the Solicitor General to file a Comment on behalf of the People of the Philippines in whose name the Petition should have been filed involving as it does an incident in a criminal case, thereby considering the People as impleaded. The Solicitor General submits that no prejudicial question is involved.

The sole question for resolution is whether or not the issues in the three civil cases, namely, the Intestate Proceedings, the Ejectment Case and the Damages Suit, raise a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the Criminal Action.

"A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined." 6 "It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. 7

Based on the foregoing criteria, we hold that none of the issues raised in the three civil cases invoked by private respondents would constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Action.

The Intestate Proceeding is a suit between co-heirs and involves facts totally unrelated to the Criminal Action. The proceedings have, in fact, been terminated except that private respondent Democrata has petitioned for reopening. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the project of partition and uphold private respondents’ ownership of the lots herein, that would not be determinative of the criminal responsibility of private respondents for theft of the standing sugar crop, which petitioner claims he has planted in good faith by virtue of a valid contract of lease with mortgage.

Neither does the Ejectment Case constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Action. It involves the issue of possession between co-heirs, namely, Rufino Damandaman, petitioner’s lessor, and the Guanteros, Petitioner is not a party to that case. A decision therein in favor of the Guanteros would not affect the rights of petitioner, which spring from his lease contract. In the eventuality that private respondents should prevail, they are not without legal remedy against their co-heir Rufino Damandaman.

In so far as the Damages Suit is concerned, while it included other lots leased by petitioner and prayed additionally for unrealized income, and moral and exemplary damages, the suit is actually the civil aspect arising from the criminal offense treated of in the Criminal Action. Based as the two cases are on the same facts, and the entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Action, no necessity arises for that civil case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Action. 8

Stated differently, the issues raised in the civil cases do not involve the pivotal question of who planted the sugar cane and, therefore, are not determinative juris et de jure of guilt or innocence in the Criminal Action. If as the Guanteros contend, they were the ones who did the planting, that is a matter of defense that may be interposed by them in the Criminal Action. 9 It is not an issue that must be preemptively resolved in the civil cases before proceedings in the Criminal Action may be undertaken.

WHEREFORE, in the absence of any prejudicial question, respondent Judge’s Orders dated February 28, 1980, August 28, 1980 and January 23, 1981 suspending the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1103 are hereby SET ASIDE and he is hereby directed to proceed without undue delay with the trial of said criminal action.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. p. 16, Rollo.

2. pp. 18-20, ibid.

3. pp. 30-31. ibid.

4. p. 39, ibid.

5. pp. 40-45, ibid.

6. Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr., 2 SCRA 178 (1961); Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125 (1980).

7. Falgui v. Provincial Fiscal of Batangas, 62 SCRA 462 (1975).

8. Benitez v. Concepcion, supra.

9. Jimenez v. Hon. Averia, 22 SCRA 1380 (1968).




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